Comment:
As much as I would have valued having another test take place, I must say I am not too heartbroken that this particular one did not. This test would have involved a gender identification test as a means of testing the claim that I would be capable of detecting whether a person has a uterus or not. Instead of involving all women, some of whom have a uterus and others that do not, the idea was to simply have men and women under screened off conditions to see whether I could tell the difference beyond statistical probability as predicted for guessing.
This would have meant it being easier to find the test persons for the test. Another idea would have been to reuse the same few persons repeatedly in the series of trials. Note however that what was considered here was by no means sufficient as a formal test, ie. a test whose result could have really revealed anything supportive about the claim. This was more of an initial evaluation of the claim.
I also want to say that VoF does not offer a cash prize to a successful paranormal claimant, and that it does not promote or publicize its paranormal tests in the same way that does the Independent Investigations Group IIG or the James Randi Educational Foundation JREF, and so I would ask my critics to please finally drop all incorrect accusations that I would be after money, fame, or attention as the objectives of my investigation. To the contrary, I valued the work ethics of VoF just for its lack of treating a paranormal inquiry as a show, VoF thus comes across to me as more scientific and serious in their research, than do certain others, not due to differences in the actual work done involving a test, but for the marketing and dealing with such tests and claimants.
This test could never under any circumstances have provided evidence in favor of the claim of extrasensory perception, since proper screening was not enforced in this particular test. The main concern was in that people produce pheromones, scent chemicals that are designed by the body for the purpose of conveying information such as the gender of the person, by olfactory means (scent). Whether we are always aware of the pheromones or not, they are registered by the brain and their information extracted and made available. No controls to screen off this possible normal source of clues to the gender of the person were in place, and frankly I can not even imagine what such controls would have been to sufficiently do so.
Other possible normally accessible clues would have also been an issue, and so this test would have been considered rather moot anyway, had I produced any kind of accuracy in results. A strongly inaccurate overall result, would have, however, been of great value and interest, as this sort of result would have been a valid form of evidence against the claim.
Without this gender identification test having even happened, I will not entertain the idea of another such similar test taking place, as I am very unhappy with the possible olfactory, and other visible or auditory clues that could reveal information leading to the right answers or that would help in grouping the answers which would greatly reduce the difficulty level of this test. (The grouping of answers refers to, well, imagine if you have a test implementing one man one woman and they appear repeatedly one at a time in a repeated series of trials, in an order determined by random generation. If there are any clues that would help the claimant to group which person is which, and to group their answers, then regardless of how many trials even if hundreds, the claimant would have a 50% chance of getting the whole test right. Something with some subtle sounds such as the breathing of the person, the way that they lean, etc.)
But anyway these test arrangements were an interesting thought experiment, and in the process I did learn a lot. Jesper who I worked with is a brilliant man and truly worthy of the name skeptic. VoF is to be regarded as a highly credible and capable skeptical organization, and is even entrusted by the JREF to conduct preliminary testing on their behalf.
*My previous work in my investigation, or any of my comments reflected here, do not represent the organization Vetenskap och Folkbildning, Jesper Jerkert personally nor professionally, nor anything else affiliated with them. Most of my work and thoughts I do independently and as the claimant, and none of the content here is a public statement made, nor endorsed, by VoF or Jesper.
Previous content:
A third test is on its way
Arrangements are now being made with a third group for yet another test. We are discussing the possibility of testing my ability to detect the presence or absence of a uterus, not on a group in which some females have had their uterus removed, but in a group of males and females, thus making it a gender identification test! Why didn't I think of that? I only need to find out whether the anomaly, ie. removal of an organ, is what I detect, and whether I could still distinguish persons male and female who have had nothing removed. Yet, thanks to Hal Bidlack who was person # 2 in the recent TAM demonstration, he was born without a kidney and it was not removed, therefore it is almost safe for me to assume that surgical removal of an organ should not be required. Thanks Hal!
Testing on the detection of gender could open up the possibility of setting up large-scale tests very easily, as there would barely be the difficulty in finding suitable persons for the test as before with the difficulty of finding persons who are missing either a kidney or a uterus. A large-scale test, large enough in scope to produce several data sets, becomes possible.
The use of expensive ultrasound technology for verification purposes also becomes unnecessary. And best of all, this test will take place out of the public's eye. Both the IIG test and the TAM demonstration had to take place in the public's eye, before cameras and a skeptical audience both on site and online. I have been very uncomfortable with all the negativity from the skeptical audience, and all of the accusations of only being after attention. This time, a test can take place in private, between this credible organization and myself, and since no attention is brought to me, I would hope to this time not be the recipient of accusations of desiring attention, when it is a skeptical investigation I am conducting that I consider impersonal of me.
I also want to add that this organization, whose identity I will not reveal at this point as it does nothing to further our work and would put us at risk of unwanted interference, they are a highly credible organization. They are also brilliant, as the proposition to test my ability of detection of uterus as present or missing on persons of different gender, is simply a genious idea.
Certainly, the proper concealment of gender-identifying characteristics or signs becomes a vital issue. And, for my purposes, were I to successfully pass such a test, I would not hold it as evidence for the claim as that would only embark on the necessary ensuing discussion around possible clues. Failing such a test, significantly, could however falsify the claim. I also need to embark on a new study of my claim while we are in test arrangements, so that I can learn more about what small area of the clothed back I will need to see in order to detect the internal gender-identifying organs (I will probably mainly use the detection of uterine tissue for female, and the presence of prostate for male, as both are fairly easy for me to detect and are very distinct).
Please recall, that as evidenced from my reactions to both the results of the IIG test, and the TAM demonstration, I personally do not require a 100% accuracy in order to proceed in the investigation of my claim. The results of the IIG and TAM tests were both high enough to maintain my interest in this claim. While a 100% accuracy may be what we want to label this a truly paranormal claim, that is not my concern. I am investigating this experience and wish to define its capabilities, which I now can almost safely assume to lie somewhere in the region between full falsification, and full verification - in the region where things are interesting, but not impressive or extreme.
And not to worry, I have forwarded them to the evidence that is contrary to my claim, ie. the outcome of the IIG test and TAM demonstration, as well as independent sources such as the IIG report as well as official TAM demonstration material once such becomes available. I am providing them with a balanced view of my claim as it stands so far, and they are also capable of doing their own research. If anyone has any questions relating to this third test, or would wish to participate with their concerns or suggestions, you can always contact me at brightstar@visionfromfeeling.com, or by participating in the VFF Forum. I know that a lot of people have comments and things they want to say. Many critics might also want to get in touch with this organization in order to make sure they know this or that, and thus I will provide them with a link to my VFF Forum, in which all comments directed to them are likely to be read by them.
Design
I need to experience my claim on gender identification to better know what I can claim to be able to do. Some of that work will be outlined here Gender identification study. Note that this "study" pertaining to this third test will not introduce any delays to this test, and can only provide additional insight which is benefitial to this test. This study is not necessary, but does help.
The skeptics I am now working with are interested in the prospect of a test in August 2010. We will be proceeding with our arrangements and test design over phone shortly. I think our biggest obstacle will be the screen, how to build it, and building it, but other than that things should not be too complicated. I am fortunate to be building this test based on my experience from earlier tests. The first test, the IIG test, took a lot of work and over a year of thinking to put together. The second test, TAM test, took only about a week to put together. And this third test, again, will be swiftly put together, with the exception of involving a different type of test - gender identification, not missing kidneys - which again introduces some new challenges for test design.
New suggestion - precision and accuracy
I do have a new suggestion which I intend to suggest to this skeptical organization. This has never been part of a test before. One of the complications is that my claim never works with everybody or on every bit of health information that is considered or known to be there. My claim simply is, that when it works it works. My claim was always defined that way.
In effect, if I have five people on stage and I am asked to say which of the ten kidney spaces is missing a kidney and I find a kidney in eight of those ten spaces, that leaves me with two. If I did not see a missing kidney in two of the ten spaces, for me to have to make a guess on which of the two it is, is not quite practice of my claim. I want a test to evaluate the performance of the claim, not to turn out into some forced guessing competition.
So, if I am only able to narrow it down to two out of ten in a five-person test, does that mean the claim is proven worthless and given the score of a big zero? No of course not. If I make one choice out of ten and it is correct, I will have achieved a 1 in 10 odds in that test. If instead I make two answers out of ten because that is how the claim happens to do, and the correct answer is one of those two, I have achieved a 1 in 5 odds.
Surely it is easier to guess to the answer if you make more than one choice. But that becomes dealt with by the corresponding reduction in the odds - the numbers will be less impressive if you made more choices. The claim can still be evaluated based on its accuracy - the target either is or is not within my one or a few choices - and if the target was among my choice or choices, depending on how narrow my choice was this precision will be reflected in the numbers.
Precision and accuracy will both be reflected in a test score.
This method is often used on college exams, too. An exam might have some extra credit problems that are optional, and a student can choose to do an extra credit assignment instead of a regular assignment. This is done because not all exam material is always covered on an exam, and two different students may know the same amount of test material, but with emphasis on different areas.
I do not claim to be able to know everything or about every person. What I claim is that when I see something, it would be accurate. This method would give a more accurate evaluation of my claim. In effect, it allows me to pass on a person when I am unsure about their organ status. Every person is differently difficult for me to read, in some I form the perceptions quickly and easily, in others it takes time or is not possible. Fortunately I state this confidence during a test, and not done after the fact once the results are known, making this valid for consideration.
More will be announced here as our work progresses.
