About VFF
  Readings 2

More Readings on Skeptics!

Subjects are Skeptics
The persons being read are members of a skeptical group. Skeptics are intelligent people who can think for themselves. A skeptic is less likely to be fooled into a belief system, and are also more reliable to be honest than most other people. As a rule, I only do readings on skeptics. A skeptic is less likely to be harmed by a psychic medical reading attempt, because they are less likely to go home and worry about what was said in a reading or to change their habits or beliefs based on a reading. A skeptic is also more reliable if they report cases of accuracy in a reading, than is a non-skeptic. For those two reasons, skeptics are the only people I do readings on. And I only do readings in order to learn more about the medical dowsing experience.

No details from a reading will be shared publicly unless with the explicit consent from the subject. Also, no "general information" will be given from the readings overall if there is a risk that even without naming names that the information could somehow be linked to a person.

The subject sits with their back facing me. There is not a backrest of a chair that would conceal their back. I sit a few feet behind the person. No touching or speaking during a reading. I write down my impressions freely in a notebook. I may not say anything nor ask questions. I receive no prior information about the subject such as age. In the first three readings, I did however ask for the subject's first name prior to beginning the reading so that I could write that on the page. For future readings I realize it is better protocol to ask for the name after the reading.

When I write my impressions about the person, it is important to not use personal abbreviations in the text which only I might understand, and to be as explicit and detailed in the descriptions as possible, and to write full sentences, etc. So that when another person reads my notes it should be clear to them what I meant. Under no circumstances should the psychic have to be asked afterwards to elaborate on what they meant with what they wrote, because that gives a psychic the opportunity to adjust and adapt the reading toward greater accuracy, which is cheating, or normal - not paranormal - sources of accuracy.

I had asked for 30 minutes from each person for a reading. The readings took on average 15 minutes. After a reading, I grab another piece of paper and write at the top the subject's first name. I then transfer specific health statements from my notes onto the sheet. I also add random things that I did not see in the person, in random order among my statements. This way when the subject will read the list of statements, they will have been told that some of those statements might have been made by me, and that others might not have been, so that they are not given leading questions.

When a person has a psychic reading, the psychic will often throw out a bunch of statements about the person and want the person to answer whether those were correct or not. For a number of reasons, it is too easy for any person who is being read, to be overly positive. It is easier to think and find *something* confirming the statement, than to find absolutely nothing at all. You could say almost anything to any person and there is a high likelihood that the person can agree with the statement, with any statement, because in some form or another it might be construed in their mind and memory to be true, somehow. That is why it is important to not ask leading questions.

I considered the idea to put statements on the list that were not mine... but to not tell the subjects that some of them were not mine. This would have been a much better protocol, but will be saved for more advanced investigations.

So, the text which is my impressions and descriptions of the person's physical, emotional, mental, and lifestyle, is on the first sheet which also has the subject's first name, as well as the start and end time of the reading. After the text, I have re-written specific statements from the text, in as few words as possible, concise yet specific. The point is that these statements should be complete so that I am not allowed to go back to the text to want to add something more to it or to explain the statement in a different way. One should never allow a psychic to go back and "explain" or "elaborate", because that is when they adjust the reading in their favor, whether they know that they are doing that or not.

I wrote "Key" at the end of the first page and rewritten statements. I also wrote down the other statements that I make up for the 2nd sheet, and for each statement which the subject will be reading on the 2nd sheet, I have on the 1st sheet written something like "yes" and "no", to clearly indicate which were mine and which were not. My actual reading, the 1st sheet, I then fold and place into a small envelope and seal the envelope and write the subject's first name on the envelope. So the 2nd sheet has statements based on my reading, but in random order together with things that I did not see. I fold the 2nd sheet.

So, the subject will receive the 2nd sheet while in my absence. It is very important that when the "client" (person being read by a psychic) has the time to think about which statements made about them may be accurate or not, that the psychic is not present at the time. The subject needs privacy so that they are able to admit to potentially embarrassing information, or to decline to information which they might have wanted to say yes to. The subject also should not be under the watch or stress of the psychic. And, there are ways in which a psychic can alter and influence the answers that a subject makes, and we do not want any of that to take place. So the subject sits and reads the statements on their own and writes "yes" or "no", or some comments about how that statement applies to them or how it doesn't.

The subject then submits the processed 2nd sheet to another skeptic. This other skeptic and myself will together, now in the absence of the subject open the envelope and check for accuracy. The skeptic, not I, opens the envelope and does the markings. I am not allowed to touch the papers, but it is important that I am present. I would not accuse skeptics of cheating, but because it is at this stage they *could* cheat, it is good protocol to allow the claimant to be present to witness that no cheating takes place.

Statements which the subject agreed to, which according to the 1st sheet were statements made by me, are cases of accuracies in the reading. Statements which the subject disagreed with, which were statements made by me, are cases of inaccuracy in the reading. Statements which the subject agrees with which were not made by me, I disregard. And statements which the subject disagrees with, which were not made by me, I disregard.

The readings provide more of a qualitative broad overview of the quality or accuracy of the readings, and will also teach various details about the claim and about the readings which will be interesting. Any cases of accuracy, under these testing conditions, cannot provide evidence in favor of the claim. Accuracy can only at best provide indication of the need for further testing, but the conditions are not rigorous enough to qualify accuracy to be evidence in favor of the claim. Inaccuracy, however, will be perfectly valid in any case, whether testing conditions are rigid or poor, because, if a psychic cannot perform under poorer scientific standard (which this is), then it would not be possible to succeed under more rigorous testing conditions either.

About the first three readings
On Friday October 28 2011 I did individual readings on three skeptics. The 1st and 2nd sheets were prepared by me for each person. All three subjects were very eager to read their notes, it is of course always exciting to see what other people "think" of you, but the group organizer decided to confiscate all paperwork until next week, Friday November 4, which is when the subjects review their 2nd sheets and hand those in. I will get to do more readings on November 4. I was told there are a total of 12 skeptics who have volunteered for readings.

*If* the readings on these skeptics go well and the results are interestingly accurate, then I might ask them to bring family and friends who might also like to volunteer for a reading - but that is when I really have to step up even more on ethics, safety, privacy, etc. Ideally, any non-skeptics would never find out what I saw about them in a reading. I don't ever want to cause any distress or harm from a reading, and that can happen whether a medical reading is accurate or inaccurate. I also have no business dispensing medical information to people, as I am not a doctor.

I have decided that the skeptics, after the accuracy etc has been determined, will be given the 1st sheet with my original reading which they will get to keep for themselves.

I arrived at the skeptics meeting and regrettably I sat at the meeting for half an hour before it was time for one of them to go with me someplace else for a reading. So I caught glimpses of the members and heard some of them speak, which are possible sources of clues. Meanwhile I was staring at the floor and even told them that I would try to not look at anybody. I did however see the persons I read and we walked together to a different location, so I also saw them walk. We also exchanged a few words before the reading. That is why any accuracy which could have been derived from sources such as these, will be of less importance than they might have been otherwise. For future protocol I do not get to see the person before the reading, and absolutely no speaking! Which will require more elaborate, less casual, testing procedures.

One story from the readings. The first girl I read, I had a very strong perception of her having the brownest darkest eyes I had ever seen. She was a Caucasian girl though and her hair was a red brown, possibly colored. I really wanted to write down that I see that she has very brown eyes. Each time I read her head area I saw the same, but then my logic wanted to help out. Logically I was thinking that based on the color of her skin and hair she could not possibly have that eye color. It often happens that my perceptions and my logic start to debate and always disagree. Logic, however, always gets to win because it convinces me that I must be wrong. Logic never adds anything to my readings, but is skilled at persuading me to drop impressions from the list. (Logic is why I didn't mention that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney, my most famous blunder, where I had seen something and then logically couldn't believe it and talked myself out of it.) So I talked myself out of the brown eyes, meanwhile my perceptions were convinced.

Interestingly, I might not have seen her eyes previously because had I seen her eyes and known them to be brown, then there would have been nothing logic could have said to talk me out of knowing the eye color. After the reading the girl turned around, and she had the brownest eyes I had ever seen. I told her "Damn! I knew your eyes were brown! I almost wrote that down!" She said that yes her eyes are really very brown and she gets comments on them all the time, even to the point where people tell her her eyes look like poop. I've got to stop listening to logic. (Note that the testing conditions were not set up to allow me to make statements about eye color anyway, since we walked together even though I tried to look away during that time. But if I could see a person's eye color then that would possibly be a future test procedure all on its own?)