Examples of Skeptics Cold Reading?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why not? He simply has to recognise when the game has definitely been lost and then resign. He can resign one move before checkmate, 2 moves, 5 moves or whatever, providing he recognises that his defeat is a foregone conclusion. Nothing compels him to resign at the precise same juncture that his opponent does in the mirror game. It ain't gonna effect his overall score.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ian, Derren is practically a beginner at chess.

We are not given this information. We only know about his declaration that he is not very good at chess. That might mean as good as me for all we know, or it might mean he is a beginner.

How on earth would he recognise that it's checkmate in 5 moves?!

Well easily in some circumstance. Say with a particular postion where there is 2 rooks and the king against just a king. Loads of examples.

And he's playing international players. These players are capable of giving beginners a queen start and still winning.
If Derren resigns early, he would risk losing the other mirror game where he's winning.

I'm maintaining that he has a slight influence over the number of pieces that get left over. Not that he can dictate it at will!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A position could very obviously clearly be seen that it will end up in a draw. On one board his opponent could offer a draw. He might accept. On the other board he could play on a move, or 2 moves before agreeing to the draw.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Look Ian, all the players knew it was 'mirror' chess as soon they saw the set. They saw how clumsily Derren moved the pieces during the display.

Clumsily? Like not a fine delicate touch? LOL

Grandmaster Ward's game started (Ward Black) 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 ...
Since Grandmaster Hodgson is the leading English exponent of this opening, Ward now knew who he was really playing... at move 2!

Ummm . . I dunno. Think I play that opening too. Need to get my chessboard out to find out though lol

If Derren offers a draw, the players are going to want to see a few more moves. If Derren plays on by himself, he's going to blunder and get beaten.
That destroys any chance he has of winning overall.

I was talking about an obviously drawn position. Let's say for example knight, bishop (white squares) and king against knight, bishop (black squares) and king.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And as I have explained, you're wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Read the above, then just explain again how Derren can 'control when the games finish'.

He has influence, not control.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Glee, your reasoning skills might be very good at chess, but certainly they don't appear to be in any general sense. Now I advise you not to embarrass yourself any further on here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm not the one who got the number of players wrong.

Number of games was 5 not players. But this is unimportant in the context of the point I made.

I'm not the one who got the number of Grandmasters wrong.

I was nevcer sure of the number of grandmasters. I said couple rather than 2 to connote a certain ambigiuity.

I'm not the one who said it wasn't on terrestrial TV.

The company that supplies my cable TV has altered loads of things over the past few days. I can program the cable box to give a loud buzz when a fav TV programme comes on, but am now less likely to notice what channel a programme was on.

I'm not the one who agreed with TheBoyPaj who said "it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur".

I have not given a definitive answer as to how Derren got the figures correct for the numbers of pieces at the end. I was scarcely paying attention to the programme at that point. I simply note that Derren can influence this number. And he can psychologically influence people maybe to resign at a certain point. But note there is nothing paranormal involved here!

I am the one who knows about the international player who refused to be on the program because he knew it would be mirror chess.
I am the one who knows how several of the games went, and who was playing who.
I am the one who knows about how there was a break after the games finished, which gave Derren a chance to make up the second envelope.

Perhaps you are the one looking ill-informed?

And you are the one who has falsely accused people in this thread of supposing Derren was using paranormal powers. Moreover, this was your only purpose in butting in on this thread. Why don't you admit you were wrong and stop being so obnoxious about this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I never said I worked out how Derren got the number of pieces at the end on every board correct. I scarcely glanced at that bit when the programme was on. I simply thought about the issue when TheBoyPaj raised it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And got it wrong.

I have no idea whether it is wrong or not. I simply state that given my knowledge, it is a plausible hypothesis. Indeed, it is the only plausible hypothesis given that these chess players have enough sense and not allow him to switch the envelope. You're claiming they didn't. {shrugs}, ok fair enough. As I say my attention was no longer on the programme at that juncture.

 

[Kerberos]

Ian, Derren is practically a beginner at chess.
How on earth would he recognise that it's checkmate in 5 moves?!

And he's playing international players. These players are capable of giving beginners a queen start and still winning.
If Derren resigns early, he would risk losing the other mirror game where he's winning.
Grandmaster Emms resigned against Grandmaster Levitt when a bishop down. Between grandmasters, this is overwhelming. Against a beginner, it's just a minor inconvenience.




Look Ian, all the players knew it was 'mirror' chess as soon they saw the set. They saw how clumsily Derren moved the pieces during the display.
Grandmaster Ward's game started (Ward Black) 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 ...
Since Grandmaster Hodgson is the leading English exponent of this opening, Ward now knew who he was really playing... at move 2!
If Derren offers a draw, the players are going to want to see a few more moves. If Derren plays on by himself, he's going to blunder and get beaten.
That destroys any chance he has of winning overall.



Read the above, then just explain again how Derren can 'control when the games finish'.



I'm not the one who got the number of players wrong.
I'm not the one who got the number of Grandmasters wrong.
I'm not the one who said it wasn't on terrestrial TV.
I'm not the one who agreed with TheBoyPaj who said "it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur".

I am the one who knows about the international player who refused to be on the program because he knew it would be mirror chess.
I am the one who knows how several of the games went, and who was playing who.
I am the one who knows about how there was a break after the games finished, which gave Derren a chance to make up the second envelope.

Perhaps you are the one looking ill-informed?



And got it wrong.

[crash course in Ian logic]
Nonononono!!! Ian is never wrong, he says so himself, and since he's never wrong it must be so. Ian knows nothing about Chess, but that doesn't stop him from realizing that all the people who do know about are all wrong, and since Ian knows nothing about the subject it would be silly for to sound so sure if he wasn't right so therefore he must be, QED.
[/crash course in Ian Logic]

 

[Interesting Ian]

[crash course in Ian logic]
Nonononono!!! Ian is never wrong, he says so himself, and since he's never wrong it must be so. Ian knows nothing about Chess, but that doesn't stop him from realizing that all the people who do know about are all wrong, and since Ian knows nothing about the subject it would be silly for to sound so sure if he wasn't right so therefore he must be, QED.
[/crash course in Ian Logic]

My knowledge of chess is wholly irrelevant.

Glee is incorrect in his assertion that anyone on this thread has alleged Derren was using paranormal powers in this chess stunt.

Given ones background knowledge of chess, one would be in a position to know precisely how much influence Derren could wield over the number of pieces remaining. If one did have sufficient knowledge one might realise that Derren could not exert a sufficient influence to account for what he did (plus randomly asking the tables at the end). But for one who doesn't have such sufficient knowledge, than the hypothesis proposed is a reasonable one.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Upchurch

I dunno, maybe intellectual honesty?

What was it about the example I gave (in response to HenDralux's question) that you find intellectually dishonest, Upchurch? Seriously, I'd like to know.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

(to glee)

And as I have said previously, you're wrong.

Everyone agrees that you've said it. Indeed, I could agree that you've all but shouted it. But you're wildy off the mark.

Brown had zero control over the ending of the games. Zero. Zilch. None. Nada. Nullo. Nil.

I did not take you or paj's first comments to assert paranormal control over the board, but by asserting that Brown could have done -anything- to influence the end of games against a you are now coming dangerously close to taking that position.

Against an IM, even a Class A player would be stupid -- criminally, unbelievably stupid -- to either draw a game or resign without assuring a victory on the 'mirrored' board. Against a GM, triply so. These players could beat Brown -- even assuming he is a decently strong player -- blindfolded. Quite literally blindfolded.

He simply cannot afford to deviate from repeating moves from one board to the next -- otherwise he would be absolutely trounced, no matter how "good" his position is on the related board.

That is glee's point -- his very correct point -- and you're being too indignant to even listen to it.

I see no purpose in this conversation if you comprehensively fail to understand anything. You've come barging in here, accusing myself and TheBoyPaj of supposing that Derren Brown employed psychic powers, and then you proceed to write a load of other drivel. Why don't you read and comprehend the posts before contributing to this thread? And this whole subject has nothing to do with the topic of this thread anyway.

1 point of irony for the "failing to understand" point, and an extra 5 points awarded because of who brought up this experiment in the first place.

Just admit your mistake and move on.

And an extra 10 points of irony just for good measure. A high-scoring round, indeed.

N/A

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The deliberate intent to convey a certain message by the use of appropriate language, which does not accurately depict a particular state of affairs, is a lie. That is to say there is no substantive or moral difference between this and a spoken falsehood.

That depends entirely upon context. You'll find that there is also a "substantive" difference, for example, with the question of perjury. In the context of a performance such as this one, accepting a performer's limited statement about how something is not done as an affirmation that no "tricks" are used is sloppy, at best.

If I worked out a way to levitate using extremely powerful magnets, for example, and then billed by act as "using no wires," you would say -- using your catch-all definition -- that I have lied, as I obviously meant to imply I was flying through thought power alone. I would say that you did not pay close enough attention to what I actually said.

In this context, the audience is required to listen closely -- it's a trick.

N/A

 

[Interesting Ian]

Everyone agrees that you've said it. Indeed, I could agree that you've all but shouted it. But you're wildy off the mark.

Brown had zero control over the ending of the games. Zero. Zilch. None. Nada. Nullo. Nil.

I did not take you or paj's first comments to assert paranormal control over the board, but by asserting that Brown could have done -anything- to influence the end of games against a you are now coming dangerously close to taking that position.

Against an IM, even a Class A player would be stupid -- criminally, unbelievably stupid -- to either draw a game or resign without assuring a victory on the 'mirrored' board. Against a GM, triply so. These players could beat Brown -- even assuming he is a decently strong player -- blindfolded. Quite literally blindfolded.

He simply cannot afford to deviate from repeating moves from one board to the next -- otherwise he would be absolutely trounced, no matter how "good" his position is on the related board.

That is glee's point -- his very correct point -- and you're being too indignant to even listen to it.




1 point of irony for the "failing to understand" point, and an extra 5 points awarded because of who brought up this experiment in the first place.



And an extra 10 points of irony just for good measure. A high-scoring round, indeed.

N/A

I have said all that I intend to say. Your accusation that I am invoking the paranormal in this chess stunt is utterly preposterous. Read my arguments more carefully and try to understand. Let's see a grandmaster manage to win or draw against Derren if the grandmaster only has his King and a knight where as Derren has both rooks and his queen. Or if it makes any difference when Derren resigns if the position were reversed.

And ones body language can influence other peoples decisions in all sorts of ways. Just witness Derrens ability to influence people, say, to arbitrarily choose a particular suit rather than another from a pack of cards. But there ain't nuthin paranormal about it.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I have said all that I intend to say.

I wish that just once you could just disagree on a topic without telling the other person to "[r]ead [your] arguments more carefully and try to understand." It isn't that I don't read or understand your writings, Ian, its that - having read them and managed, despite my limitations, to understand them - I think you are wildly off base on your conclusions.

You failure (or refusal) to even consider the possibility that the above could happen -- that someone is quite clear on what you mean, but that you just happen to be wrong -- is what leads to more arguments than enything else.

These are IMs and GMs playing chess. They've played countless tournament games against players of strength. Most, if not all, would recognize precisely what Brown was doing within a few moves. As I stated earlier, it is a well-known trick that was used against several GMs back around the turn of the century.

As he was playing one GM off against another, how do you propose that he get to the point where "the grandmaster only has his King and a knight where as Derren has both rooks and his queen"? Do you think even an IM is going to allow that position playing a GM?

You are building a very flimsy house of cards ever higher in a frantic effort to avoid looking at the simplest, most direct solution to the problem: he could easily prepare and switch envelopes under any of a dozen different ways. Not only is this simpler and easier, but it avoids all the unnecesary uncertainty regarding whether you can 'influence' someone, or not -- especially if you have no control over the choice of openings because two other people are playing the entire game for you.

You already know that Brown cheats. You expressly call him a liar. Why do you seem to believe his inferred claims regarding "influencing" the end of a chess game that you -know- he is not actually playing in the first place?

Clinging to this idea makes no sense to me.

N/A

 

[Interesting Ian]

I wish that just once you could just disagree on a topic without telling the other person to "[r]ead [your] arguments more carefully and try to understand." It isn't that I don't read or understand your writings, Ian, its that - having read them and managed, despite my limitations, to understand them - I think you are wildly off base on your conclusions.

You failure (or refusal) to even consider the possibility that the above could happen -- that someone is quite clear on what you mean, but that you just happen to be wrong -- is what leads to more arguments than enything else.

These are IMs and GMs playing chess. They've played countless tournament games against players of strength. Most, if not all, would recognize precisely what Brown was doing within a few moves. As I stated earlier, it is a well-known trick that was used against several GMs back around the turn of the century.

As he was playing one GM off against another, how do you propose that he get to the point where "the grandmaster only has his King and a knight where as Derren has both rooks and his queen"? Do you think even an IM is going to allow that position playing a GM?

You are building a very flimsy house of cards ever higher in a frantic effort to avoid looking at the simplest, most direct solution to the problem: he could easily prepare and switch envelopes under any of a dozen different ways. Not only is this simpler and easier, but it avoids all the unnecesary uncertainty regarding whether you can 'influence' someone, or not -- especially if you have no control over the choice of openings because two other people are playing the entire game for you.

You already know that Brown cheats. You expressly call him a liar. Why do you seem to believe his inferred claims regarding "influencing" the end of a chess game that you -know- he is not actually playing in the first place?

Clinging to this idea makes no sense to me.

N/A [/B]

I do not understand what your problem is. I gave a possible exploratory hypothesis for how Derren achieved what he did. I have absolutely no idea whether that is the correct hypothesis or not since I wasn't watching the TV at that stage. I have absolutely no idea whether the envelope was switched since I was not watching; but if the guy who was handed the envelope had any remotest sense, he would not have handed it over to Derren. Moreover, even if he had have handed it over, then these chess players should have watched Derren like a hawk to make sure he didn't switch.

I was assuming basic competency amongst these world class chess players and proposing a possible hypothesis how Derren could have achieved what he did. If they allowed Derren to switch the envelope under their very noses, or let him stroll out of sight to another room to switch the envelope, then obviously the hypothesis that I mentioned is not needed. But this doesn't alter the fact that one could in principle influence to a marginal degree the number of pieces left over in the games. This, plus asking the chess players in a certain order about the number of pieces left over on their boards, might well be sufficient for the results to very nearly coincide with that in the envelope. Or it might not be. I simply don't know. Nor am I interested.

Moreover, I have no idea why people are arguing about it. This topic has absolutely nothing to do with the paranormal, no-one has remotely suggested that Derren was employing anomalous abilities despite yours and you and Glee's assertions to the contrary. And I only mentioned the programme to point out that I had seen through it in contrast to the chess players. OK, you and Glee are maintaining the chess players were lying. In which case I do not see the point in screening this stunt in the first place since it is a lie from beginning to end.

Oh yeah, and try to understand what the word "lie" means.

I'd say a lot more at this stage were it not for the fact that I've been threatened today to be banned should I express my feelings more appropriately. So consider yourself very lucky.

 

[Interesting Ian]

That depends entirely upon context. You'll find that there is also a "substantive" difference, for example, with the question of perjury. In the context of a performance such as this one, accepting a performer's limited statement about how something is not done as an affirmation that no "tricks" are used is sloppy, at best.

Try to understand how English is used and stop wasting my time with your asinine posts.

Clear enough???

 

[Interesting Ian]

That depends entirely upon context. You'll find that there is also a "substantive" difference, for example, with the question of perjury. In the context of a performance such as this one, accepting a performer's limited statement about how something is not done as an affirmation that no "tricks" are used is sloppy, at best.

If I worked out a way to levitate using extremely powerful magnets, for example, and then billed by act as "using no wires," you would say -- using your catch-all definition -- that I have lied, as I obviously meant to imply I was flying through thought power alone. I would say that you did not pay close enough attention to what I actually said.

In this context, the audience is required to listen closely -- it's a trick.

N/A

If you are attempting to convey the impression you are achieving the effect by anomalous means, then in my book you are a liar.

Don't analyse language. It is a tool for communicating, and ought not to be abused by you, and Derren et al.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Try to understand how English is used and stop wasting my time with your asinine posts.

Clear enough???

Only you can waste your time, Ian. Just fight off the urge to read anything further and stop replying -- as you said you were going to do several messages back.

You are a very unpleasant person with no power to prevent anyone from posting their thoughts.

Clear enough?

N/A

 

[Interesting Ian]

Only you can waste your time, Ian. Just fight off the urge to read anything further and stop replying -- as you said you were going to do several messages back.

You are a very unpleasant person with no power to prevent anyone from posting their thoughts.

Clear enough?

N/A

You have absolutely no idea what sort of person I am.

One thing's for sure, at least I do not lie, and no, I'm not referring to your perverted definition of lying

 

[Upchurch]

What was it about the example I gave (in response to HenDralux's question) that you find intellectually dishonest, Upchurch? Seriously, I'd like to know.

I didn't read it actually. I was just replying to the statement "Nothing obliged her to give all details on the initial posting" in a general way. That is, if conditions of a question are with held for the purpose of discrediting a person's answer after it is given (as was described by CFLarsen), I would consider that to be dishonest.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Moreover, even if he had have handed it over, then these chess players should have watched Derren like a hawk to make sure he didn't switch.

I was assuming basic competency amongst these world class chess players and proposing a possible hypothesis how Derren could have achieved what he did.

I love it -- you assume basic competency in preventing Brown from carrying out a magic trick, but -not- that same level of competency in playing chess. I love the contortions you have to make in order to cling to the "Brown influenced the game" theory.

[snip]

Oh yeah, and try to understand what the word "lie" means.

Well, since we're being snippy, how about:

Lie. Is that like where you say "I have said all that I intend to say" on a topic, then leave another 3-4 or a dozen more messages that same day?

I'd say a lot more at this stage were it not for the fact that I've been threatened today to be banned should I express my feelings more appropriately. So consider yourself very lucky.

Oh, for heaven's sake, Ian -- curse away and "win" the argument. Show that intellect by coming up with new and novel uses of the word "ars*hole" -- that will show me.

N/A

 

[TLN]

Oh, for heaven's sake, Ian -- curse away and "win" the argument. Show that intellect by coming up with new and novel uses of the word "ars*hole" -- that will show me.

Frankly, it’s what you deserve for engaging an @sshole with unequivocally nothing else to offer. What did you expect?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Upchurch

I didn't read it actually. I was just replying to the statement "Nothing obliged her to give all details on the initial posting" in a general way.

Well, since your post specifically was referring to me, actually, and indicated that -I- had been intellectually dishonest, it might have been nice if you were actually familiar with my post and the request that it had been in response to.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Do you agree that I admitted I was wrong, yes or no?

Let's see, you were wrong about it being an experiment (remember, you said it was an experiment in other posts too), wrong about the number of transcripts I had (you somehow originally said 25), wrong about the % agreement (due to underestimation of it and mistaken inference), and wrong about other things too. So yes, I certainly agree that you were wrong.

Not at all. I explained that even an amateur such as myself can see through your charade.

And as stated, with this you contradict yourself. You believe you can critique statistical arguments, call me a "lousy statistician", and say some analyses are "flawed", while at the same time admitting that you know next to nothing about statistics. Can you explain just what out of the discipline of statistics you DO know? Can you show my analyses are flawed?

Don't blow hot air Clauz, just DO IT. Use symbols and numbers, not words. Use your amazingly advanced amateur knowledge that you claim to have.

I merely pointed out that you had a collection of transcripts. Why not go to the very person who already has about 20 transcripts?

You attempt to drag me into this from your first post in this thread. It is irrelevant how many I have considering the poster didn't ask me for them. Moreover, the vast, vast majority of transcripts I have are not from professional cold readers (such transcripts don't really seem to exist as far as I can tell). Moreover, unless you've my permission, you shouldn't go around offering the transcripts I've collected to other people. I found them on the net doing basic searches, others can too.

I'm sure I will. It looks as if it will be a webpage dedicated to me and my doings. Kinda like a stalker's webpage. A cool, calculated, premeditated, bereft-of-emotion stalker's webpage.

Was your attempt at looking into the future supposed to impress anyone? It didn't.

FYI, I take accusations of stalking very seriously, but not coming from someone with your track record. Someone such as yourself who is going around saying people are stalking and are obsessed, yet posts more to or about those people, is hard to take seriously.

It will be a personal webpage, with articles here and there on things I find interesting, skeptical and otherwise. I'll certainly be linking to several skepticrepork articles as examples of how not to write skeptical articles (ie % agreement article). I have already copied many in case of their removal.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Frankly, it’s what you deserve for engaging an @sshole with unequivocally nothing else to offer. What did you expect?

Yup, once again TLN demonstrates his mind numbing stupidity. No attempt to engage with the issues and arguments.

Hey TLN! You agree with Glee do you? Do you agree with him that I am saying Derren Brown employed paranormal abilities?? Could you point to anywhere in my posts where it can even remotely be supposed I hinted at this??

Is your mind numbingly stupidity truly beyond all limits?? Does it even rival Glees??

I might as well be talking to robots the amount of sense I get out of my communications on here. Peculiarly apt as the vast majority of people on here believe they are robots

WOW, I just cannot believe that people on here are so stupid.

Waste of space.

 

[TLN]

Yup, once again TLN demonstrates his mind numbing stupidity.

You going to schedule that PalTalk session some time?

No, I didn't think so...