The VFF Test is On!

[VisionFromFeeling]

Then shouldn't you instead be calling it FeelingsFromVision?

Vision from Feeling from Vision.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I got exactly the same results as you, and it didn't take me 27 minutes per test to get them.

Is there a reason to keep me from investigating further?

I actually hold this as very valuable information in my investigation. Joe, who sat at the back on the other side of the row of subjects, said he would have guessed the correct person in trials 1 and 2, and after the test and once we were all backstage again, I actually approached him and thanked him and said that his comment was the most valuable thing that I take with me from this Preliminary.

Did you *know* beforehand which trials you would guess incorrectly in and which trials you would guess correctly in? If you would have taken the option of passing when you *knew* your answer to be incorrect, would that have lead to you making only the correct answers, and a 100% accuracy in the trials that you did answer in? Just curious.

 

[pakeha]

I am involving my confidence level into what I learn about the claim. <snip>

This would be more properly the realm of psychology and/or behavioural studies- the natural hunting ground of a 'science-based' wooster.

added:

Oh, and if I would have had trial 2 incorrect, I would have falsified the claim just like that.

added-Like the 'Revolutionary War ghost' claim, which was thoroughly falsified, but never acknoweged by you?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

VfF's track record tells us that she is very attached to the notion of there being "something" to what she experiences. The fact that that "something" is something most humans take for granted hasn't penetrated her thick skull as yet, or so it seems. It's called "guessing," with maybe some cold reading thrown in.

She's angling for a career in woo. What other explanation can there be?

I detected that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney and it is not a false memory. I am also curious since I knew the accuracy or inaccuracy of each trial beforehand. All that an additional test can do is confirm an accurate conclusion in the claim, so there is no point in arguing against that.

If I wanted a career in woo, I would be living an hour from my boyfriend's house and charging $1,700 for a reading, and totally getting away with it, like someone else is doing. Oh, it's $1,580. Must be a Christmas sale. Instead, I hang around with you Skeptical guys.

 

[Jonquill]

This thread must be nearing the end because we're debating semantics.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Most speakers of American English would say that they "read" a person by observing them. I might say, "Did you get a good read on his reaction to the news report?" In response I might her, "They way I read him he was kinda shocked."

Maybe it is a matter of intent, a cold reader isn't interested in learning about the person they are reading they are primarily trying to trick the person into thinking that they know all about them though supernatural means.
A cold reader doesn't care if the subject is menstruating (or missing a kidney) they want the person to go 'Wow, how the hell did they know that about me?'

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

This would be more properly the realm of psychology and/or behavioural studies- the natural hunting ground of a 'science-based' wooster.

Absolutely. Some form of automatic cold reading skill that I want to learn more about.

Because it is automatic, involuntary, it involves feeling and visual images, and it goes beyond what my logical attempts at cold reading can do, and has gone beyond what I ever thought that cold reading in a normal case could do.

... When I tried to use logic and a conscious attempt at cold reading I deduced that Dr. Carlson couldn't be missing a kidney. But the perception I had was arriving at a different conclusion, and at a correct conclusion. And part of the perceptions was knowing that trials 1 and 3 were incorrect, and that trial 2 would be correct, which it was. So I need to learn more, because I think this is interesting.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Maybe it is a matter of intent, a cold reader isn't interested in learning about the person they are reading they are primarily trying to trick the person into thinking that they know all about them though supernatural means.
A cold reader doesn't care if the subject is menstruating (or missing a kidney) they want the person to go 'Wow, how the hell did they know that about me?'

I am confused about your statement. A cold reader would try to correctly guess or know that a person is menstruating or missing a kidney, because that would be impressive.

 

[Garrette]

The case study could include an interesting discussion on a claimant sabotaging a test, or alternatively, claiming post hoc to have sabotaged a test.

Claim: During a formal test--the protocol of which was agreed upon by the claimant--two thirds of the answers provided by claimant were known by the claimant to have been wrong upon provision.

1st Possibility: The claim is accurate, therefore the claimant intentionally sabotaged the test.

2nd Possibility: The claim is inaccurate, therefore the claim represents another desperate defense of the belief in the face of fact and reason.

 

[Jonquill]

It's impressive in that it's a skilful trick.

 

[Audible Click]

Maybe it is a matter of intent, a cold reader isn't interested in learning about the person they are reading they are primarily trying to trick the person into thinking that they know all about them though supernatural means.A cold reader doesn't care if the subject is menstruating (or missing a kidney) they want the person to go 'Wow, how the hell did they know that about me?'

The highlighted words are the operative words. Please try to read for comprehension.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Right, and cold reading is described as "Without prior knowledge of a person, a practiced cold reader can still quickly obtain a great deal of information about the subject by analyzing the person's body language, age, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc."

That quote is from the wiki entry on cold reading, but then it says

"Cold readers commonly employ high probability guesses about the subject, quickly picking up on signals from their subjects as to whether their guesses are in the right direction or not, and then emphasizing and reinforcing any chance connections the subjects acknowledge while quickly moving on from missed guesses."

So you observe the person and then based on what you see you begin your cold reading.

The three levels are :
Hot reading where you use any way of getting hard data about the mark - obits, credit card info when they book at a John Edward charade, microphones in the audience to pick up facts, Popoff's ear bug, assistants in the audience posing as guests or having the mark tell you it and then making them believe you discovered it.

Warm reading is using demographic data, cues from the mark's behavior, apparel, jewlry, age, tattoos, basically guessing about probabilities.

Cold reading takes the most skill, in that if you don't cheat with hot reading and have no idea from warm reading, you have two ways to go. I saw Ray Hyman at a couple of meetings and he did the pause thing, ""I see something that was very upsetting to you and... Something to do with your father."
John Edward does the, "I see a B and an E and 5 and maybe a 4 and a B4 and something like a dog or a cat or a wombat named Derek that bit someone."

I think it's a good idea for skeptics and sceptics too be able to distinguish these.

 

[Garrette]

It's impressive in that it's a skilful trick.

My contention is that it is not skilful at all. There has been nothing demonstrated to indicate special ability, skill, rare medical condition, or accomplishment of any sort.

What makes it interesting is that despite the lack of any of the above, the claimant has clung so tightly to the belief.

 

[Jonquill]

My contention is that it is not skilful at all. There has been nothing demonstrated to indicate special ability, skill, rare medical condition, or accomplishment of any sort.

What makes it interesting is that despite the lack of any of the above, the claimant has clung so tightly to the belief.

I mean that cold reading John Edward style is a skilful trick, not having a guess at who has a kidney.

 

[Jeff Corey]

It's impressive in that it's a skilful trick.

It's more like a cunning stunt.

 

[Garrette]

The three levels are :
Hot reading where you use any way of getting hard data about the mark - obits, credit card info when they book at a John Edward charade, microphones in the audience to pick up facts, Popoff's ear bug, assistants in the audience posing as guests or having the mark tell you it and then making them believe you discovered it.

Warm reading is using demographic data, cues from the mark's behavior, apparel, jewlry, age, tattoos, basically guessing about probabilities.

Cold reading takes the most skill, in that if you don't cheat with hot reading and have no idea from warm reading, you have two ways to go. I saw Ray Hyman at a couple of meetings and he did the pause thing, ""I see something that was very upsetting to you and... Something to do with your father."
John Edward does the, "I see a B and an E and 5 and maybe a 4 and a B4 and something like a dog or a cat or a wombat named Derek that bit someone."

I think it's a good idea for skeptics and sceptics too be able to distinguish these.

I agree, and have said similar things often in the past. I do not think, however, that the demarcation between warm and cold reading is so clear.

The letters provided are usually based on some study of demographics and could cross into warm reading.

It does not really require an exact boundary, and I do not pretend that this is official in anyway, but my personal means of delineating cold from warm reading works for me and is (he said not at all modestly) the most useful I have found.

Cold reading is the use of statements which are not definitely known to be true of the sitter but which are used--not as a conclusion--but as a starting point, the direction of the following statements being driven not by the original statement but by the observed response of the sitter to it.

(Poorly worded, but it works for me)

 

[Garrette]

I mean that cold reading John Edward style is a skilful trick, not having a guess at who has a kidney.

Have to agree with Jeff's response. JE's schtick appears impressive only to the already believing sitter, and to others only when presented in edited fashion.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I agree, and have said similar things often in the past. I do not think, however, that the demarcation between warm and cold reading is so clear.

The letters provided are usually based on some study of demographics and could cross into warm reading.

It does not really require an exact boundary, and I do not pretend that this is official in anyway, but my personal means of delineating cold from warm reading works for me and is (he said not at all modestly) the most useful I have found.

Cold reading is the use of statements which are not definitely known to be true of the sitter but which are used--not as a conclusion--but as a starting point, the direction of the following statements being driven not by the original statement but by the observed response of the sitter to it.

(Poorly worded, but it works for me)

OK, I am trying to explain this to students and must make some demarcations that are not universally agreed upon. Maybe if can can get my book Critical Thinking For Frakin' Retards published there will be no problem. Maybe I can get the Bad ASStronomer to help.

 

[pakeha]

It's more like a cunning stunt.

Possibly, Jeff.
I'd say it was 'wishful thinking' about reading body language, a opinion based on AI's inconditional requirement of physically seeing the subject.
Very similar to Derek Ogilvie's requirement of having the Mums present when he does his baby reading act.

My own suggestion for AI's test protocol was to use burkas on the subjects, but this didn't go over very well.

 

[laca]

hi, laca
See this post of AI's: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5348939&postcount=1258
And from that post


Now compare that with Derek Ogilivie's reactions after the second test he took and then after the third 'test'.
Then go to his current website.

Yes, I know she admitted failing the test. What other choice did she have, except crying "cheat!"? That's not the same as admitting she's a failure. That would have happened if she were true to her word and admitting her claim is falsified. Which she explicitly denied.

 

[pakeha]

Sorry, laca, but it's time to pay up.

I refer you again to the Derek Ogilvie tests.
Especially the man's reactions after the third test. The one which permitted 'cold reading' and measured DO's brain activity whilst doing it.