Did Anita Ikonen really fail?
Anita makes notes as she studies six subjects.
I am impressed with Anita Ikonen, even though she failed the very strict conditions imposed for the testing of her alleged paranormal ability to “see” inside people’s bodies.
As I wrote on 21 November – the day she was to be tested in Hollywood by the Independent Investigations Group (IIG) – the experiment involved presenting her with three groups of six people, one of whom in each group had only one kidney.
Since Anita believes she is able to “see” various internal conditions, not physically but through feeling, she agreed that she would attempt not only to identify the individual in each group who had a missing kidney but also specify which kidney had gone, the left or the right one.
She failed to meet the criteria for that test, leaving most if not all sceptics saying, “Told you so”.
But I suggest we cannot so readily dismiss her perceptions, even though her main critics insist that she has also failed previous tests.
Although the test did not produce the results Anita Ikonen hoped for, I believe the results could suggest that something unusual is happening. If so, further tests would be necessary.
Why do I say this? Because Anita successfully identified two of the three individuals who had missing kidneys, out of 18 subjects. With one of these subjects, however, she indicated the wrong kidney as being missing.
Anita agreed the conditions for the test, in advance, and readily acknowledges that she fail to meet the criteria. Some sceptics are suggesting that what she did can simply be attributed to chance and that she may have received some clues from the subjects she was examining – which, having seen the playback of the video (which is like watching paint dry as she stares at the subjects’ backs for 27 minutes per group) seems highly unlikely.
I’m not a mathematician, so I’ll leave it to an expert to tell me what the odds are of Anita achieving what she did, but they must surely be higher than chance.
For her part, Anita has indicated that she is ready to be tested again, having learned some valuable lessons from this test which will improve the design of the next one.
Having said all that, clearly there is limited scope for a “feeling perception” that picks up people’s health conditions – if Anita really possesses such an ability – but cannot guarantee its accuracy.
She says she told the testers that she was particularly confident about one particular subject, and that was the one she got right.
“The investigation I am doing is not to try to find out that I would be psychic, nor is it to win a paranormal challenge or to win a money prize,” she explains on her website. “I am just curious about how this works and how well it works or doesn’t work. And I feel that there is still more work to be done. I gained some answers from the IIG Preliminary, but I also gained more questions than I had before.”
And she adds: “I actually want to arrange to have another test with someone else and with new subjects, also with an improved … version of the protocol.” She will be doing it, she explains, simply because she wants to “find out more” and in the spirit of sceptical curiosity.
Much as the sceptics would like to write off Anita Ikonen and her alleged powers, I suspect we’ll be hearing a lot more about her in the future.
You may also find these related articles of interest:
The odds were only just slighty above chance, 1 in 12 for each trial — about the same as calling a coin flip correctly twice in a row. Now, Anita also was aware that it is more likely that all things being equal, it more likely that the left kidney which would be removed and stacked her deck by choosing left in each trial. Plus, she chose someone in that round with a leg brac, visible scars etc.
And it is worth pointing out that even though she said she “felt very good” about the second trial, she still chose *two* subjects and then guessed between them. Hardly the behaviour of someone instantly and effortlessly seeing inside another’s body.
Let’s put this in context of her claim: If I claim that I can detect which finger a person has missing, just by looking, I have a one in ten chance of guessing correctly. But chance doesn’t matter if I can actually *see* their hands, as I claim.
Bottom line: Yes, Anita failed. She cannot detect missing kidneys, or any other internal organ. Nor can she “see” gasses in metal tanks, get high by looking at a picture of marijuana, converse with the ghost of Ben Franklin, cure migraines, manipulate images of things she’s “seen” in 3-D at the molecular level or actually do any of the many many things she has claimed.
She is not a reincarnated white dwarf star from new acturus — she is only extraordinary in insistence that she is “really, really” special.
As much as I hate to have to defend myself again, but with regard to Roger’s comments;
“Plus, she chose someone in that round with a leg brac, visible scars etc.”
As far as I was aware, I was choosing the subjects based on my impressions of their kidneys. I do not recall noticing a leg brace or any visible scars in subject 24 in trial 2, however I did notice that he has tattoos, although I did not think that would have any relation to missing a kidney. There will be another test and this time only the back-areas will be visible. No head, neck, shoulders, arms, or legs, and that way we won’t have to quarrel about any visible signs that offer no clue as to the number of kidneys in a person anyway.
“And it is worth pointing out that even though she said she ‘felt very good’ about the second trial, she still chose *two* subjects and then guessed between them. Hardly the behaviour of someone instantly and effortlessly seeing inside another’s body.”
I did not choose two subjects in trial 2. I chose one. There were two kidneys in trial 2 that I did not detect, one in subject 22 and one in subject 24. The reason I chose, not guessed, 24, was because I had put more question marks at that person. This will be evident when you see the draft papers that were handed in at the test. You may certainly speculate, but do not make false assumptions about how I made my choices and state them as fact. But you are right, my conclusions were not instant or effortless. It took a great deal of work to get as far as I did.
“Let’s put this in context of her claim: If I claim that I can detect which finger a person has missing, just by looking, I have a one in ten chance of guessing correctly. But chance doesn’t matter if I can actually *see* their hands, as I claim.”
I identified two new testing conditions and how those affect my performance and those will be addressed in the next test. What I claim to do requires effort from me. It took much greater effort to see through larger persons, and it took so much effort that I was exhausted by trial 3. It does not work like normal vision does, which is automatic and quite effortless.
“Yes, Anita failed. She cannot detect missing kidneys, or any other internal organ.”
Yes I failed the IIG Preliminary. But that does not mean I cannot detect missing kidneys. I identified two issues with the test protocol that I could not have foreseen. I will allow for another test, but trust me if I can’t detect missing kidneys I will be happy to falsify that claim, but I’m not there yet.
“She is not a reincarnated white dwarf star from new acturus”
I have never claimed to be a reincarnated white dwarf star from new arcturus.
“She is only extraordinary in insistence that she is ‘really, really’ special.”
I have never insisted that I am special. I was merely investigating an interesting experience that I’ve had and wanted to share that with others. And if you somehow translate that into seeming special, then that is your impression not mine.
Anita
Roy, you are incorrect when you say that Anita Ikonen managed a hit rate of two out of three. According to the IIG website, she identified only one person out of three. See:
http://iigwest.org/anitaikonen.html
Until IIG releases a more comprehensive report, more details can be found here:
http://skepticblog.org/2009/12/05/girls-who-stare-at-kidneys/#more-5361
You will find that the mathematical calculations are not too difficult, and her performance was not at all impressive. You say: “Although the test did not produce the results Anita Ikonen hoped for, I believe the results could suggest that something unusual is happening. If so, further tests would be necessary.”
I say: If a surgeon amputates the wrong leg, the result might not be what he (and the patient) hoped for, and it also might well be unusual, but the surgeon should be prosecuted, and certainly removed from the medical register for gross incompetence. I don’t think there would be anyone calling for him to have another try to see if he can get it right the next time.
You are probably right that we will be hearing more about Anita Ikonen in the future, but I predict, without any psychic powers whatsoever, that it will not be in the context of her directing any medical procedures whatsoever.
Roger:
You stated: “She is not a reincarnated white dwarf star from new acturus”.
She has stated that she is the incarnation of a white dwarf star near Arcturus. Not that it is any less silly. I just wanted to ensure her lunacy is at least reported accurately.
I have never said that I am the incarnation of a white dwarf star near Arcturus. Find where I supposedly said that.
If she’s sincere about her claims and about testing herself, has she consulted any psychologists? Has she had her dopamine levels analyzed? Has she had her brain scanned for trauma? I think that’s the kind of path she needs to take to find the truth. Normal brains are imaginative and routinely experience seemingly magical perceptions (like believing a series of images projected 24 times per second are “moving” pictures), but her brain or blood chemistry may have an abnormality that can be corrected before it gets worse.
Anita is correct. She was misquoted, twice. She actually stated she was an extraterrestrial reincarnation FROM a white dwarf star near Arcturus. Post #406 in below link:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128149&page=11
> As much as I hate to have to defend myself again, but
> with regard to Roger’s comments;
>> “Plus, she chose someone in that round with a leg
>> brac, visible scars etc.”
> As far as I was aware, I was choosing the subjects
> based on my impressions of their kidneys.
Which is why you completely failed on the first trial.
> I do not
> recall noticing a leg brace or any visible scars in
> subject 24 in trial 2, however I did notice that he
> has tattoos, although I did not think that would have
> any relation to missing a kidney. There will be
> another test and this time only the back-areas will be
> visible. No head, neck, shoulders, arms, or legs, and
> that way we won’t have to quarrel about any visible
> signs that offer no clue as to the number of kidneys
> in a person anyway.
You have demonstrated that you cannot detect missing kidneys at a rate better than chance: what is there to test?
>> “And it is worth pointing out that even though she
>> said she ‘felt very good’ about the second trial, she
>> still chose *two* subjects and then guessed between
>> them. Hardly the behaviour of someone instantly and
>> effortlessly seeing inside another’s body.”
> I did not choose two subjects in trial 2. I chose one.
> There were two kidneys in trial 2 that I did not
> detect, one in subject 22 and one in subject 24.
And yet, 22 had *both* kidneys. Or did you miss the part where the entire trial 2 team was asked “whoever is missing a kidney, please come up on stage?”
By your own words you have confirmed that you *cannot* correctly detect missing kidneys.
> The
> reason I chose, not guessed, 24, was because I had put
> more question marks at that person.
The test was not your ability to write question marks. The test was can you detect missing kidneys, which claimed to be able do efffortlessly and instantly.
You failed to be able to.
> This will be
> evident when you see the draft papers that were handed
> in at the test. You may certainly speculate, but do
> not make false assumptions about how I made my choices
> and state them as fact. But you are right, my
> conclusions were not instant or effortless. It took a > great deal of work to get as far as I did.
So your claim was false. Which you would have known had you bothered to test yourself before going to California, as you were repeatedly advised to do.
You have nothing interesting to test.
>> “Let’s put this in context of her claim: If I claim
>> that I can detect which finger a person has missing,
>> just by looking, I have a one in ten chance of
>> guessing correctly. But chance doesn’t matter if I
>> can actually *see* their hands, as I claim.”
> I identified two new testing conditions and how those
> affect my performance and those will be addressed in
> the next test.
And the reason you did not do this before wasting everyone’s time is … ?
The reason you have not completed the lactobacillus test you started? The reason you have not completed the crushed pill test? The reason you refused to do the foot test, or the burka test, or … ?
Because none of these afforded you the ability to stack the deck in your favour, so you knew you would fail since you knew your “vvision from feeling” was fake to begin with.
> What I claim to do requires effort from me. It took
> much greater effort to see through larger
> persons, and it took so much effort that I was
> exhausted by trial 3. It does not work like normal
> vision does, which is automatic and quite effortless.
And yet, you spent years insisting that it does work that way.
Is this why we will never see the raw data from your “mall study?” because if you had to work harder with larger people, you’d've noticed it there, right?
>> “Yes, Anita failed. She cannot detect missing
>> kidneys, or any other internal organ.”
> Yes I failed the IIG Preliminary. But that does not
> mean I cannot detect missing kidneys.
Yes, it does.
> I identified two
> issues with the test protocol that I could not have
> foreseen.
Yes, you could have.
> I will allow for another test, but trust me
> if I can’t detect missing kidneys I will be happy to
> falsify that claim, but I’m not there yet.
No, you will either simply claim to have identified more issues and insist you are still really really special, or test under an even worse protocol and announce victory when your guesses are better made.
>> “She is not a reincarnated white dwarf star from new
>> acturus”
> I have never claimed to be a reincarnated white dwarf
> star from new arcturus.
My apologies: the actual quote is “an extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star near Arcturus.”
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?s=38db46571efd4353310ee90ef19ae590&p=4265685&postcount=406
>> “She is only extraordinary in insistence that she is
>> ‘really, really’ special.”
> I have never insisted that I am special. I was merely
> investigating an interesting experience that I’ve had
> and wanted to share that with others. And if you
> somehow translate that into seeming special, then that
> is your impression not mine.
Ah, because there’s nothing special about bein an extraterrestrial intelligence at all.
Got it.
> As much as I hate to have to defend myself again, but
> with regard to Roger’s comments;
>> “Plus, she chose someone in that round with a leg
>> brace, visible scars etc.”
> As far as I was aware, I was choosing the subjects
> based on my impressions of their kidneys.
Which is why you completely failed on the first trial.
After instantly detecting the missing kidney in the preliminary. Oh, that’s right: you were *told* that subject was missing a kidney.
> I do not
> recall noticing a leg brace or any visible scars in
> subject 24 in trial 2, however I did notice that he
> has tattoos, although I did not think that would have
> any relation to missing a kidney. There will be
> another test and this time only the back-areas will be
> visible. No head, neck, shoulders, arms, or legs, and
> that way we won’t have to quarrel about any visible
> signs that offer no clue as to the number of kidneys
> in a person anyway.
You have demonstrated that you cannot detect missing kidneys at a rate better than chance: what is there to test?
>> “And it is worth pointing out that even though she
>> said she ‘felt very good’ about the second trial, she
>> still chose *two* subjects and then guessed between
>> them. Hardly the behaviour of someone instantly and
>> effortlessly seeing inside another’s body.”
> I did not choose two subjects in trial 2. I chose one.
> There were two kidneys in trial 2 that I did not
> detect, one in subject 22 and one in subject 24.
And yet, 22 had *both* kidneys. Or did you miss the part where the entire trial 2 team was asked “whoever is missing a kidney, please come up on stage?”
By your own words you have confirmed that you *cannot* correctly detect missing kidneys.
> The
> reason I chose, not guessed, 24, was because I had put
> more question marks at that person.
The test was not your ability to write question marks. The test was can you detect missing kidneys, which claimed to be able do efffortlessly and instantly.
You failed to be able to.
> This will be
> evident when you see the draft papers that were handed
> in at the test. You may certainly speculate, but do
> not make false assumptions about how I made my choices
> and state them as fact. But you are right, my
> conclusions were not instant or effortless. It took a
> great deal of work to get as far as I did.
So your claim was false. Which you would have known had you bothered to test yourself before going to California, as you were repeatedly advised to do.
You have nothing interesting to test.
“There were two kidneys in trial 2 that I did not detect, one in subject 22 and one in subject 24.” So she’s already admitting that, one way or the other, she was unable to detect a kidney where there WAS one. (Let’s not even GO into what she did or didn’t detect correctly or incorrectly in Trials 1 and 3!) This certainly doesn’t jive with her claim. Nor does it sound like anything a would-be psychic should be flushed with pride over. Yet Anita keeps repeating how she was so confident about Trial Two that she said as much to various IIG members, as if that should somehow “count” or indicate something of any special significance. If she’d mentioned being pessimistic would the IIG, by the same logic, be allowed to take that hit away from her? Her anecdote about being confident about Trial 2 is only being highlighted now because she thinks it makes her pessimistic remarks after Trials #1 and #3 somehow “significant.” Suddenly the test was about predictions, not MRI vision. Classic “woo” technique — retrofit the facts and rewrite the experiment if possible.
Reacting to the suggestion by some JREF members that specific physical attributes of Subject 24 might have influenced her decision Anita is now stating that her one and only hit may have to be “disqualified.” The IIG is certainly not suggesting that the result of Trial #2 be thrown out. Ignoring the petulance of her tone, does this sound like someone who is absolutely sure about what she was seeing and experiencing? No. It sounds like someone who isn’t sure herself.
Anita explains her eventual selection of Subject 24 with, “The reason I chose, not guessed, 24, was because I had put more question marks at that person.” So…. she was less NOT sure (?) about 24 then she was about 22. That sounds to me much like a process called guessing. Nothing wrong with that. Only Anita claims to see inside the human body. Her claim is not “sensing imbalance” (left side “heavier” than the right) or reading minds (“Subject 24 knows he’s missing a kidney.”)– her claim is to “see” exactly and in graphic detail what’s inside a human body. (Read her own website for a full description.)
It bears repeating that the detection of kidneys was not some arbitrary choice or something the IIG imposed on Anita. Detecting kidneys was HER idea. The ability was, in her own words, her “strongest” claim. All those doodled question marks and general ambivalence about her one and only hit would seem to contradict that.
And finally, as to “fatigue”. No one was forcing Anita to use all 27 minutes in every test. First off, she INSISTED on having that much time. Oddly enough, during the Open Test with two Subjects, one missing a kidney, the other “whole”, she was able to “confirm” that status in about two minutes. If she was fatigued by Trial #3 perhaps it was from the preceding 60 minutes of dramatic squinting, and pacing and pondering that – considering what quick work she made of the Open Test – was obviously nothing but histrionics.
Is there really any more to be said about this case? Anita is a deluded, manipulative attention-seeker.
In my country, China, displays of unusual abilities are, how should I say(?) . . . not unusual. If this lady failed to recognize missing kidneys it may be because of the “phantom limb” effect. She may have seen an etheric “phantom kidney” and been fooled by that. My country, China, is very unusual.
Anita….the worse thing you can do is defend yourself with skeptics.
If you think you have a gift…work with it, train it.
And just let the chips fall.
Duncan
We must take the power of human consciousness into consideration. I have been doing energy healings for 22 years, and some of these included being able to “see” inside the body where an infection or imbalance was located. In every case where there is even one person present who does not want the healing or the “insights” to occur, it will not occur.
This may be why so many “tests” to prove or disprove whether someone has psychic abilities or not usually fail….. because someone or a group present is invested in having that test fail.
I have to say, being a person with such an ability myself, I find the people themselves leaving these judgmental, negative bashing comments quite ignorant. I base on the fact that these people have not bothered to take classes in energy healing or possibly even not tried to expereince meditative states and the abilities meditation can bring. This is not an exact science, it is INTUITION. When I am nervous, have sceptic know-it-alls gawking judgmentally at me and slamming me that have never opened a book on energetic fields, or experienced deep meditative states, heck I would not be able to tell a head from a foot, it turns OFF. Just like we blank out before an exam. So lighten up, read a little more, try it yourself because regardless of whether Anita is a true or not clairvoyant it is a real phenomenon. I know many people use it and we all can develop it. Grow up and evolve and be a little kinder please.
How can the debunkers have so much free time?
Don´t pseudo-skeptics/debunkers have jobs?
Or at least a life?
I am not the author of this comment:
“Roger,
I have remote viewed you for health issues that contribute to your anger. I have discovered the HUGE stick up your ass that is the root of the problems you have been having. You may want to have it removed, though it has melded with your brain stem.
Also, saneman is a douche bag!
Suck it!”
And that should also be obvious to anyone who has been following my posts at the JREF Forums and elsewhere. I have not once lost my temper with stubborn or mean-spirited Skeptics. Please be reminded that identity theft and impersonation are illegal crimes.
I think I will add a page on my website where all of my actual posts are confirmed as being authentically made by me.
One thing that does make me a bit special is my paranormal ability to never lose my temper or to attempt to make a point come across by turning rude and hostile.
Anita
I completely agree with Roger. Everything he said in his original post and his rebuttals were my thoughts exactly.
Anita can not see inside of other people. If she could, she would’ve just simply said, “number 22 has one kidney.” End of story. But no, she stood there for a half hour, staring, then failed.
I find it amusing that these so-called psychics will defend their “gifts” to the death, but can’t prove they’re real when the time comes. I mean, James Randi offered a million dollars for the longest time if anyone could show true psychic powers. For years. No one ever got the money because no one ever even passed the preliminary tests.
Anita, you might be able to fool ignorant morons who believe in bigfoot and the Lochness Monster, but trying to convince anyone with in I.Q. of anything over 80 won’t happen.
Maybe you should get in touch with Uri Geller. You guys could start a psychic television show for dumb ass audiences and rack up the ratings with your ability to see inside people and his ability to bend metal. Even though he was already exposed as a fraud – but there are still idiots out there who believe he’s the real deal.
Get lost, phony. You’re just as bad as he was; just not good enough at it.
Anita – thanks for making me aware of the fact that you were not the originator of the message. For the record, it came from someone using the e-mail address Anita.Ikonen@gmail.com with an IP address of 86.34.169.26. I have removed the original, since it came from someone falsely claiming to be you, but I am keeping your comment, quoting that message, so that anyone who has been following this discussion thread will know the truth. I will make sure that no further e-mails purporting to be from you are posted, unless they come from the e-mail address you have used so far. – Roy Stemman
The problem with the psychic experiments that are performed is that they are looking for statistics and accuracies. Accuracy isn’t important when studying the phenomena. What’s more important is trying to study the mechanism, i.e. “how it works.” If accuracy was really important, then meteorology wouldn’t be a credible science.
I think Jeane Dixon once said something to the effect of if she predicted something wrong, it wasn’t necessarily that the information she received was wrong, but that she interpreted it wrong. I’ve heard other psychics say similar things. Frankly, it would seem to me that the information was potentially wrong too in some cases. I mean…people tell lies or spread inaccurate information (intentionally or not), so I don’t see why lies and misinformation couldn’t come from spirits or telepathic communications from people too. With that in mind, it’s not the accuracy that is important to study, but the method of how it works.
We know how meteorology works, and despite consistently predicting inaccurate weather forecasts, it’s considered a credible science. If we could figure out how psychic phenomena works, then maybe it too would be considered credible in the mind’s of skeptics – nevermind its accuracy.
And you don’t think it would be a good idea to determine *if* it works, before spending time trying to determine *how*?
Bottom line, Anita cannot see inside bodies.
Please take note of the following jref page:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163167
about:
VisionFromFeeling Formerly Alenara