Case 2: omitting the first trial The Seed Test was conducted with and planned by a real scientist. A scientist agrees that individual trials can be discarded if they do not produce the experience of the phenomenon that is under study. We are analysing for the accuracy, not frequency, of perceptions. I am asked to be accurate, but whether I have a perception in everyone or always is beside the point - who cares.
In the IIG test I knew that I had not made a confident perception in trial 1. It should therefore be omitted. I complained about trial 1 during the entire 10 minute break after that trial and my complaints were by no means ad hoc (ie. after the fact). Meanwhile I was utterly confident in my choice of person in trials 2 and 3. If we do a six-sided die, the results are the following;
Set 1
Total number of trials: 95
2 correct: 3 -- 3.2%
1 correct: 31 -- 32.6%
0 correct: 61 -- 64.2%
Set 2
Total number of trials: 81
2 correct: 4 -- 4.9%
1 correct: 22 -- 27.2%
0 correct: 55 -- 67.9%
Set 3
Total number of trials: 145
2 correct: 5 -- 3.4%
1 correct: 45 -- 31.0%
0 correct: 95 -- 65.5%
Set 4
Total number of trials: 99
2 correct: 2 -- 2.0%
1 correct: 25 -- 25.3%
0 correct: 72 -- 72.7%
Combined
Total number of trials: 420
2 correct: 14 -- 3.3%
1 correct: 123 -- 29.3%
0 correct: 283 -- 67.4%
Statistics says that only about 3 out of 100 people would get two persons out of two trials correct by guessing. Statistics says that I am 96.7% likely to get one or none correct. My results, although 3% likely to occur, are not doing exactly what statistics would want them to do.
For those overly skeptical persons (who are not scientists) who think that giving the claimant the right to omit certain trials, would somehow skew the results in their favor, you are simply mistaken. In the seed test, I omitted a whopping 50% of the trials. But I still achieved a total score on the graded trials which aligned perfectly with statistical prediction. And since my choice to omit trial 1 in the IIG test was not an ad hoc decision, it is a valid decision to make. It is not cheating. Skeptics might think that it's cheating, because in this case it does make my overall score better. But that's because I think there might be something to my claim. Omitting trials does not give better score, unless there is an ability behind which trials were omitted and which ones were kept.
I should have gotten no correct persons. But I got two. Statistics doesn't predict that. Ok there is a small chance, about 3 in 100. That is why repeat trials are needed. If my score was due to random error then additional trials will reveal it as such, or reveal that I have an ability which is as good as this.
Other tests On the TAM test, I saw a kidney in all but two out of ten kidney spaces, and one of those two was missing a kidney. In a reading with Dr. Carlson I saw that he was missing a left kidney. In another reading with a lady skeptic I saw that she was missing her uterus. In Michael Shermer I saw and accurately described that he has the Hepatitis C virus and described other aspects of him that he says were perfectly accurate and only a close friend would have known. Plus case after case, without confirmation bias, without ad hoc. It all adds up to something which statistics is saying should not be happening.
