Cold Reading Demos at TAM2

[BillHoyt]

Just be sure to leave the ball, Jr.

For the most part, I think the criticism of your analysis method has been very insightful. The statistical issues involved here are not so clear cut. They are actually pretty tricky.

Label your critics all you want; that still won't help your analysis any, nor address any actual issues.

Will you address the issues of independence?

Will you analyze, say 5 transcripts and have Thanz do the same and present your results side by side with his?

Okay, done with Tr'oll.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes. Thanz. Certainly. Does.

You. Are. Most. Welcome. To. Show. That. He. Has.

From a statistical point of view, of course. Otherwise, shut up.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Okay, done with Tr'oll.

You missed addressing these important questions:

Will you address the issues of independence?

Will you analyze, say 5 transcripts and have Thanz do the same and present your results side by side with his?

 

[T'ai Chi]

You. Are. Most. Welcome. To. Show. That. He. Has.

Thanz himself already has explained himself very well.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz himself already has explained himself very well.

Try to explain it yourself, instead of relying on other people.

Blind us with your knowledge.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Try to explain it yourself, instead of relying on other people.

Blind us with your knowledge.

Um, ...irrelevant? I merely mentioned that Thanz already explained it very well.

You do seem to want to change the topic all the time.

 

[CFLarsen]

Um, ...irrelevant? I merely mentioned that Thanz already explained it very well.

Has he, really? It's not enough to just claim that he has. You seem unwilling to explain how. Hm....nothing new here.

You do seem to want to change the topic all the time.

Quite contrary. I stay focused. Try to do the same.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Has he, really?

Yes, he has really. He really really really has!

Why do you think Willy left in a huff?

It's not enough to just claim that he has.

No kidding, but since he actually has, it is enough.

You seem unwilling to explain how.

He mentioned the problems with independence. Why you feel it is now my job to repeat things he did or summarize them for you or anybody is beyond me.

Claus, let me ask you a simple question; would you consider the counts independent or not in the following example:

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

The first guess of a 'J name', sure, I can see that. The following, nope, because they are certainly dependent because you know for certain they are going to be J names! We can also see, in this example anyway, that Joseph certainly depends on the previous name of Joe.

Since one assumption for the analysis of counts is that they are independent, this assumption is violated.

Or would you, along with Bill, count the above as 5?

Quite contrary. I stay focused.

You're focused, sure, but probably on the wrong things.

 

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

You merely repeat your claim....and then, divert by asking me a question, shifting the focus from you to me.

Nice going.

 

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai Chi,
You merely repeat your claim....and then, divert by asking me a question, shifting the focus from you to me.
Nice going.

Sorry skippy, you'll not evade this since this issue is the very heart of the matter, and everyone's main criticism of Bill's counting scheme:

Would you consider the counts independent or not in the following example:

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

The first guess of a 'J name', sure, I can see that. The following, nope, because they are certainly dependent because you know for certain they are going to be J names! We can also see, in this example anyway, that Joseph certainly depends on the previous name of Joe.

Since one assumption for the analysis of counts is that they are independent, this assumption is violated.

Would you, along with Bill, count the above as 5?

 

[CFLarsen]

Sorry skippy, you'll not evade this since this issue is the very heart of the matter, and everyone's main criticism of Bill's counting scheme:

Would you consider the counts independent or not in the following example:

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

The first guess of a 'J name', sure, I can see that. The following, nope, because they are certainly dependent because you know for certain they are going to be J names! We can also see, in this example anyway, that Joseph certainly depends on the previous name of Joe.

Since one assumption for the analysis of counts is that they are independent, this assumption is violated.

Would you, along with Bill, count the above as 5?

Sorry, I'm not playing your feeble games. Stay focused or stay away.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Sorry, I'm not playing your feeble games. Stay focused or stay away.

Interesting how my questions are feeble games but your questions are somehow not.

'Smatter? Can't answer it? 5, or not. 5, or not. I made it really easy for you.

Oh, by the way, so you don't have to scroll back:

Would you consider the counts independent or not in the following example:

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

The first guess of a 'J name', sure, I can see that. The following, nope, because they are certainly dependent because you know for certain they are going to be J names! We can also see, in this example anyway, that Joseph certainly depends on the previous name of Joe.

Since one assumption for the analysis of counts is that they are independent, this assumption is violated.

Would you, along with Bill, count the above as 5?

 

[CFLarsen]

Interesting how my questions are feeble games but your questions are somehow not.

Interesting to see how eager you are to shift focus, and still claim that you do not.

 

[BillHoyt]

"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."

Tr'oll's out of the game, but I'm still waiting to hear from Thanz and Kaffee Klatch. Lady and Gentlemen, I have spent far more than enough time with you shucking and jiving, dodging and diverting. I will no longer countenance your hollow claims of diversions, your hollow howls of bias or your unfounded claims of procedural artifact. "Squarely, directly, accurately and insightfully" or you can just whine amongst yourselves. If you are not sure what the real issues are, refer to my last post before the post in which I first issued this challenge.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Interesting to see how eager you are to shift focus, and still claim that you do not.

Yeah, the answers to these questions would be interesting too:

Would you consider the counts independent or not in the following example:

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

The first guess of a 'J name', sure, I can see that. The following, nope, because they are certainly dependent because you know for certain they are going to be J names! We can also see, in this example anyway, that Joseph certainly depends on the previous name of Joe.

Since one assumption for the analysis of counts is that they are independent, this assumption is violated.

Would you, along with Bill, count the above as 5?

Being is this is the main argument in this thread, I fail to see how it is shifting focus. Your squirming is noted.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Lady and Gentlemen, I have spent far more than enough time with you shucking and jiving, dodging and diverting. I will no longer countenance your hollow claims of diversions, your hollow howls of bias or your unfounded claims of procedural artifact. "Squarely, directly, accurately and insightfully" or you can just whine amongst yourselves. If you are not sure what the real issues are, refer to my last post before the post in which I first issued this challenge.

Maybe you can help Claus out here... ?

Squarely, directly, accurately, insightfully; done!, but I'll repeat myself:
Would you consider the counts independent or not in the following example:

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

and

Will you analyze, say 5 transcripts and have Thanz do the same and present your results side by side with his?

You may answer these squarely, directly, accurately and insightfully as well, or scamper and chalk up such essential questions among your methods' critics as shucking and jiving, dodging and diverting, or howls and unfounded claims, whine, or whatever you want them to be.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
One collision can result in two or three or more. There are markov chains within the mass under investigation. Yet, the Poisson model is perfectly applicable until the mean gets too high, and one must switch to normal.

Why do you think the Poisson model is perfectly applicable?

If the probability of a decay happening in the next second depends on whether a decay happened in the last second, the decay process in question is not a Poisson process.

(Slightly off-topic: Also, it would be more correct to say, "... and one can switch to normal." Using the normal approximation to the Poisson distribution is convenient, but continuing to use the Poisson distribution is certainly not incorrect.)

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz, please. You are really, really struggling here, and you think you can make it look like you are not?

He's got me fooled, at least.

 

[BillHoyt]

Why do you think the Poisson model is perfectly applicable?

If the probability of a decay happening in the next second depends on whether a decay happened in the last second, the decay process in question is not a Poisson process.

(Slightly off-topic: Also, it would be more correct to say, "... and one can switch to normal." Using the normal approximation to the Poisson distribution is convenient, but continuing to use the Poisson distribution is certainly not incorrect.)

69dodge,

I said "one collision can". The probability of decay of a single atom is a separate matter. Not every such decay yields a sub-chain. It would not be more correct to say "can switch". One must because, if the sub-chains begin to dominate the overall process, the distribution becomes normal. It violates parts 4 and 5 of the definition of a Poisson process. The extreme example is a nuclear explosion, where the sub-chains have overwhelmed the simple, single-atom decays.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
And therein lies the statistical question that is giving a charlie horse from dancing so fast: does it reveal a random mini-Poisson, or something decidedly non-Random.

?

I can't make heads or tails out of that, sorry. (And pardon the pun.)

I have stated this before, only to be met with lame and non-statistical responses. The "J"s, if random, would have regressed to the mean. Tr'oll won't handle this issue either. We can only speculate why. But they didn't regresss to the mean.

They aren't expected to regress to the mean as quickly, if they aren't independent.

You note that both the numerator and denominator doubled, suggesting there was a non-random coefficient.

Let me whip out, then, the other thing I've brought up time and again, that you chose to ignore: Lurker's claim. He summarized his collection and analysis of a totally separate JE transcript this way:

"Hoyt:
9 J guesses
10 non-J guesses
Poisson says reject null hypothesis

Lurker
2 J guesses
5 non-J guesses"

Note, please the great disparity in growth of the Js versus the non-Js. Js grew by 4.5 -fold, while non-Js doubled.

Clearly, your overcount-pushes-it-into-significance claim has a fatal problem, doesn't it?

No, not really.

"overcount-pushes-it-into-significance" is a somewhat oversimplified way of describing the problem, although it is essentially correct. Here's a better way:<blockquote>The possibility of overcounting due to dependence between guesses means that we should not base our significance test on the Poisson distribution, because that distribution assumes the guesses are independent.</blockquote>This argument does not depend on the specific results of any count; it can be made before any counting is done. What it depends on is the previously-known fact that John Edward tends to rattle off a list of names with the same first letter.