Cold Reading Demos at TAM2

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Your error begins with the assumption that because the context may change in such a way as to render a technique useless from time T1 that it was, perforce, useless from time T0.

Lol, Bill. No, my point is actually that there could be plenty of cold readers already (I gave Northrop as just one example) doing cold reading in a way that would not show up as cold reading the way you are measuring it.

My point is that your "J" analysis (which, as everyone has explained, is based on a counting method that objectively makes no sense) only appears consistent with cold reading because you looked at the JE transcripts and managed to figure out a counting method (after the fact) that would make him seem to use "J" more frequently than expected.

That you continue to express no concern that your chosen method clearly does -not- actually measure the presence or absence of cold reading (past, present, or future), only further underscores your bias in choosing this counting method to begin with.

"Radar...zoology...helicopters...." Anything to avoid the point, eh? rofl, Bill.

Yes, I hope this thread gets saved, too.

 

[CFLarsen]

I find it very interesting to observe some people arguing statistics with absolutely no knowledge of what it is.

I wonder what they think they achieve.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I hope this thread gets saved, too.

Rest assured it will.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I find it very interesting to observe some people arguing statistics with absolutely no knowledge of what it is.

I wonder what they think they achieve.

Yes, I too was wondering when Bill is going to shut up.

 

[BillHoyt]

I find it very interesting to observe some people arguing statistics with absolutely no knowledge of what it is.

I wonder what they think they achieve.

No, no, no, Claus. How wrong you are! It is obvious there is only one way to design a test! It is obvious that initials and names are different and cannot be mixed together! It is transparent that, if an experimental method should ever stop working because circumstances change, that that method is retroactively rendered useless. It is abundantly obvious that analogies that involve radar or leopards can't possibly apply to mediumship. The list goes on and on. We should always honor a claimants claims and test within those claims. Dropping presumptions is wrong, wrong, I tell you! You scientists must be lead around by the nose, lest bullsh!t get caught!

The fact that woos cannot tell what is going on with probability density functions is irrelevant. That they can neither understand nor accept that the law of large numbers always applies and that increasing a sample size should result in movement to the mean is immaterial.

The fact they cannot explain how equally and consistently applied methods favor one variable over all the others is irrelevant. It is sufficient to woo-whine "bias!" It works politically, it should work in science and statistics.

 

[BillHoyt]

Yes, I too was wondering when Bill is going to shut up.

And just 15 minutes later, folks, he writes on another thread...

So far, although I know nothing whatsoever about scientific research or statistics, it is very clear to me that peoples criticisms are either hopelessly flawed or empty.

We should all enjoy life, free of the need for facts, truth, critical thought and food. We just need whine.

 

[Interesting Ian]

And just 15 minutes later, folks, he writes on another thread...


We should all enjoy life, free of the need for facts, truth, critical thought and food. We just need whine.

I haven't really been reading this thread, but you have shown in the past that your understanding of probability is abysmal. And you will never to admit to being wrong no matter how patiently people point out your errors.

 

[CFLarsen]

I haven't really been reading this thread, but you have shown in the past that your understanding of probability is abysmal. And you will never to admit to being wrong no matter how patiently people point out your errors.

Saved for posterity.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Saved for posterity.

Thanks

 

[Thanz]

It is obvious that initials and names are different and cannot be mixed together!

It is to everyone but you.....

It is abundantly obvious that analogies that involve radar or leopards can't possibly apply to mediumship.

Radar and leopards are fine, but coins are right out? Of course....

The fact that woos cannot tell what is going on with probability density functions is irrelevant. That they can neither understand nor accept that the law of large numbers always applies and that increasing a sample size should result in movement to the mean is immaterial.

It may move to the mean if you increased the sample size by including more transcripts. All you have done is count multiples of the same guess - just like the coin example I posted. You have yet to refute this.

The fact they cannot explain how equally and consistently applied methods favor one variable over all the others is irrelevant. It is sufficient to woo-whine "bias!" It works politically, it should work in science and statistics.

Consistent application is a red herring. It is consistently wrong. Further, we don't know if it favours one variable over all others as we have only ever tested the J.

Multiple counts of the same guess is a flawed method, whether you count the 4 parts of one bird as 4 birds, "It's heads. Heads? Yeah, heads." as 3 heads or "A J connection, like John or Joe." as 3 J guesses.

You still haven't answered my simple, logical and straightforward questions. If you are so confident in your method, why don't you answer them?

 

[BillHoyt]

It is to everyone but you.....


Radar and leopards are fine, but coins are right out? Of course....


It may move to the mean if you increased the sample size by including more transcripts. All you have done is count multiples of the same guess - just like the coin example I posted. You have yet to refute this.


Consistent application is a red herring. It is consistently wrong. Further, we don't know if it favours one variable over all others as we have only ever tested the J.

Multiple counts of the same guess is a flawed method, whether you count the 4 parts of one bird as 4 birds, "It's heads. Heads? Yeah, heads." as 3 heads or "A J connection, like John or Joe." as 3 J guesses.

You still haven't answered my simple, logical and straightforward questions. If you are so confident in your method, why don't you answer them?

Thanz,

I have refuted everything. Your coin example is specious, because that is not what heppened. I answered your bird-brained bird question as well as all the others. But let me zero in on yet another inanity you spouted:

"Further, we don't know if it favours one variable over all others as we have only ever tested the J."

This evinces complete and utter innumeracy. The universe in Poisson is divided into "events" and "non-events." For the letters, that is "J" and "non-J." If "J"s rise to significance, it must be done at the expense of the rest of the population.

You're an idiot, sir. Quod erat dumbandstrandum. Go away, and stop wasting our time.

 

[Thanz]

I find it very interesting to observe some people arguing statistics with absolutely no knowledge of what it is.

I wonder what they think they achieve.

I wonder what you hoped to achieve with this post.

You must have really amused yourself when you asserted that we should count more than on J guess because it could possibly be manipulated into a "G" on some sounds like theory.

I have posted some very logical arguments in favour of my counting method based on the reality of guessing we see in the transcripts. Mr. Hoyt has not presented any logical argument in favour of his. I have asked him repeatedly to answer questions regarding his methods and his choice of stat tool, most of which have been ignored. If BillHoyt was someone that you considered a woowoo I think you would have been all over him by now with a Larsen List. But I guess Bill gets a free pass from you. Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Thanz]

I have refuted everything. Your coin example is specious, because that is not what heppened.

Actually, it is pretty close to EXACTLY what happens. We see one event - a J guess - repeated multiple times. You count each multiple, and try to justify it on the basis that it happens with other letters as well. Same as the coin example. We have one event - a coin flip - and multiple recordings of this event. Your claim is that we can record all the multiples, because they might do the same thing with some tails as well, and some other heads, etc. But if we after an accurate count of coin flips we must exclude the multiples, which your method spectacularly fails at.

I answered your bird-brained bird question as well as all the others.

Now this is just a flat out lie, sir. I do not call other people liars lightly, but you sir, are a liar. The only response you gave to my bird question was "Strawman". A simple bald assertion with no facts or arguments backing it up. There are several other querstions which you have simply ignored. There is a bulleted list on page 16 of this thread (2-12-2004, 1:11 pm). Where are your answers to these questions?

You're an idiot, sir.

More insults from Mr. Hoyt. They do not mask the fact that you have not (and cannot) support your method. I ask you to please answer the extremely simple questions I have asked you.

Of course, what I expect to get back from you is more insults, perhaps some latin or big stat words, anything but the simple answers to the simple questions I have posed.

There are a bunch of smart people on this board. So far, no one (except your good buddy, Mr. Larsen) has supported your count method. In fact, many others have specifically stated that your method makes no sense. Even Larsen first refused to post his opinion (in the original thread) and only half-heartedly attempted a rationale here that made little sense.

This is not an appeal to popularity - I am simply pointing out the results of the informal "peer review" that gets done around here. Is everyone else really wrong and you oh so right? Your defense of your method reminds me of a true believer defending the Schwartz experiments because they like the results. You need to step back a bit and look logically at what you are analysing.

 

[BillHoyt]

Now this is just a flat out lie, sir. I do not call other people liars lightly, but you sir, are a liar. The only response you gave to my bird question was "Strawman". A simple bald assertion with no facts or arguments backing it up.

Pay attention?

Now let us see what you do with this and the stat point I made just a short while ago. Your choice for the first is to apologize or to apologize. Your choice for the second is to address or deflect. Otherwise, go away.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Try with statistics. Not lengthy explanations.

Just statistics.

 

[BillHoyt]

The whole world's watching, Thanz.

 

[Thanz]

Pay attention?

Now let us see what you do with this and the stat point I made just a short while ago. Your choice for the first is to apologize or to apologize. Your choice for the second is to address or deflect. Otherwise, go away.

I had forgotten about that thread. For that , I apologize. HOwever, I don't think that you adequately addressed it there either. 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.

As for your other stat point, are you referring to your point that J can only become significant at the expense of everything else? I will consider a response to that. First, I would like some co-operation from you in answering the questions and points I have put forth, including the direct comparison of birds and guesses in this post.

 

[Thanz]

The whole world's watching, Thanz.

Really? The whole world? Is this my fifteen minutes of fame? Gee.......

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

What, no statistics?

 

[BillHoyt]

I had forgotten about that thread. For that , I apologize.

You call me a liar. You apologize not for that, but for "forgetting." And you want me to cooperate with you. Yes, folks, the American hat trick. Stupid, stubborn and arrogant is a dangerous mix, sir.


Go away.