Cold Reading Demos at TAM2

[T'ai Chi]

You got the book?

I mean, really, in your hands? Not somewhere else, or at the library or bookstore.

No, I don't have the book.

 

[Clancie]

Hi T'ai Chi,

I have the Ian Rowland book, but could you please explain to me what in the world it has to do with any of the issues regarding the "J" count?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I don't have the book.

Care to tell me how you will discuss the contents of a book without having it? I mean, it's not the first time you pull this: You freely refer to Radin's book without having it (present), either.

I have the Ian Rowland book, but could you please explain to me what in the world it has to do with any of the issues regarding the "J" count?

It's all "related".

 

[T'ai Chi]

Care to tell me how you will discuss the contents of a book without having it?

Because one can obviously talk about the issues in a book without having the book present. One simply cannot cite specific content from specific pages from said book.

Now, you brought up the book and asked me if I wanted to talk about it. I responded 'yes'. So, what exactly did you want to talk to me about from it, Claus?

Clancie wrote:

Hi T'ai Chi,

I have the Ian Rowland book, but could you please explain to me what in the world it has to do with any of the issues regarding the "J" count?

Hi Clancie.

I don't see how the book has anything at all to do with the independence/dependence issues with the letter/name counts that Claus is avoiding. Maybe Claus sees a connection that we don't, or something. I'll humor him and see what he wants to talk about from the book.

Perhaps Claus can enlighten us about why he mentioned the book since he is the one who brought it up? So far, he's only mananged to ask questions about how I can talk about the book instead of asking me about content from the book.
*sigh*

 

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

The Russian Doll.

Read Rowland's book and get back to me.

 

[Thanz]

Thabnk you for your response, michaellee. I can see where you are coming from, but I think that you have forgotten what it is we are counting specifically. I'll try to explain directly in your example.

If a shuffled,standard 52 card deck was placed before me, face down, and I claimed to be able to correctly identify the 10th card from the top(which is the Queen of Spades), and I bet you $10,000 I could identify it in 4 guesses or less, with your confirmation when a guess is correct or incorrect, what would qualify as each of the 4 guesses I made?

If I guessed: "I feel a Spade connection, like a Four or a Five", would this count as 1, 2 or 3 guesses? [/B]

It depends on what you are counting. In the analysis performed by Hoyt and I, we were only counting initial letters. I don't think that it is always appropriate to count a specific name guess as a letter guess, but I have done so in the count. But to carry on with your analogy, the initial letter is like the suit of the card. That is all we are concerned with. The specific card doesn't count, and doesn't matter.

So, if we are looking for a specific card, then I agree it is 3 guesses. If we are just tracking the suit, then it is just one guess - of spades.

Well, when you confirm the Spade connection portion of my statement, I would then have eliminated 39 cards and reduced the odds of my correctly guessing to 1 in 13. A non confirmation on the Four and Five further reduces the odds to 1 in 11 of me guessing correctly.

I agree, but we are not counting that. You are moving on to the specific, and I agree that has value. But in the analysis performed, the specific doesn't matter. Hoyt would count "A spade, like the four of spades or five of spades" as 3 separate guesses of "Spades" - and that each had a chance of 1 in 4 for a hit.

Similarly, If instead I guessed "I feel a Heart connection, like a Ten or a Queen", and you confirmed the Queen connection, but non-confirmed the Heart connection, the odds of me picking the card would drop to 1 in 3.

That isn't how the guessing works with letters, however. Again, to analogize we would only be concerned with the Heart, and not with the other specifics.

In these scenarios, my guess of "spades" and the guess of "hearts" are the equivalent of JE's guess of "a J connection"; and my guesses of 'Four or a Five' and 'Ten or a Queen' are the equivalent of JE's "John or Joe" guesses. The spade and heart guesses allow for a greater chance of a correct guess and a minor hit, while the 'Jack or a 5' and Ten or a Queen' guesses allows for the chance of a major hit.

But notice that you are treating the guess of "4 or 5" differently than just the guess for "spade". Hoyt's method treats them exactly the same, and that is the problem.

Now in either scenario, how many more guesses do I get(remember, $10,000 is riding!). Of course, I have ONE guess remaining, as I used THREE guesses in each scenario.
In either case, "I feel a Spade connection, like a 4 or a 5", and "I feel a Heart connection, like a Ten or a Queen" constitutes 3 guesses while seeking one card, just as JE's "Like a J connection, John or Joe" constitutes 3 guesses while seeking one connection.

I would agree with you if the analysis we were doing was more sophisticated. If, for example, we looked at "J, like john or joe", and used the J to eliminate the other letters, and examined the likelihood that a J connection is either John or Joe, then absolutely count each guess. But the analysis that we are doing focusses solely on the letter, or in your example, the suit. I'll adapt my previous examples to your card case.

If we are only concerned with how many Suit guesses we make, how do you count this:

Deck 1:
JE: A spade, like 4 or 5.

Deck 2:
JE: A spade

Deck 3:
JE: The queen of Spades

Deck 4:
JE: the 6 of spades


Now, if you are only concerned with how many times JE guessed a spade - and you are comparing each spade guess to the total number of spades there are in the deck - do you really count his guess in deck one the same as the other three decks combined?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Darat
I've no idea if "AC" exists - it may do and it may not do - so no problem there. And I don't have a problem with the definition either, after all they can define it to be whatever they want.


II
OK . . . so why are alarm bells ringing for you??

Did Darat ever answer my question here?

 

[Ersby]

Thanks to michaelllee for such a good post that made everyone thing. I wish I had time to give it justice, but I'd like to remind everyone that, analogously, in a reading, the sitter may well be holding more than one cards (ie, know of more than one deceased person) for the medium to guess.

While I still consider Thanz's method the most accurate, I'm grateful for michaelllee's input and the questions that it prompted.

 

[Darat]

Did Darat ever answer my question here?

Quick answer - No.

 

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai Chi,

The Russian Doll.

Read Rowland's book and get back to me.

Oh, dude, I have read it, which is why I said in response to your question that sure, I'd like to talk about it if you wanted to.

You will get back to me, won't you?

Will you address the letter/name counts on that same cold day too?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Did Darat ever answer my question here?

You should make a list!

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, dude, I have read it, which is why I said in response to your question that sure, I'd like to talk about it if you wanted to.

Good, then let's talk about The Russian Doll.

What do you think of Rowlands claim on page 81, halfway down?

You will get back to me, won't you?

I just did. Your call.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by (and to) T'ai Chi

The Russian Doll.

Read Rowland's book and get back to me.

Well, maybe someone will enlighten me what this has to do with anything we're discussing about the "J" count. Here's the excerpt from Ian's book, The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading (length + paraphrasing meets copyright laws):

The Russian Doll consists of a statement which can have several possible layers of meaning (also called 'Onion Skin' statements). The psychic gives an initial statement and then keeps offering other possible meanings until he gets a hit. An example (mine, modeled after Ian's since I know he doesn't like his work reproduced word for word....):

Psychic: I'd like to tell you about your son. You have a son, yes?

Sitter: No.

Psychic: Well, it could be your son-in-law

Sitter: No son-in-law either

Psychic: Well it's definitely a son relationship to you. Is there someone that you feel that close to, someone you really feel is "just like a son"?

Sitter: Well, there's my nephew. He spends almost every weekend with us. So, yes, we're very close.

And...this relates to 'J' count issues....exactly how?

 

[Darat]

You should make a list!

Hmm...

Let me help you out. I have answered the questions about what I actually said. I haven't answered Ian's question about what I didn't say...

Perhaps I am strange but I don't feel any sort of obligations to answer a question about something I didn't say.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

I don't feel any sort of obligations to answer a question about something I didn't say.

Well, I'm not sure about what you and Ian are arguing, but just wanted to say that, generally speaking, I also support this "posting policy" 100%!

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, maybe someone will enlighten me what this has to do with anything we're discussing about the "J" count. Here's the excerpt from Ian's book, The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading (length + paraphrasing meets copyright laws):

I would be delighted to "enlighten" you, Clancie. However, this requires for you to stop pretending that you ignore me.

And...this relates to 'J' count issues....exactly how?

I'm right here, Clancie. If you really want to discuss this, I am right here.

I will not discuss by proxy. I find that rude.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Good, then let's talk about The Russian Doll.

What do you think of Rowlands claim on page 81, halfway down?

I just did. Your call.

I think it is interesting.

Your move.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm right here, Clancie. If you really want to discuss this, I am right here.

I will not discuss by proxy. I find that rude.

But Claus, did you forgot that you already said that you aren't interesting in discussing, period?

LOL!!

 

[CFLarsen]

I think it is interesting.

Your move.

What parts, specifically? Your move.

But Claus, did you forgot that you already said that you aren't interesting in discussing, period?

LOL!!

As usual, you leave out the crucial part: I am not interested in discussing without the aim of finding answers.

Dishonest and petty.

 

[T'ai Chi]

What parts, specifically? Your move.

The part about multiple layers.

So... did you have something specific to talk about?

As usual, you leave out the crucial part: I am not interested in discussing without the aim of finding answers.

Dishonest and petty.

Stick to the issues please.

For example, the issue of you trying to "forget" talking about the letter/name counts independence/dependence..

Or the issue of you "forgetting" to provide evidence for your claim that psi effect decrease with study quality.

Any time Cl...aimant!