Cold Reading Demos at TAM2

[Interesting Ian]

What is there left for me to say?

 

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

And you are obviously drunk again. You have no grasp of reality.

Wait, I'll rephrase that. You don't need to be drunk to have no grasp of reality.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

And you are obviously drunk again. You have no grasp of reality.

Wait, I'll rephrase that. You don't need to be drunk to have no grasp of reality.

I am not drunk! I've been drinking lots of pepsi and eating raspberry ripple ice cream though. Never eat and drink stuff like that normally.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am not drunk! I've been drinking lots of pepsi and eating raspberry ripple ice cream though. Never eat and drink stuff like that normally.

Sorry, I find it impossible to determine whether you are drunk or not.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ah, goody. Ian's weighed in with his usual substantive content. We just await Thanz' last deflection.

Another dodge. I find it interesting that your belief system puts good, relevant questions in the 'deflection' bin.

Here the simple questions are again since you missed them:

Are the letter counts independent or dependent in the following example?:

'I'm seeing a father figure, a J name, Joe, Joseph, Jim, Jerry'

and

Would you be up for, you, Bill, analyzing, say 5 transcripts and have Thanz or someone analyze the same transcripts and present their results side by side?

Yet you run from these questions... I wonder why that is? Maybe Claus can help you figure it out?

 

[Thanz]

You really are struggling here, aren't you? I made it perfectly clear that I have only talked about one comparison, and that is the one you made. The Poisson one.

You have not made anything clear at all, except the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.

The only comparison I made between Hoyt's count and my own was to show that the results were different and to show the effect of Hoyt's errors. I do not rely on Hoyt's count to say anything substantive about JE and cold reading - as my point is that his count is flawed for that purpose.

So, either tell me why I can't use Hoyt's data to show that his data is flawed or point out to me where I use it for any other purpose.

You made a comparison, based on what you have argued was flawed data. For what purpose? You could not answer.

I have answered, more than once. The only comparison I made was to point out the differences and the effect of Hoyt's errors. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

You really think that your hand-waving will do you any good? "Oh, I don't understand what you are saying, so how can I defend myself?"

It is not handwaving - I just overestimated your intelligence. I did not think that you were so mind-numbingly dense to suggest that by pointing out the flaws in Hoyt's data and the effect of those flaws that I am somehow relying on that data for some other substantive purpose. But, I guess you are.

Stop whining. You are pathetic. You have painted yourself into a corner, and you can whine all you like about it.

Quite the contrary. I have not painted myself into any corner. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Thanz]

Tr'oll, Thanz, Kaffee Klatch,

if your next posts do not squarely, directly, accurately and insightfully address all the issues I just raised, I am done with you woo flies. I will be busy spending my time sharpening mallets for the next round of whack-a-woo.

Your arrogance knows no bounds, Mr. Hoyt. Demanding answers when there are so many inquiries of you that you leave untouched. I am still waiting for a simple, logical rationale for your counting method.

So, I will gladly address your points after you have addressed mine. Form Page 16:

If we are trying to see if there is a mediumship process, shouldn't we try to honour that process as much as possible in the counting method?

Do you agree that the mediumship process involves attempts to gain a connection between the sitter and whatever "spirit" that JE claims to be communicating with?

Do you agree that when some says "Fruit, like an apple or a pear" they are talking about Fruit, and that apple or pear are simple examples of fruits?

If someone asks you for "a piece of fruit, like an apple or a pear" are they asking you for one item or three items?

Likewise, when JE says "A J connection, like John or Joe" is he looking for one J connection, or is he looking for three J connections?

And from page 17:

You say that you can count bird parts as long as you don't claim to be counting whole birds. But that is exactly what you are doing. You are counting parts of a guess - "like john or joe" as whole guesses. That is the point that you don't address.

A guess of "J connection" is analogous to a whole dead bird.

A guess of "John" is like finding a wing. It is just part of the whole bird. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate to conclude that we should count a bird here - like when the wing is found alone.

In other circumstances, where we get the whole bird in pieces, we just count the one bird. "J connection, like John or Joe" is like finding a dead bird with the wings detached, but right beside the bird. We don't count 3 birds. We count one.

You want to count 3 birds and say that we can't assume the wings right beside the torso are from that bird.

Why should I jump through you hoops when you consistently fail to answer the simplest questions? The questions from page 16 are simple, direct and logical. I would appreciate simple, direct and logical answers to each.

Then, I would like you to explain (if you are able) either why you believe the bird analogy above is inappropriate, or, if appropriate, why we would count parts as whole birds.

Thank you.

 

[BillHoyt]

So, after 20 pages here, and what, 30 pages on the original thread, we still have a full house of deflections to specious, irrelevant questions, plus one wild card of someone lying about me lying.

 

[Thanz]

So, after 20 pages here, and what, 30 pages on the original thread, we still have a full house of deflections to specious, irrelevant questions, plus one wild card of someone lying about me lying.

If you would just answer the darn questions, maybe we could move on. I don't see them as irrelevant or specious. On the contrary, it is my belief that your continued refusal to address these questions head on is quite telling. It shouldn't take so many pages to get the answers to simple questions. Yet here you are, prolonging the agony and avoiding the questions once again.

I wish I could say that I was surprised.

 

[Darat]

So should we conclude that no one was very impressed with the cold reading demonstrations at TAM2?

 

[BillHoyt]

If you would just answer the darn questions, maybe we could move on. I don't see them as irrelevant or specious. On the contrary, it is my belief that your continued refusal to address these questions head on is quite telling. It shouldn't take so many pages to get the answers to simple questions. Yet here you are, prolonging the agony and avoiding the questions once again.

I wish I could say that I was surprised.

Dude, you've been voted off the island. Bye.

 

[Thanz]

Dude, you've been voted off the island. Bye.

Figures. Run away, Mr. Hoyt. Avoid facing the issues. Avoid answering the most basic of questions. Just use insults when people don't agree with you.

You are a poor skeptic, Mr. Hoyt.

 

[CFLarsen]

You have not made anything clear at all, except the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Classic excuse: You are wrong, but I am the clueless one.

The only comparison I made between Hoyt's count and my own was to show that the results were different and to show the effect of Hoyt's errors. I do not rely on Hoyt's count to say anything substantive about JE and cold reading - as my point is that his count is flawed for that purpose.

But what is the point of making a comparison (glad to see your memory has come back!) of two calculations, if the data in one of the datasets is flawed? How can you possibly gain anything from that?

So, either tell me why I can't use Hoyt's data to show that his data is flawed or point out to me where I use it for any other purpose.

The Poisson calculation, Thanz. Keep focused.

I have answered, more than once. The only comparison I made was to point out the differences and the effect of Hoyt's errors. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Because it serves no purpose! The comparison is invalid, if half the data is flawed!

It is not handwaving - I just overestimated your intelligence. I did not think that you were so mind-numbingly dense to suggest that by pointing out the flaws in Hoyt's data and the effect of those flaws that I am somehow relying on that data for some other substantive purpose. But, I guess you are.

I may be dense, but then, could somebody else try to explain to me how something can come out of a comparison like the one you made?

Quite the contrary. I have not painted myself into any corner. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Yeah, yeah...whatever.....

 

[Thanz]

But what is the point of making a comparison (glad to see your memory has come back!) of two calculations, if the data in one of the datasets is flawed? How can you possibly gain anything from that?

Let's recap, shall we? you keep on nattering about the comparison, but you keep forgetting what the comparison was and what it was for. Here we go.

Both Hoyt and I did a count of the same transcripts. Mine had 9 J's out of 43. Hoyt's had 18 out of 85. If the Poisson calculation is done on both, Hoyt's yields a significant result and mine does not. With me so far?

So, I look at Hoytt's method and see that it makes no sense. I ask him to back it up with simple logic. Hoyt cannot do this. He insists that even if the count is inflated, it doesn't matter because both counts are inflated.

I then show what the inflation does to the data and the significance level in Poisson. I show that the flaw in his method makes a non-significant data set appear significant. And that the finding of significance is wrong.

Now you jump in to say that I cannot compare the two because one is flawed. You miss the point that I am comparing the two in order to point out the flaws. Let's say that we have two cars, same model. One has flaws, the other doesn't. You compare the two to point out the flaws in the damaged vehicle. Under your theory, this comparison is not valid because one of the vehicles has flaws.

Because it serves no purpose! The comparison is invalid, if half the data is flawed!

If I were making the comparison in order to glean information about JE and cold reading, I would agree with you. The comparison tells us nothing about JE. It just sheds light on Hoyt's methods and the effect of the errors therein. Why can't you understand this?

I may be dense, but then, could somebody else try to explain to me how something can come out of a comparison like the one you made?

What do you think that I was trying to show with my comparison, and why do you think that Hoyt's data flaws means that I did not show it? Perhaps then I could understand your point.

 

[BillHoyt]

So should we conclude that no one was very impressed with the cold reading demonstrations at TAM2?

The thread was hijacked by the woos again. The hijacking was needed because Tr'oll stuck his foot in his mouth again. A diversion was required. Further diversions and lies were required to deflect attention from the fact that the woos are seriously lost about epistemology, the meaning of scientific language and doubly stochastic processes. But now that I've let that cat out of the bag, we know Tr'oll will be madly googling MMPP, and hoping to feign knowledge of it despite demonstrating he had no clue about the radioactive decay example.

This is like arguing with creationists. One shouldn't confuse them with the facts.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

A diversion was required....

Apparently so.

But....now that you've diverted us with leopards and radioactive decay ... how about -stopping- with the diversions now, and instead addressing the questions that you continue to ignore about your counting method?

Not more diversions and insults. Just repost Q1...followed by Answer 1. Q2...followed by Answer 2.

It isn't a hard format to follow if you try. Really.

 

[CFLarsen]

But....now that you've diverted us with leopards and radioactive decay ... how about -stopping- with the diversions now, and instead addressing the questions that you continue to ignore about your counting method?

Not more diversions and insults. Just repost Q1...followed by Answer 1. Q2...followed by Answer 2.

It isn't a hard format to follow if you try. Really.

Hypocrite.

 

[BillHoyt]

Apparently so.

You owe me an apology. I made that abundantly clear. I also explained to you the difference between results and conclusions. I gave that to you, as well as the short discussion about scientific papers so that you would have the tools to research this yourself. It was in the vain hope that you would do so, correct your mistake and apologize. If you have a genuine interest in discourse toward the truth, you would do this. If you wish to continue any discourse with me whatssoever on any future topic whatsoever you will do this. The choice is yours.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

You owe me an apology.

And I will be extremely happy to offer one if you ever answer the questions in my post--with a (complete) quote and link to where Lurker did what you say (see below).

Please address the post below, if you feel I am mistaken...this is the one we are arguing about. Your reference to scientific papers has nothing to do with what I'm asking you about your statement below):

Posted by Bill Hoyt

In two different tries, done by two different people[i.e. Lurker and BillHoyt]...this test has rejected the null hypothesis.

Posted by Clancie

Where does Lurker make his own "J" count and, using Poisson, find that it rejects the null hypothesis, just like you did with your "J" count? This is what you're claiming. Where's your support for it?

Rather than calling me more names, why not just provide the link and the quote to where Lurker does his own "different" try and rejects the null hypothesis, too? (Please provide the exact and complete quote this time)


P.S. I know you couldn't -possibly- be trying to say that because Lurker observed that you ran Poisson with your "J" count (the word "result" has been omitted to help you focus, Bill)--which we all know you did--that somehow this makes "two different tries". Not even you would try to pass -that- one off, Bill, I'm sure.

Let me put it differently, Bill, to help.

Who are the "two different people" and what are the "two different tries" where this test has "rejected the null hypothesis"?

If one of the two people is Lurker, please provide a link to where he says he made a "J" count of his own that rejected the null hypothesis.

 

[BillHoyt]

And I will be extremely happy to offer one if you ever answer the questions in my post--with a (complete) quote and link to where Lurker did what you say (see below).

Please address the post below, if you feel I am mistaken...this is the one we are arguing about. Your reference to scientific papers has nothing to do with what I'm asking you about your statement below):

Clancie,

I provided the link. You used it. You continue not to understand that Lurker applied my counting method to a different data set and reached the same result: he rejected the null hypothesis.

UNDERSTAND THAT THE LANGUAGE IS SCIENTIFIC AND MY COMMENTS ON SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE ARE PERFECTLY APPLICABLE HERE.

Do you, at long last get it? You've used up chances 1 and 2. This is the last one.