I have not seen the protocol yet. When it's posted, will somebody please post the link here? In the meantime, here's all I know based on what Anita told me back in September:

"The Applicant may not pass on a trial or any of the test segments. A pass will be considered a “miss”."

"Once per trial before the Applicant makes her final selection, she may dismiss any number of Subjects that she feels are not the Target."

"Yay! They are suggesting the original test protocol with three trials with one in ten persons who is missing a kidney rather than the ten people and not being told how many are missing a kidney! That makes it much better!"

Of course, things probably changed. I believe she indicated that it's now 12 subjects instead of 10. I do have a concern with doing it this way. In a purely random situation, guessing a 1 in 10 chance three times is equivalent to guessing 1 in 1,000 once. This is not a purely random situation because she gets to see the people, and people are not ping-pong balls bouncing around in a drum. Demographics and non-verbal cues play an unknown part in this.

If I had to set up this protocol myself, I would advertise for people who are missing an internal organ, color blind, deaf in one ear, diabetic, or any of several other ailments that are not easily detectable visually. I would mislead them into believing that the psychic will attempt to figure out what ailment they have. I would advertise for a second group of people willing to look at a Zener card and allow the psychic to try to determine through telepathy which card they saw.

I would then divide my group of people with ailments into three groups, each with a person missing a kidney. I'd fill the rest of each group with Zener card people, hopefully with demographics that are similar. At the trial I keep the two types of people separate and only bring them together for the reading. This way everybody thinks they are special and nobody really knows the true goal of the psychic.

Granted, that's hard to do, but I think it's worth the effort. No way would I have just one person missing an organ in each group with everyone else knowing what was at stake. Some people are excellent at detecting nonverbal cues, and that's not what's being tested.

I would never agree to allowing her to dismiss a group of subjects. That can only lead to trouble, especially if the subjects have an accurate idea of what Anita is attempting. When she dismisses the first group, she will dismiss those whom she believes are not the target because they haven't shown any clues. This automatically increases the pressure on the target if he or she is part of the remaining group. Ever watch those reality shows like Project Runway or America's Next Top Model? Tension rises as each person is told they are safe.

Suppose she dismisses half of them. She's got a 50-50 chance of keeping the target if everything is perfectly random. The reality is that unless you do something like my convoluted subject selection process, it's not going to be random. At least a few people are obviously not the target and the chances of the target, knowing he's the target, giving a clue are pretty good..

In other words I wouldn't bet against Anita (or myself) being able to look at a group of 10 people and selecting a group of five that includes the person who knows he's the target. I don't think it's hard to say, "It's one of those five." Think about what happens if she keeps the target in a group of five. While it might be "easy" to stay relaxed when there are nine other people, it's not so easy when there are just four. This puts a lot more pressure on the target to not give himself away. If they allow this, they are foolish.

Since they offered it, I'm guessing it's still part of the protocol. I'm hoping the manner in which she does it is handled properly. The way to do it is to not tell the subjects what is happening. Have Anita leave the room and give the proctor the IDs of the people she wants to keep. The proctor then splits up the group by giving them some vague explanation that they are going to split the group in two, then swap the second group back in later. Only then will Anita allowed back in the room.

Those are my thoughts, so there!

Here it is:http://iigwest.org/anitaikonenprotocol.html

Interestingly, they are using six subjects in each trial. Anita has to specify which kidney is missing. That's where I got the idea it was 1 in 12. I'll read more later and comment. I just don't like the idea of giving her 27 minutes to look for a clue that somebody is the target. If she gets that far, it's just a 50-50 chance of guessing the correct side.

Meh.

I'll comment more later.

Each Subject may wear a hood or wide-brimmed hat designed to prevent any possible eye contact between the Subject and the Applicant and to prevent the Applicant from seeing the faces of the Subjects.

Each Subject will wear a unique identification number. This number will appear on the heel or ankle or upper back of the Subject and also on the Subject’s chest for viewing at the completion of the trial.

Posted By McLuvin on 21 Nov 2009 09:22 AM
I've been googling this a bit seems that they prefer to take the left kidney if its for a transplant ...

Of course I had to go a-googling to find out why  Found on an NHS patient info leaflet that normally they leave the recipient's own kidneys in place during a transplant, so there are people around with three kidneys ... gotta love the University of Google!

As to VisionFromFantasy getting a guess correct ... maybe I can too -

First group - no.6, missing left kidney.

Second group - no.3, missing right kidney.

Third group - no.1, missing left kidney.

Of course, I reserve the right to change my guesses in the event that one of the subjects looks suspiciously mono-kidneyfied during the testonstration.

 

Right, I've caught up. Having the same conversation in three places is interesting.  
My picks are:

 

4 left

5 right

1 left

Posted By pakeha on 21 Nov 2009 11:38 AM
Is my memory playing tricks with me yet again or did VFF once offer to act as Ambassatrix/Ambassadress/whatever to the Bigfoot population?

Found:

forums.randi.org/showpost.php

"I am confident that if I were in American Bigfoot territory I could connect with it and if I win its trust I might be able to meet them. I have a good way of communicating with beings when we connect mind to mind. I always know what to say, how they respond and how to win their trust. I am quite confident that if I ever undertook such a mission, I could venture out into the woods of America with a camera and be able to encounter the Bigfoot. Unless I detect that they are dangerous that is, then I'd stay far away. Good thing is I know exactly what a creature perceives and does. I love looking at the thoughts and perception of various animals, especially frogs and vultures whose thoughts are especially beautiful."

I remember when I first read this post of VFF's, a dreadful image of an old softporn movie came to mind- in Spanish it was titled "La Bestia" and involved a physically pleasing blonde girl fleeing from a Bigfoot type, strategically losing garments along the way.

Found:

www.filmaffinity.com/es/reviews/1/462489.html

Apparently the filme is a classic, dated 1975.

To me the most annoying problem in this protocol is that she's probably going to get one right. There's a 42% chance that she is going to pick the right person in at least one of the three trials through pure random chance. Once she has the right person, she's got a 50-50 chance a of getting the correct side. Thus overall there's a 1 in 5 chance she's going to get one correct. If the left kidney is removed more often, then those odds increase with a guess on the left.

If she does get one right, we'll never hear the end of it.

Of course, what they are really testing here is the ability for Anita to spend 27 minutes watching for visual cues where the target might reveal himself out of a group of six people.