Cold Reading Demos at TAM2

[CFLarsen]

OMG, Ian....

You know all those people who put you on "Ignore" the other day? I didn't "get it" then, but now, thanks to Claus, we understand why!

They've got you on "Ignore" because they're all obsessed with you!!! rofl.

As usual, you cannot seem to just stick to the plain truth. It seems to be ingrained in you, this need to deceive.

I specifically pointed to you having the need to put me in your sig, so everyone can see how much you "ignore" me.

Which you don't. You have plenty of times addressed my posts, without anyone reposting them. I have no idea why you maintain this charade, but I guess you have your reasons.

None of the other posters, who have Ian on ignore, feel the need to boast about it in their sigs. That's why they are not obsessed with Ian. That's why you are obsessed with me.

That was my point, but you felt the need to distort it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

There is a simple test we can do to rate a poster's 'obsession' with another poster, which I will define as one poster posting about another poster.

Let N(x,y) be the number of posts from person x in which person x writes about person y.

So one could see if N(Claus, Clancie) is larger than N(Clancie, Claus), to see if Claus is more obsessed with Clancie, or if Clancie is more obsessed with Claus.

It is labor intensive by hand though. Who wants wade though thousands of pages? I think a script (or maybe even using the boards' search feature?) could do it pretty easily.

I did a search by username CFLarsen ('match exact name') and searched for the keyword Clancie, and chose to 'show results as posts' and got

N(CFLarsen, Clancie) = 612.

I did a search by Clancie and searched for the keyword CFLarsen, and got

N(Clancie, CFLarsen) = 80. However, being that Clancie doesn't address Claus as CFLarsen, but rather as Claus, we have to calculate N(Clancie, Claus) to be more realistic. Doing that I got

N(Clancie, Claus) = 224.

Even the sum N(Clancie, CFLarsen) + N(Clancie, Claus) = 80 + 224 = 304 is still smaller than N(CFLarsen, Clancie) = 612.

Based on the definition of obsessed and the evidence, it would seem that Claus is more obsessed with Clancie, than Clancie is obsessed with Claus.

 

[BillHoyt]

Perhaps you and Bill could list your statistical experience too, since you seem interested in the statistical backgrounds of people in this thread?

I'm a street sweeper. How does that affect my logic or the veracity of my assertions?

I'm a strip club bouncer. How does that affect my logic or the veracity of my assertions?

I'm an MD/PhD with special research interests in net poseurs who claim degrees they didn't even buy from a matchbook cover. How does that affect my logic or the veracity of my assertions?

I'm a nine-year-old girl with a damned simple design that cuts through to the underlying claim of the psi healing technique, TT. How does that affect my logic or the veracty of my assertions?

I'm a white coat wearing, paunchy, balding, middle-aged, clipboard toting PhD working in a computer science lab. How does that affect my logic or the veracity of my assertions?

You have to get over your fixation with authority.

 

[Darat]

There is a simple test we can do to rate a poster's 'obsession' with another poster, which I will define as one poster posting about another poster.

Let N(x,y) be the number of posts from person x in which person x writes about person y.

So one could see if N(Claus, Clancie) is larger than N(Clancie, Claus), to see if Claus is more obsessed with Clancie, or if Clancie is more obsessed with Claus.

It is labor intensive by hand though. Who wants wade though thousands of pages? I think a script (or maybe even using the boards' search feature?) could do it pretty easily.

I did a search by username CFLarsen ('match exact name') and searched for the keyword Clancie, and chose to 'show results as posts' and got

N(CFLarsen, Clancie) = 612.

I did a search by Clancie and searched for the keyword CFLarsen, and got

N(Clancie, CFLarsen) = 80. However, being that Clancie doesn't address Claus as CFLarsen, but rather as Claus, we have to calculate N(Clancie, Claus) to be more realistic. Doing that I got

N(Clancie, Claus) = 224.

Even the sum N(Clancie, CFLarsen) + N(Clancie, Claus) = 80 + 224 = 304 is still smaller than N(CFLarsen, Clancie) = 612.

Based on the definition of obsessed and the evidence, it would seem that Claus is more obsessed with Clancie, than Clancie is obsessed with Claus.

You've made a simple error here T'ai Chi because the forum search function does not include the "signature" which appears on every post a poster makes.

Looking at Clancie's post number the number of times her posts mention Claus is in fact 3116 (correct at time of composition).

So we would get 3116 posts from Clancie "about" Claus and only 612 (if your figure is correct) posts from Claus "about" Clancie.

Just goes to show why we have to be careful with “definitions”…

 

[CFLarsen]

You've made a simple error here T'ai Chi because the forum search function does not include the "signature" which appears on every post a poster makes.

And T'ai Chi wonders why his statistical skills are questioned....

 

[Clancie]

T'ai Chi,
Knowledge applied to real life examples! Thank you very much for settling that so quickly! (Undoubtedly further attempts at obfuscation from some quarters will inevitably follow, though! )

Posted by Bill Hoyt

I'm a street sweeper. How does that affect my logic or the veracity of my assertions?

I'm a strip club bouncer. How does that affect my logic or the veracity of my assertions?....

I'm a nine-year-old girl with a damned simple design that cuts through to the underlying claim of the psi healing technique, TT. How does that affect my logic or the veracty of my assertions?

....You have to get over your fixation with authority.

Great, Bill. We're in agreement then. You're no authority.

I still see no "Q/A 1-6" for you. But, hey. At least you finally specifically addressed something!


P.S. T'ai. It seems you've won the "battle of the math/stat" credentials hands down....not that -you- ever seemed to care about the "bragging rights" one way or the other.


edited to add: Darat....and that really makes sense to you that a name mentioned as part of a sig line is the same as making an actual post to or about that person? riiighhtt....

 

[Darat]

...snip...

edited to add: Darat, and that really makes sense to you a name mentioned as part of a sig line as a post to or about that person? riiighhtt....

You are joking?

In every single post of yours it mentions Claus (twice in fact), no matter what the topic anything you post on this forum mentions Claus.

If it isn't to be read or doesn't mean anything why on earth do you have it on every post?

 

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,
Knowledge applied to real life examples! Thank you very much for settling that so quickly! (Undoubtedly further attempts at obfuscation from some quarters will inevitably follow, though! )

Not "obfuscation", Clancie. T'ai Chi is simply wrong.

P.S. T'ai. It seems you've won the "battle of the math/stat" credentials hands down....not that -you- ever seemed to care about the "bragging rights" one way or the other.

Ahahahahahahaaaaaa......

edited to add: Darat, and that really makes sense to you a name mentioned as part of a sig line as a post to or about that person? riiighhtt....

Who is now obfuscating, Clancie? My whole point was about your sig. Everytime you post, your sig is shown.

This is really becoming pathetic fast....

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm a street sweeper. How does that affect my logic or the veracity of my assertions?

I'm a strip club bouncer. How does that affect my logic or the veracity of my assertions?

I'm an MD/PhD with special research interests in net poseurs who claim degrees they didn't even buy from a matchbook cover. How does that affect my logic or the veracity of my assertions?

I'm a nine-year-old girl with a damned simple design that cuts through to the underlying claim of the psi healing technique, TT. How does that affect my logic or the veracty of my assertions?

I'm a white coat wearing, paunchy, balding, middle-aged, clipboard toting PhD working in a computer science lab. How does that affect my logic or the veracity of my assertions?

You have to get over your fixation with authority.

You could be a software designer Bill, I could care less.

Claus is the one asking, didn't you read that? After you didn't want me to post my degree, I backed off that route. You still didn't address my statistics questions though.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You've made a simple error here T'ai Chi because the forum search function does not include the "signature" which appears on every post a poster makes.

I didn't include that because peoples' sig files change, and also, more importantly, because the forum software doesn't search them, it is too labor intensive to do by hand.

I also didn't base my simple measure of obsessiveness on the percentage of posts that are obsessive, that is, I didn't consider (N/total posts)*100%, as I consider a lot of posts on this board to be 'filler', thus deflating the measure considerably.

 

[T'ai Chi]

And T'ai Chi wonders why his statistical skills are questioned....

Only questioned by you and Bill, with no evidence?, I could care less.

And it is no wonder why yours are questioned... wait.. they don't exist.

See my comments below on why I didn't include content of sig files or consider (N/total posts)*100%.

 

[CFLarsen]

You can solely address my statistical or mathematical arguments, Claus.

But you demand to see our credentials, you hypocrite?

Claus is the one asking, didn't you read that? After you didn't want me to post my degree, I backed off that route. You still didn't address my statistics questions though.

You also asked for Hoyt's credentials, you hypocrite.

I didn't include that because peoples' sig files change, and also, more importantly, because the forum software doesn't search them, it is too labor intensive to do by hand.

I also didn't base my simple measure of obsessiveness on the percentage of posts that are obsessive, that is, I didn't consider (N/total posts)*100%, as I consider a lot of posts on this board to be 'filler', thus deflating the measure considerably.

That doesn't make you right, T'ai Chi.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Not "obfuscation", Clancie. T'ai Chi is simply wrong.

Who is now obfuscating, Clancie? My whole point was about your sig. Everytime you post, your sig is shown.

See my comments below on why I didn't include the sig files or consider (N/total posts)*100%..

By your own arguments Claus and Darat, Clancie could change her sig, and then Claus would be more obsessive again. LOL.

 

[CFLarsen]

See my comments below on why I didn't include the sig files or consider (N/total posts)*100%..

Excuses does not make you right.

By your own arguments Claus and Darat, Clancie could change her sig, and then Claus would be more obsessive again. LOL.

And?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

If it isn't to be read or doesn't mean anything why on earth do you have it on every post?

Well, Darat.

When someone -obsessively- posts to and about you....and you have concluded after many, many months that responding to them is totally unproductive....its nice to put it in the sig line so that people know right upfront what the relationship is.

My policy is that I engage in discussion with everyone -but- Claus, due to the way he posts to me. People can judge me (good or bad) based on how I respond to them and others here.

Furthermore, I asked him if it would be good to put it in my sig line and he said "Yes".

So, including his comment isn't "a post about him".....it's a simple necessity (since he hounds me no matter what I do or say here and there is no other alternative but to put him on "Ignore")....

It's also a courtesy to routinely include it, imo, so that it's totally clear to anyone reading the thread why his comments and questions are going unresponded to.

It also makes it clear to anyone reading the thread that he knows he's on "Ignore", but still chooses to (obsessively, imo) keep posting to and about me, regardless.

I hope that, eventually, some other people will notice his pattern. I guess I will be resigned to it that you're not one of them.....

 

[T'ai Chi]

But you demand to see our credentials, you hypocrite?

You demanded to see mine while not showing yours. Don't hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself or others.

You also asked for Hoyt's credentials, you hypocrite.

He keeps questioning mine, as well as critiquing statistical things which he can't manage to explain or understand (yeah, saying "John, Johnny", is exactly like radioactive decay or a Markov chain). Which book did he get that out of (answer: none).

When you defend his "statistics", that makes me wonder about your grasp on the subject.

That doesn't make you right, T'ai Chi.

Oh, I'm always open to not being right.

Me being right or wrong doesn't change reality that even the sum N(Clancie, CFLarsen) + N(Clancie, Claus) = 80 + 224 = 304 is still smaller than N(CFLarsen, Clancie) = 612, no matter how you, Bill, or Darat want to spin it.

You can argue with facts and reality all you want (and I'm sure you will).

 

[CFLarsen]

When someone -obsessively- posts to and about you....and you have concluded after many, many months that responding to them is totally unproductive....its nice to put it in the sig line so that people know right upfront what the relationship is.

So, it is about me. It is to me. It is obsessing.

My policy is that I engage in discussion with everyone -but- Claus, due to the way he posts to me. People can judge me (good or bad) based on how I respond to them and others here.

Furthermore, I asked him if it would be good to put it in my sig line and he said "Yes".

That is a bald-faced lie, and you know it. You made innuendos about someone whom you would not talk to, so I urged you to at least be honest about that - if nothing else.

So, including his comment isn't "a post to or about him"...it isn't an obsession....it's a necessity (since he hounds me no matter what I do or say here and there is no other alternative but to put him on "Ignore")....

It's also a courtesy, so that it's totally clear to anyone reading the thread why his comments and questions are going unresponded to.

But, other people have posters on ignore, but they don't see the need to make it known with every post they make.

Why are you so obsessed with me, Clancie? Is it because I questioned your beliefs?

 

[BillHoyt]

I also didn't base my simple measure of obsessiveness on the percentage of posts that are obsessive, that is, I didn't consider (N/total posts)*100%, as I consider a lot of posts on this board to be 'filler', thus deflating the measure considerably.

Uh, no, T'ai. The sig is applied to all posts retroactively. There is no need to count. But let's go on to your first year stat student errors.

1. Ill-defined measurement criterion. Do you refer to Claus as "CFLarsen"? No. Does Clancie? No. Search again to find 225 instances of Clancie referring to Claus as Claus. Strange, no?

2. Normalization. Your "filler" excuse is exactly that "filler." Bullsh**. You didn't do it because you're a greenhorn at stat. Non-normalized data? You define obsession based on raw counts, not factoring in people's overall posting frequency? Cripes, most of us learn not to make that error in high school prob and stat!

"Our study concluded that people's driving has gotten worse over the past 10 years."

"Really, how do you know that?"

"Accidents are up 3.4% in that period."

"And the population?"

"Uh, was up 6%."

"Oh, so the accident rate went down, didn't it?"

Slink off, poseur. Claus... er, I mean "CFLarsen", ya got this one saved for the next time poseur tries the "I got an M.S. in stat" ploy again?

 

[CFLarsen]

You demanded to see mine while not showing yours. Don't hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself or others.

I don't. You see, I made it clear, very early on, that I did not have an education within the field of statistics.

You claim to have those credentials, yet you refuse to reveal them. You also continue to mess up even the most basic statistical analyses.

He keeps questioning mine, as well as critiquing statistical things which he can't manage to explain or understand (yeah, saying "John, Johnny", is exactly like radioactive decay or a Markov chain). Which book did he get that out of (answer: none).

When you defend his "statistics", that makes me wonder about your grasp on the subject.

I do not "defend" his statistics, I question yours.

Oh, I'm always open to not being right.

Right.

Me being right or wrong doesn't change reality that even the sum N(Clancie, CFLarsen) + N(Clancie, Claus) = 80 + 224 = 304 is still smaller than N(CFLarsen, Clancie) = 612, no matter how you, Bill, or Darat want to spin it.

You can argue with facts and reality all you want (and I'm sure you will).

If you want to believe that you are right, then nothing can sway you. Not even facts, not even reality.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Excuses does not make you right.

No, evidence might though.

Even the sum N(Clancie, CFLarsen) + N(Clancie, Claus) = 80 + 224 = 304 is still smaller than N(CFLarsen, Clancie) = 612.

And?

And sigs can vary, posts can't after some time. I also said I was counting post content. Considering you can set up sig content in your (L)User Control Panel, that is not considered by me or others to be part of post content (not to mention people can turn off even seeing sigs), as you aren't typing that each time. If anything, you can only count a sig as 1 occurance instead of as many occurances as post counts.

You're a little over twice as obsessive over Clancie as she is over you, just going on post count. Well done.