Is possible that Magician guesses zodiac birth sign ?

[abaddon]

Got a link for such a study ? Specifically on the facial features as he claimed.

Sound science is what I meant in my description.

How would it be done, and more professionally so than what I sketched above.

Yup. Several. I have not posted them because I am certain you would ignore them.

But before you get all offended, bear in mind that I pursued this avenue to the extent that I could cast a chart with accuracy. It remains utter bollocks.

You simply don't want to hear that, thus any of the gazillion peer reviewed studies I could post would be rejected out of hand without any thought.

Thus my reluctance to make the effort. Your arguments are simply anti-loreal. They are not worth it.

Start with Shawn Carlson, but astrology has been comprehensively shown to be abject rubbish.

 

[theprestige]

How would it be done, and more professionally so than what I sketched above.

Your sketch (and your previous sketch) both seem more than adequate to me. Someone else has proposed a controlled test of a claimant (such a test has been on offer for decades, with a sizeable reward; nobody has ever collected the reward). Here's another test one: A passport database and facial recognition software. That would have everything you really need: standardized photo methodology, associated birth dates, and a programmatic way to gather the data. Then throw some statisticians at the data set--or even just statistical analysis AIs. You could mask the data so the analyzers didn't even know what they were looking at. Throw enough computing power at the data for long enough, and I'm sure some kind of pattern would emerge. My bet is that you'd find a much stronger correlation between age and facial features than anything else, and any birth date correlation would be lost in the noise.

Can you explain what you're looking for more clearly, beyond the tests you and others have already described?

No useful correlation between birth sign and measurable characteristics in humans has ever been demonstrated. It is doubtful than anyone will ever bother to make a scientific test for your specific scenario, nor is such a test necessary to resolve the conundrum posed by your dinner guest.

That conundrum is reasonably resolved by what we already know about physics, biology, astrology, stage magic, and charlatanism.

 

[John Jones]

Got a link for such a study ? Specifically on the facial features as he claimed.

[...].

www.google.com ought to do it if you are willing to put in some effort.

One thread (out of dozens of decoys) on ISF won't work, because see my sig.

 

[jadebox]

Do facial features correspond to signs of the Zodiac? Why the astrology reference? Why not ask if there are facial features that correspond to the time of year a person is born? Not being a statistics expert, I don't know exactly how you would do such a test, but it's surely something that could be done.

 

[sadhatter]

Verification was a person saying something affirmative like yes that's my sign

I met the guy, a stranger, when he helped assist someone that fainted at a hot summer concert, Boston, c 1976. Nice guy. So I invited him to a dinner party, next day.

He arrived and joined us already at table in my apartment. About a dozen people. He named all or most birth signs, crediting the feat to some kind of astrology. Impressed me, so I never forgot it.

I think I have heard all the explanations like cold reading, checking purses for ID, specific questioning, and other techniques etc.

Instead, this is about how science would devise a study to examine feasibility of his specific claim of naming birth sign by observing facial features.

Science apparently has devised means to satisfactorily examine other astrology claims. Why not this one?

Why would "science" waste its time?

This would be like doing a study on how to remove computer viruses with techorcisim. Unless there is strong evidence that someone is actually doing this why waste time? I hear "science" is very busy.

 

[Pixel42]

Thanks. Its not about guessing. Its not even about someone claiming to read.

Its about how science would determine whether or not correlations exist.

Which is precisely what the test I described does.

You know what the chance success rate is. You ensure that the claimant has no source of information other than his claimed ability to tell astrological signs by facial features. If he can consistently correctly identify significantly more signs than would be expected by chance then he has proved he has the ability he claims, and hence that the correlation between facial features and astrological signs does exist.

Say a panel of people qualified in observing detail. Maybe they are doctors or engineers. Or machinists or cosmetologists. They will observe. Maybe they note sizes, angles, or ratios seen in the facial images. Whatever. Science knows what to do. The observers are not guessing or "reading". They are merely cataloguing a preferably predetermined set of observable features. Maybe the pics are then categorized by features into groups. Then the birthdates can be applied to determine whether or not there are correlations.

Sorry if it wasnt explained as well earlier.

Is that anything like how science would be applied if asked to determine whether or not there are correlations ?

If the claimed correlation is clearly established then scientists would certainly be interested in exactly what features were correlated and might do such studies. But nobody with any sense is going to go to that kind of trouble until the correlation has been established.

Do you know of a study that has already looked into this question of correlations in birth dates and facial features?

As far as I know no such correlation has ever been claimed, let alone shown to exist, so there's been no reason to do such studies.

 

[Bubba]

Yup. Several. I have not posted them because I am certain you would ignore them.

But before you get all offended, bear in mind that I pursued this avenue to the extent that I could cast a chart with accuracy. It remains utter bollocks.
You simply don't want to hear that, thus any of the gazillion peer reviewed studies I could post would be rejected out of hand without any thought.

Thus my reluctance to make the effort. Your arguments are simply anti-loreal. They are not worth it.

Start with Shawn Carlson, but astrology has been comprehensively shown to be abject rubbish.

Casting charts and confirming personality traits etc always seemed way to vague and inconsistent to me. Thats why the guy's feat impressed me.

To me, casting charts and confirming personality traits etc versus this facial thing are like apples and oranges, ie the former is far more subjective than scientific. The study I propose would appear to have nothing to do with investigating an astrology claim.

Thanks, I'll look into Shawn Carlson's work.

 

[Bubba]

Which is precisely what the test I described does.

You know what the chance success rate is. You ensure that the claimant has no source of information other than his claimed ability to tell astrological signs by facial features. If he can consistently correctly identify significantly more signs than would be expected by chance then he has proved he has the ability he claims, and hence that the correlation between facial features and astrological signs does exist.


If the claimed correlation is clearly established then scientists would certainly be interested in exactly what features were correlated and might do such studies. But nobody with any sense is going to go to that kind of trouble until the correlation has been established.


As far as I know no such correlation has ever been claimed, let alone shown to exist, so there's been no reason to do such studies.

Thanks

 

[Bubba]

Your sketch (and your previous sketch) both seem more than adequate to me. Someone else has proposed a controlled test of a claimant (such a test has been on offer for decades, with a sizeable reward; nobody has ever collected the reward). Here's another test one: A passport database and facial recognition software. That would have everything you really need: standardized photo methodology, associated birth dates, and a programmatic way to gather the data.
Great idea. I'd hire you.

Then throw some statisticians at the data set--or even just statistical analysis AIs. You could mask the data so the analyzers didn't even know what they were looking at. Throw enough computing power at the data for long enough, and I'm sure some kind of pattern would emerge. My bet is that you'd find a much stronger correlation between age and facial features than anything else, and any birth date correlation would be lost in the noise.

Can you explain what you're looking for more clearly, beyond the tests you and others have already described?

Mainly to know whether or not the guy was on the level because of how impressive his success rate appeared to be

No useful correlation between birth sign and measurable characteristics in humans has ever been demonstrated. It is doubtful than anyone will ever bother to make a scientific test for your specific scenario, nor is such a test necessary to resolve the conundrum posed by your dinner guest.

That conundrum is reasonably resolved by what we already know about physics, biology, astrology, stage magic, and charlatanism.

Detractors will not be impressed, but I saw no way he could have gleaned their signs at the table before he did his thing. He missed 2 or 3 out of 10 or 12 people. After explaining his skill, he looked around from face to face and named their sign. In the circumstances and time he had, I saw no way he could glean the info. He walked into a room of strangers and sat down. He would have had to steer conversation to birthdates for all or most persons to get those results. That didnt happen.

So I came up with the specific study method sketched above. One member implied it has not been done. Meanwhile I'll start with Shawn Carlson.

 

[Pixel42]

I saw no way he could have gleaned their signs at the table before he did his thing.

You're not supposed to see how it's done, that's the whole point of a good trick.

And he almost certainly obtained the information he needed before he arrived at the table. You'd invited him, he had plenty of time to find out who else you were likely to invite and obtain some of their birth dates. He might even have lurked outside and asked the other invitees their birth dates as they arrived. ("I'm planning to play a little trick on Bubba to amaze him, will you help?" Most would).

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

That was the former thread.
The latter thread was different and was merged with the former one.



I am now addressing the topic of the latter thread, not the former thread.
Post #65 is the OP explaining topic of the latter thread.

Both threads were merged because they were the same thing, Bubba. Only you seem to think they're different questions. They're not.

In the video in post #89 Derren said he discovered that the 'psychic's sister lived next door to the subject woman, therefore making the psychic dishonest about (not) having prior info. I stopped watching then. That is what I meant by the psychic having 'foreknowledge'.

I'm interested less in what you are on about, and more interested in the current topic.

In my next post I will further clarify the topic I am now addressing.

But you totally avoid mentioning the fact that there was a video where Derren didn't know a single thing about any of the people whom he got multiple hits on. That's about as dishonest as you can get, Bubba.

But, hey, don't let me stop you from believing in magic, "shooby dooby do wop, yeah magiiiiiiiic!"

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Got a link for such a study ? Specifically on the facial features as he claimed.

Sound science is what I meant in my description.

How would it be done, and more professionally so than what I sketched above.

How do you not get this?

The crux of the trick is always the same. The techniques for the act are different: palm reading, astrology, tarot reading...

He's not using anyone's facial features to read their birth signs, mate, lol.

 

[SOdhner]

Mainly to know whether or not the guy was on the level because of how impressive his success rate appeared to be

We'll never be able to know that without tracking that specific guy down. Even IF this claim was plausible and then you did a scientific test and found that it could be done, it wouldn't tell us if that one guy at your dinner party was full of it or not.

Because you don't know or can't remember the details, or all the things you simply weren't aware of at the time. Heck, you can't even remember how many people were there or how many guesses he got right:

His 'thing' was correctly naming most or all guests' birth signs. About a dozen people were there.

He missed 2 or 3 out of 10 or 12 people.

So we have a range from 7/10 to 12/12 depending on details you can't remember, and let's be honest - it could be a different number entirely. Maybe he missed four out of nine? And you for sure don't know/remember the whole conversation and what details about them he might have overheard. You don't know what tricks he knew, or if he got some clues from thier reactions to his guesses, or if he did the thing where he kinda walks his answer around before committing to it, or anything else.

So while I'm always fine with scientifically testing pseudoscience I don't see that it would help prove this specific event.

 

[Bubba]

But you totally avoid mentioning the fact that there was a video where Derren didn't know a single thing about any of the people whom he got multiple hits on. That's about as dishonest as you can get, Bubba.

I did not watch that video as I already knew I was not interested in what you were on about.

I watched the second so as to be informed in telling you I was not interested.

Besides, Derren's getting multiple hits is to be expected. I've seen that kind of debunking before.

Nonetheless, I think it is great to see that you essentially called me a liar.

Thanks !

 

[theprestige]

Great idea. I'd hire you.

You couldn't afford me.

Mainly to know whether or not the guy was on the level because of how impressive his success rate appeared to be

Nope. Searching for correlations in facial feature data is an interesting thought experiment. It's disingenuous to suggest it's necessary in order to reveal a well-understood and commonplace parlor trick.

Detractors will not be impressed, but I saw no way he could have gleaned their signs at the table before he did his thing. He missed 2 or 3 out of 10 or 12 people. After explaining his skill, he looked around from face to face and named their sign. In the circumstances and time he had, I saw no way he could glean the info. He walked into a room of strangers and sat down. He would have had to steer conversation to birthdates for all or most persons to get those results. That didnt happen.

I don't need a multimillion-dollar scientific study to know that you're neither competent nor willing to assess this scenario reasonably.

Assuming it even happened at all. I mean, seriously? You've been running around for the past 40 years convinced that there just might be a correlation here? Four decades of growing and learning and reasoning about the world around you, and you still think you need a serious scientific investigation into a dimly-remembered dinner conversation, just to put your mind at rest?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

 

[Bubba]

You're not supposed to see how it's done, that's the whole point of a good trick.

And he almost certainly obtained the information he needed before he arrived at the table. You'd invited him, he had plenty of time to find out who else you were likely to invite and obtain some of their birth dates. He might even have lurked outside and asked the other invitees their birth dates as they arrived. ("I'm planning to play a little trick on Bubba to amaze him, will you help?" Most would).

One shan't rule out any possibilities.

 

[Agatha]

Bubba, it's all trickery. From cold to warm to hot reading. Memory is fallible, so without a transcript of every scrap of conversation that evening you can not say that there was anything supernatural going on.

If you have not done so, I recommend reading The Attack Of The Unsinkable Rubber Ducks by Christopher Brookmyre. It's fiction, but it gives you an insight into some of the tricks these 'psychics' use to fool their audience. It doesn't cover every trick that they use, but it's a starting point.

 

[Pixel42]

One shan't rule out any possibilities.

That's the point, Bubba. Given the very limited information available it is impossible to rule anything out, or in. But there is nothing here to justify further study, given that there are plausible mundane explanations for what you remember happening.

Would I be justified in suggesting that there should be a scientific study of whether someone can survive when they're missing everything from the waist down if I once saw a magician saw a woman in half and can't be absolutely sure he did it by trickery? That's what you seem to be suggesting here.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

We'll never be able to know that without tracking that specific guy down. Even IF this claim was plausible and then you did a scientific test and found that it could be done, it wouldn't tell us if that one guy at your dinner party was full of it or not.

Because you don't know or can't remember the details, or all the things you simply weren't aware of at the time. Heck, you can't even remember how many people were there or how many guesses he got right:



So we have a range from 7/10 to 12/12 depending on details you can't remember, and let's be honest - it could be a different number entirely. Maybe he missed four out of nine? And you for sure don't know/remember the whole conversation and what details about them he might have overheard. You don't know what tricks he knew, or if he got some clues from thier reactions to his guesses, or if he did the thing where he kinda walks his answer around before committing to it, or anything else.

So while I'm always fine with scientifically testing pseudoscience I don't see that it would help prove this specific event.

"Yeah, just by looking at the faces around the table I can see there are a lot of water signs here"
Nods give first bit of info etc etc until 7 out of 10 becomes a far less impressive guess as for these people it would be a 1 in 3....
"And you really look like a Pisces..." (to one of the nodders) guage reaction and now leave it at that 'cos "Gosh, you're spot on" or, confused look so follow with, "but by the angle of your brow I can tell you're actually a Scorpio' (50/50 chance). "Now on to the fire signs..." and so on.

Now if most people are like me, never having invested any time in astrology, I couldn't tell you, without looking it up (and now my browsing history is sullied, urrghh!) what was a water sign, what was a fire sign etc. So you could refine the above with:

"Yeah, just by looking at the faces around the table I can see there are a lot of water signs here... you know, Cancer (observe reaction), Scorpio (observe reaction) and Pisces." Home in on the ones that were easiest to read, rinse and repeat.

Not saying this was the mechanism as we have no way of knowing, but this sort of walk-around often gets remembered (especially with repeated tellings making the story more interesting) for just the final result (which also gets exaggerated up over time and becomes fixed memory).

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

As for "Well let's just assume there's a connection, how could we test it", Pixel42 has already given a perfectly serviceable mechanism but she (apologies if I assume incorrectly) and others have wisely pointed out the 'why would you bother it's clearly nonsense' aspects.

If someone hadn't used this faux explanation for what most of us see as a relatively simple trick then why on earth would you even consider that when you're born affects your facial features - what really, over genetics?!

"Hey you've got a big nose and hairy eyebrows, you must be a Gemini"

"Er my Dad has a big nose and hairy eyebrows"

"Yeah well he must be a Gemini as well."

Facepalm...