Cold Reading Demos at TAM2

[Thanz]

You cannot use the comparison of two calculations to show that the data used in one of the calculations is flawed. You have to show that the data itself is flawed.

You still do not understand the comparison, do you? I do not make the comparison to show that the data IS flawed, I make the comparison to show the effect of that flaw on the calculation. Don't you see the difference? I am not pointing to the two results and saying that his is wrong because it is different. I am pointing to the two results to show that the error does make a difference, and it does have an effect. And that comparison is perfectly valid.

Further, I have shown that the data itself is flawed, several times. I used simple logic to show that counting "J, like John or Jim" as three independent J guesses makes no logical sense. Neither Mr. Hoyt nor yourself have provided a logical argument to the contrary.

Once I showed that Hoyt's method overcounted everything, Hoyt asked me to show why it mattered. His claim was that if he overcounted everything, both the numerator and the denominator would rise and this would wash out any impact of the overcounting. The comparison was required to show that this is not the case. The overcounting caused the results to go from non-significant to significant. There is no way to show this without comparing the two data sets.

Ergo, your comparison is worthless. Ergo, your point about Hoyt's data is invalid.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? Once again, I do not use the comparison to show that Hoyts data IS flawed - I only use it to show the EFFECT of the flaws on the analysis. I use simple logic to show that the data itself is flawed, and that logic has yet to be refuted. Ergo, you still don't have a point.

 

[Clancie]

I wonder why Bill is so busy insulting Max over on the "Baffled" thread instead of continuing the discussion here?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I wonder why Bill is so busy insulting Max over on the "Baffled" thread instead of continuing the discussion here?

I don't.



I'm wondering why he asked for specifics, then when people bring up specifics, he says the specifics aren't relevant.

The issue of independence/dependence isn't relevant to counting and statistical tests??? Hello??? Bill???

 

[Clancie]

Where did Bill go? He's been busy the past two days posting on other Paranormal threads, but still hasn't finished up with this one (after begging others to respond to him here).

I don't get it.

 

[Darat]

Where did Bill go? He's been busy the past two days posting on other Paranormal threads, but still hasn't finished up with this one (after begging others to respond to him here).

I don't get it.

I really have lost the plot on what on earth Bill, you, Thanz et all were arguing about at this point however if you look above on this page you'll see that Bill made you an ultimatum about something or t'other.

He ended it with

"Clancie,

AFAIC, you're toast. Butter your butt and slide on outta here. You're long past done."

Which I assume to mean he was finished arguing here?

 

[Clancie]

Hi Darat,

Well, I understand that Bill's decided to ignore my points--which were (1) that his counting method doesn't -work- in principle, and -wouldn't- detect cold reading with mediums like Northrop, for example, unlike Thanz's method which is consistent for everyone., and (2) that he misquoted and misrepresented what Lurker said.

But, apart from his issues with me (and hopefully you're right and he has me permanently on "Ignore" now ), he still hasn't addressed Thanz's and T'ai Chi's questions about his counting method. (Bill, that doesn't mean talking about leopards and radioactivity, just "Question 1...Answer 1. Question 2....Answer 2...." )

They've repeated them for him often enough. He apparently is unable to answer, but it would be decent to end the argument by just coming out and saying so instead of hiding out in other threads and hoping the issue (which he raised in the first place) just fades away....

 

[Interesting Ian]

I really have lost the plot on what on earth Bill, you, Thanz et all were arguing about at this point however if you look above on this page you'll see that Bill made you an ultimatum about something or t'other.

He ended it with

"Clancie,

AFAIC, you're toast. Butter your butt and slide on outta here. You're long past done."

Which I assume to mean he was finished arguing here?

Yes he's slunk away with his tail between his legs. Once again Hoyt, Claus and co have been comprehensively outargued

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes he's slunk away with his tail between his legs. Once again Hoyt, Claus and co have been comprehensively outargued

That was a joke as well. I get it.

 

[Clancie]

In the spirit of helpfulness, here is everything all together, so he can just go down the list (Question 1...Answer 1...etc.):

From Thanz

Question #1:

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?

Question #2

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?

Question #3a

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?

Question #3 b

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?

Question #3 cLikewise, 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?

Question #4You 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....

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.

And, continuing, these were from T'ai Chi:

Question #5

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

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

Question #6

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?

There! That should make it easy Bill, to just take them in order. Q/A-style.....

 

[CFLarsen]

Why not? In the spirit of helpfulness, I'll have a go...

Question #1:

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?

What, exactly, does "honour the process" mean? What, exactly, is the "medium process"? Before these are clearly defined, and generally accepted, then the question is moot.

Question #2

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?

Probably, depending on the clearly defined, and generally accepted, definition, of the "medium process". Can we see one such?

Question #3a

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?

Depends. What if they say "tomato", which botanically is a fruit? It is easy to come up with (relatively) easy taxonomies like this, but what about more fuzzy ones? Before any experiment can be designed, we have to agree on the definitions of these.

Question #3 b

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?

That would depend on the taxonomies. Please define any such possible that could appear in a reading. We cannot allow post-hoc evaluation.

Question #3 c

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?

BEEP! I believe there was something about a specific relative too. However, in this example, three guesses: We know that JE also gets a "DJEE"-sound, which could also be validated as a "George".

Question #4

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....

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.

That one, I cannot address...I can't speak for Hoyt.

Question #5

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

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

Again, the problem of the sound "DJEE". We need precise definitions before a test could be made.

Question #6

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?

I'm up for it. Why not make it 10? 5 from you and 5 from me?

 

[Thanz]

Why not? In the spirit of helpfulness, I'll have a go...

I take you have finally dropped your previous attempt at making a point in this thread?

What, exactly, does "honour the process" mean? What, exactly, is the "medium process"? Before these are clearly defined, and generally accepted, then the question is moot.

IT means that we should try to honour what JE is claiming to do - ie, make connections between the "spirit world" and a sitter.

Probably, depending on the clearly defined, and generally accepted, definition, of the "medium process". Can we see one such?

See above, and thank you.

Depends. What if they say "tomato", which botanically is a fruit? It is easy to come up with (relatively) easy taxonomies like this, but what about more fuzzy ones? Before any experiment can be designed, we have to agree on the definitions of these.

Not realy responsive to the question. One doesn't need to define all that is a fruit to tell that he talking about fruits and that apples and pears are examples of fruits.

That would depend on the taxonomies. Please define any such possible that could appear in a reading. We cannot allow post-hoc evaluation.

How does this respond to the question? Is he asking for one item or three items? It doesn't matter what could be in the category of "fruit" - just how many is he asking for?

BEEP! I believe there was something about a specific relative too. However, in this example, three guesses: We know that JE also gets a "DJEE"-sound, which could also be validated as a "George".

Again, non-responsive. The question was not how many guesses - it was how many J connections. George is not a J connection. I still don't understand why the fact that JE might maniulate it into a "George" to get a hit makes it an extra J guess.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why not? In the spirit of helpfulness, I'll have a go...

You should have another go, really, as you didn't answer much, but simply and stunningly responded to questions with questions, and when you didn't do that, you begged for definitions.

That one, I cannot address...I can't speak for Hoyt.

And he can't, apparently, speak for himself, at least to answer these relevant questions.

problem of the sound "DJEE". We need precise definitions before a test could be made.

So, independent counts, or dependent counts, Claus?

I'm up for it. Why not make it 10? 5 from you and 5 from me?

Great! So is your and Bill's method considering the counts independent, or dependent?

 

[CFLarsen]

You should have another go, really, as you didn't answer much, but simply and stunningly responded to questions with questions, and when you didn't do that, you begged for definitions.

And why is that so wrong? If we do not know what the definitions are, how can we possibly know how to design a test?

And he can't, apparently, speak for himself, at least to answer these relevant questions.

An opinion, of which you are entitled to. Just count yourself lucky that I do not point out where you don't answer "relevant questions".

So, independent counts, or dependent counts, Claus?

Had you paid any attention at all to what I was saying, you would have discovered that I was asking for definitions. You got any?

Great! So is your and Bill's method considering the counts independent, or dependent?

Depends on the definitions, of course. As I made perfectly clear. Before those are established, we cannot move on.

Tell me, T'ai Chi: How can we go on, without clear definitions of what we try to do?

I suspect another question you will dodge.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Tell me, T'ai Chi: How can we go on, without clear definitions of what we try to do?

Now you'll play the definition game until you're bluer in the face.

Good job!!

Two events, A and B, are independent if P(A)*P(B) = P(A and B), where P(blah) means 'the probability of blah'.

Now, Claus (and Bill), please actually answer the question instead of asking me what 'the' means, for example. Quit stalling.

 

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

No, I am not playing any games here. I am asking for clear definitions of the test. If you do not have a very clear idea of what you are looking for, then how will you know if you find it?

It's as simple as that.

I can see why you accept your cherished experiments at face value, without any understanding of what they are. I can see why you dodge this crucial question.

Go check those papers, and see if you can find a definition of "psi". A testable one, please.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I can see why you accept your cherished experiments at face value, without any understanding of what they are. I can see why you dodge this crucial question.

What are you talking about? Cherished experiments? Huh? Face value? What? No understanding? Hmm?

Need I remind you that you avoided the question:

Are the letter counts independent or dependent?

again. Talk about a dodge..

Go check those papers, and see if you can find a definition of "psi". A testable one, please.

Control for (of course fraud, etc.) all known methods of communication. If you get statistically significant effects after replications of these scientific experiments, call this what you like. Some have called it psi. You do tests to see if there is a psi effect using commonly accepted scientific statistical methodology. If the psi effect isn't statistically different from 0, for example, then there is no psi effect.

Here are some definitions from the Cognitive Science Laboratory:

Anomalous Cognition (AC) — A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent. In this process some individuals are able to gain access to information from events outside the range of their senses by a currently not understood mechanism. Several synonyms for this phenomenon are in use: Remote Viewing (RV), Clairvoyance, and ESP.

Anomalous Perturbation (AP) — A form of interaction with matter in which all known physical mechanisms are absent. In other words, some individuals are alleged to be able to influence matter by an as yet unknown process. This phenomenon is also known Psychokinesis (PK).

Anomalous Mental Phenomena (AMP) — A general term that includes AC and AP. This is also known as PSI.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Anomalous Cognition (AC) — A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent. In this process some individuals are able to gain access to information from events outside the range of their senses by a currently not understood mechanism. Several synonyms for this phenomenon are in use: Remote Viewing (RV), Clairvoyance, and ESP.

...snip...

And this definition doesn't set alarm bells ringing for you?

 

[T'ai Chi]

And this definition doesn't set alarm bells ringing for you?

Why would it? Do elaborate..

All known sensorial stimuli are absent yet effects seem to occur that are seen to be strongly against chance, even after replications.

 

[Darat]

Why would it? Do elaborate..

All known sensorial stimuli are absent yet effects seem to occur that are seen to be strongly against chance, even after replications.

But Tai'Chi your paraphrasing isn't what that (or the other) definitions says. Re-read their definition and compare it against yours to see what I mean.

 

[T'ai Chi]

OR, you could just explain what you meant by:

"And this definition doesn't set alarm bells ringing for you?"