Cold Reading Demos at TAM2

[Upchurch]

Th'is is the la'st ti'me thr'ough th'is, a'** h'ole. S'o l'isten up. Th'e nu'll hyp'othesis must f'it th'e mod'el, no't th'e mea'sured da'ta. W'e are tes'ting th'e mea'sured da'ta, du'fus. Th'e nu'll hyp'othesis ab'solutely f'its the mod'el. The da'ta fr'om th'e nu'll hyp'othesis are ind'ependent. Th'en w'e s'ee if the mea'sured da'ta f'its the mod'el. Th'ey didn't, d'ork. Th'at is ho'w sc'ience wo'rks, bo'zo.

[modu]This post has been reported for language.

While the ' does not make it one contiguous word, it's pushing the limit. I'm not going to take any action, but I recommend not pushing this any further.[/modu]

Edited by Pyrrho: 

Edited to apply asterisks.

 

[Thanz]

Absolute rubbish, which has already been addressed.

You know, I don't think that you calling it "malarky", as you did in the other thread, really qualifies as actually addressing the issues. Of course, you don't want to address the actual issues or answer simple questions. That would get in the way of you being a condescending jerk issuing pronouncements from on high.

 

[BillHoyt]

You know, I don't think that you calling it "malarky", as you did in the other thread, really qualifies as actually addressing the issues. Of course, you don't want to address the actual issues or answer simple questions. That would get in the way of you being a condescending jerk issuing pronouncements from on high.

It has already been addressed. Over 25 friggin pages here and - what 30+ friggin pages before. You are a jerk for continuing this charade of understanding hypothesis testing issues. Every issue you continue to whine about has been addressed. The issue of initials versus names is utterly specious, and your harping on it simply evinces a total lack of understanding about hypothesis testing.

[edited to add:] And each radioactive decay is NOT the same, sir. That was the whole point of raising the issue. Sometimes the decay of one atom collides into another, forcing another decay. Sometimes that one forces a third. And, sometimes a fourth. That constitutes a Markov chain. That is a doubly stochastic process, much like the doubly stochastic process we observe JE engage in. That is the point.

 

[Thanz]

THANZ and ERSBY---

Thanks to you both for your honest and thoughtful posts re:the JE independent vs. dependent count argument. I, as both of you, think I see both sides of the argument, and believe it to come down to a matter of semantics and/or personal belief on what side to look at and attack the problem from. For me, without trying to sound shrill, I believe in the long run, the question of independent vs. dependent "J", "Joe" etc.. counts to be toward the bottom of the entire investigatory scale when it comes to analyzing JE's techniques or expertise. A few less or more guesses does not deter my belief that JE is an expert cold reader, after reading many transcripts and other writings concerning cold reading of this fashion. But, of course, opinions do and always will differ, and arguing over trivial (yet important) aspects just seem to deter from the overall picture, encouraging back and forth repetitive argument while preventing further, meaningful analysis. Such is the reality when discussing this subject matter.

For the record, I agree with you here. I don't know how much of this debate you have been following, but it started in another thread where someone (I think Kerberos) did an analysis of a number of different letters. I gave the opinion that we did not have a large enough sample to conclude anything worthwhile, as we were dealing with just 4 LKL transcripts.

The problem started because I used the word "significant". Hoyt took it upon himself to prove me wrong - and concocted his test of J to find a significant (in statistical terms) result. I wonder how many tests he did before he found one that was significant. Anyway, I did not mean "significant" as a stat term, but rather as in "useful for telling us anything about JE and cold reading" .

So, like you I remain of the opinion that JE is a skilled cold reader. I am also of the opinion that analyzing one letter from 4 transcripts is pretty useless. What irked me about Mr. Hoyt was his use of a trumped up analysis to try and say something meaningful. This kind of garbage only makes skeptics look bad, IMO. Nobody else agreed with his method, even though most agree that JE is a cold reader.

I take the blame for much of the wasted bandwidth. I should have realized that zealot Bill won't change his mind. Arguing with him is pointless. It is like wrestling with a pig - you both get dirty, but the pig likes it. Oh well.

In any event, thanks for bringing a fresh perspective to a debate that had gotten stale and probably bored away quite a few posters.

 

[Thanz]

It has already been addressed. Over 25 friggin pages here and - what 30+ friggin pages before. You are a jerk for continuing this charade of understanding hypothesis testing issues. Every issue you continue to whine about has been addressed. The issue of initials versus names is utterly specious, and your harping on it simply evinces a total lack of understanding about hypothesis testing.

A perfect example of what I am talking about. note that Hoyt makes no actual substantive points here - but does include a number of insults. He labels the issue of "Joe" being the same as "J" as specious, but has no actual argument against it. He asserts that every issue has been addressed, but he knows that there are several simple questions that remain unanswered by him, including the refined bird example.

[edited to add:] And each radioactive decay is NOT the same, sir. That was the whole point of raising the issue. Sometimes the decay of one atom collides into another, forcing another decay. Sometimes that one forces a third. And, sometimes a fourth. That constitutes a Markov chain. That is a doubly stochastic process, much like the doubly stochastic process we observe JE engage in. That is the point.

As I said before, I am not well versed in radioactive decay. From your description, however, it seems that one decay may cause an event that is substantially the same as the other events - a decaying atom. I don't know if there is anything that would be akin to the alphabet which would cause the classification of the atoms to be important or not. If not, that is another reason why the analogy may not be apt. But of course, I don't have knowledge of radioactive decay and I am going soley by your descriptions. I remain unconvinced that your analogy is appropriate and radioacive decay does not convince me that your counting method makes simple logical sense.

 

[BillHoyt]

A perfect example of what I am talking about. note that Hoyt makes no actual substantive points here - but does include a number of insults. He labels the issue of "Joe" being the same as "J" as specious, but has no actual argument against it. He asserts that every issue has been addressed, but he knows that there are several simple questions that remain unanswered by him, including the refined bird example.

Answered, stop lying.

 

[Thanz]

Answered, stop lying.

Please. You link to a general statement, followed by another assertion that my point is "specious" as addressing my point? I didn't accept it then, and I don't accept it now.

You have utterly failed to back up your method with simple logic, and you have avoided my simple questions.

 

[BillHoyt]

Please. You link to a general statement, followed by another assertion that my point is "specious" as addressing my point? I didn't accept it then, and I don't accept it now.

You have utterly failed to back up your method with simple logic, and you have avoided my simple questions.

Do you need remedial english, sir? "Statistics doesn't demand sameness; it demands categorization."

THAT IS AN ANSWER. THAT IS THE ANSWER.

Stop lying. I am done with you.

 

[Clancie]

This would be a great time for a poll.

Personally, I can't imagine how anyone who's followed this (except for Claus and Bill, of course) would think that Bill has supported his chosen method of "J" analysis---or addressed the questions that it has raised.

 

[Thanz]

Do you need remedial english, sir? "Statistics doesn't demand sameness; it demands categorization."

That is a general statement. It does nothing to back up the specifics of your method. It does nothing to logically back up your assertion that "J" and "Joe" belong in the same category. And it is called "disagreeing" not lying, bozo.

I have asked you several very simple questions, and all you have done is danced around them. You yell. You insult. You make general statements. You talk about radioactive decay. Anything but actually address the simple direct questions put to you or back up your method with simple logic. You're not fooling anyone, with the possible exception of Mr. Larsen.

 

[CFLarsen]

This would be a great time for a poll.

The validity of statistics is not decided by popular vote.

Personally, I can't imagine how anyone who's followed this (except for Claus and Bill, of course) would think that Bill has supported his chosen method of "J" analysis---or addressed the questions that it has raised.

That may be so. However, it would be nice if the discussion could focus on statistics, and now how people personally imagine how they are.

 

[Thanz]

The validity of statistics is not decided by popular vote.

That may be so. However, it would be nice if the discussion could focus on statistics, and now how people personally imagine how they are.

I thought that you had lost interest in this thread. I guess that you cannot resist responding to any post by Clancie.

While I agree that "the validity of statistics is not decided by popular vote", there is a little concept known as peer review. And in this instance, Bill stands alone in the defense of his method, while the other poster peers appear to have decided that his method is suspect.

 

[BillHoyt]

While I agree that "the validity of statistics is not decided by popular vote", there is a little concept known as peer review. And in this instance, Bill stands alone in the defense of his method, while the other poster peers appear to have decided that his method is suspect.

"Peer review" reduced to an ad populem. You are an droll little woo in skeptic's clothing.

 

[Thanz]

"Peer review" reduced to an ad populem. You are an droll little woo in skeptic's clothing.

Not at all. There are a lot of smart people on this board. A lot of people who have knowledge of things like statistics. I am not asking people to vote on anything. I am simply pointing out that the substantive comments made by almost anyone else on this board regarding your counting method find it to be lacking - and lacking it is.

You call me a "woo" for no discernable reason. Is it just that anyone who dares disagree with you is a woo? I note that, once again, you have retreated to hurling insults instead of addressing anything substantive. You are nothing more than a bully. You are a pathetically small person, Mr. Hoyt. I feel sorry for you.

 

[CFLarsen]

I thought that you had lost interest in this thread. I guess that you cannot resist responding to any post by Clancie.

No, I had lost interest in the pointless bickering. But should we, when we see a logical fallacy being used, be silent?

I don't think so.

While I agree that "the validity of statistics is not decided by popular vote", there is a little concept known as peer review. And in this instance, Bill stands alone in the defense of his method, while the other poster peers appear to have decided that his method is suspect.

I hardly think anyone would find you or Clancie "peers" within the field of statistics. No offense, of course.

Could you whip up a quick list of people who have disagreed with Hoyt's statistical analysis, and who has not?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Do you need remedial english, sir?

There is no need for rudeness.

 

[BillHoyt]

There is no need for rudeness.

 

[Thanz]

I hardly think anyone would find you or Clancie "peers" within the field of statistics. No offense, of course.

"No offense"? I'm sure. Considering your own knowledge of statistics and some of the posts you have made here, I don't think you should be throwing stones.

Could you whip up a quick list of people who have disagreed with Hoyt's statistical analysis, and who has not?

Quick list of those who don't support BillHoyt's counting: Lurker, Ersby, Tai Chi, Walter wayne, 69dodge, BNiles, voidx, Ian, Clancie

agree with hoyt: You? Perhaps Darat, on the basis of Michaellee's arguments, who now seems to be in the middle.

Even if you don't like to rely on me, tai clancie or ian, what about the opinions of ersby, Walter wayne, lurker, 69dodge and bniles - all of whom, I think, agree that JE is likely a cold reader.

 

[CFLarsen]

"No offense"? I'm sure. Considering your own knowledge of statistics and some of the posts you have made here, I don't think you should be throwing stones.

I am not "throwing stones" here. I am merely pointing out that you and Clancie do not have a background in statistics. There is no need to be offended, just because you don't have that.

Quick list of those who don't support BillHoyt's counting: Lurker, Ersby, Tai Chi, Walter wayne, 69dodge, BNiles, voidx, Ian, Clancie

agree with hoyt: You? Perhaps Darat, on the basis of Michaellee's arguments, who now seems to be in the middle.

Thank you. Have you conferred with these people, or is it merely your opinion?

Similarly, of the people listed, who have backgrounds in statistics?

Even if you don't like to rely on me, tai clancie or ian, what about the opinions of ersby, Walter wayne, lurker, 69dodge and bniles - all of whom, I think, agree that JE is likely a cold reader.

Again, it is not about opinions, but knowledge of statistics. It's not a popularity contest.

 

[Thanz]

Thank you. Have you conferred with these people, or is it merely your opinion?

Similarly, of the people listed, who have backgrounds in statistics?

It is what I surmise based on their postings. I could not tell you their backgrounds.

I will say again, however, that one doesn't necessarily need a background in statistics to talk about a logical counting method for JE transcripts.