Examples of Skeptics Cold Reading?

[Interesting Ian]

You going to schedule that PalTalk session some time?

No, I didn't think so...

That's a laugh! I was there! You didn't want to debate with me!

 

[TLN]

That's a laugh! I was there! You didn't want to debate with me!

I had company. As I told you, schedule a debate and I'll be there. Or, you can just keep playing the grade school games you enjoy so much.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I had company. As I told you, schedule a debate and I'll be there. Or, you can just keep playing the grade school games you enjoy so much.

You had company??? Didn't stop you gabbing away all the time in the mic

 

[Loki]

Ian,

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

So why keep posting? What satisfaction do you derive from constantly belittling people who are clearly your intellectual inferiors? Wouldn't have anything to do with you needing to feel "superior" would it?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,


So why keep posting? What satisfaction do you derive from constantly belittling people who are clearly your intellectual inferiors? Wouldn't have anything to do with you needing to feel "superior" would it?

No it wouldn't. I don't want to feel superior, I want a sensible mature intelligent debate.

 

[Loki]

Ian,

No it wouldn't. I don't want to feel superior,...

You don't want to feel superior, you just do, right?

... I want a sensible mature intelligent debate.

Which, according to you, is next to impossible to achieve here, despite your repeated efforts. Nearly 10,000 posts and 2 years of your life to establish that no one here can talk at the level you desire...so why stay? When you wake up tomorrow and turn on your PC, why return to a forum that is filled with stupidity? What motive drives you to return here, day after day, year after year, instead of the many places on the web where true intellectals like yourself can gather in a rarefied air of academic discourse? Are you happy "wasting" one of your lives talking to idiots who don't even realise when they're talking nonsense? Or is this some weird penance you're forced to endure because you were the village idiot in your previous life (how do I know so much about your previous life? Trust me, I have a 'sense' for such things - with you, it's pretty clear).

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,


You don't want to feel superior, you just do, right?


Which, according to you, is next to impossible to achieve here, despite your repeated efforts. Nearly 10,000 posts and 2 years of your life to establish that no one here can talk at the level you desire...so why stay? When you wake up tomorrow and turn on your PC, why return to a forum that is filled with stupidity? What motive drives you to return here, day after day, year after year, instead of the many places on the web where true intellectals like yourself can gather in a rarefied air of academic discourse? Are you happy "wasting" one of your lives talking to idiots who don't even realise when they're talking nonsense? Or is this some weird penance you're forced to endure because you were the village idiot in your previous life (how do I know so much about your previous life? Trust me, I have a 'sense' for such things - with you, it's pretty clear).

I wouldn't want to disappoint people by leaving.

 

[Loki]

Ian,

You wouldn't be lying about your reason for staying, would you? I'd hate to think that a person such as yourself, who values pedantic accuracy in EVERYTHING he says, to be guilty of creating a false impression of his behaviour. That would be a bit like a magician who perhaps allows his audience to form an opinion because he fails to explicitly rule out all possibilities, wouldn't it?

So let's be honest Ian - tell the truth that you value so highly - why are you still posting after so long. You NEED to win, and you feel like you do that here. You want to get up in the morning and win an argument, right?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

You wouldn't be lying about your reason for staying, would you? I'd hate to think that a person such as yourself, who values pedantic accuracy in EVERYTHING he says, to be guilty of creating a false impression of his behaviour. That would be a bit like a magician who perhaps allows his audience to form an opinion because he fails to explicitly rule out all possibilities, wouldn't it?

So let's be honest Ian - tell the truth that you value so highly - why are you still posting after so long. You NEED to win, and you feel like you do that here. You want to get up in the morning and win an argument, right?

yeah . .

 

[TLN]

You had company??? Didn't stop you gabbing away all the time in the mic

Until she arrived. Then I had to go. I explained all of this to you, but in your typical believer fashion, you ignore that which you cannot accept.

Now, name your time.

 

[Loki]

Ian,

Based on your exhaustive reply, can I assume this is accurate :

(Loki wrote) : You wouldn't be lying about your reason for staying, would you?...

(Ian wrote) : yeah

 

[HenDralux]

I've not been around here too long but I've read many of the threads, and I have to say, I really don't understand 'Interesting Ian's position, or what he is trying to do.

I read this thread, and it was quite clear that Ian simply didn't understand much of the Derren experiment. The biggest clue was his insistence that Derren 'knowing when he's about to win in a few moves and therefore being able to resign' - was an arguable factor.

We all get things wrong and misundertand, but the reason for this particular post is...why do many of us continue to argue when we're fully aware that we may have things slightly skewed?
Especially on a subject which many of us on here obviously feel quite strongly about - the paranormal and its existence or lack there-of.

Surely we're all in search of one thing, the real overriding truth in such matters as 'the afterlife', which is the main theme behind this thread.

Many of the posts on this issue which I've seen on countless boards over the net seem to concentrate fully on the politics of the actual argument, rather than the subject itself. It seems to have developed into a war of paradigms, with the prize of intellectual superiority and the right to say 'ha, told you so!' for the winner.

I think there is so much ego involved in posts around the Randi forums and many other forums - and yes of course, forums the world over that debate all manner of things.

But what does irritate me, is when I see a poster who fights tooth and nail, clinging on to the last vestige of credibility time and time again just to save some kind of face. That to me is completely and utterly futile in the face of what we're all here for.
It's lying to oneself. Not picking on Ian solely here, we've all seen it I'm sure - but this thread is a good example to me.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I've not been around here too long but I've read many of the threads, and I have to say, I really don't understand 'Interesting Ian's position, or what he is trying to do.

What *I* am trying to do?? What the . .

I read this thread, and it was quite clear that Ian simply didn't understand much of the Derren experiment.

Huh?? I didn't understand it?? What, might I ask, did I fail to understand??? Since I understood before he revealed how he did it, I scarcely think this accusation has any merit. And as for the pieces at the end, I wasn't even watching the TV then. TheBoyPaj gave a speculative hypothesis on how it might have been achieved. I agreed that the hypothesis had some merit although it needed to be supplemented. Regardless of whether it actually did take place or not, it remains a viable hypothesis given the level of information I had. There's no getting around that fact. If you fail to understand it's because you're seriously intellectual deficient. But you've already comprehensively demonstrated this anyway in this thread with your explanations for the mention of the "snake"

You sir are a concrete block in common with most skeptics (but not sceptics) on here

The biggest clue was his insistence that Derren 'knowing when he's about to win in a few moves and therefore being able to resign' - was an arguable factor.

{shrugs} He can in principle influence the number of pieces at the end of certain games whether you like it or not. I've explained this. If you and others are too mind numbingly stupid to understand this, then this is scarcely my fault. His level of skill and the chess players level of skill may, or may not, allow him to do this to a sufficient extent to explain his feat. But this is neither here nor there. It is a speculative hypothesis introduced by your fellow skeptic TheBoyPaj, and certainly has nothing to do with the paranormal in any shape or form. But I guess that you, like so many others in this thread, are too mind numbingly stupid to grasp this remarkably simple fact.

We all get things wrong and misundertand, but the reason for this particular post is...why do many of us continue to argue when we're fully aware that we may have things slightly skewed?

I have no idea. But I certainly would never dream of doing so. Just like I do not lie. It just seems bizarre to me that people insist on being right when it has been demonstrated time after time after time that they are in error. I would never do that. It would be so incredibly facile and inane.

So my advice is to ask yourself moonbeam. Or ask all the other intellectual deficient people on this thread and on this board.

Especially on a subject which many of us on here obviously feel quite strongly about - the paranormal and its existence or lack there-of.

Surely we're all in search of one thing, the real overriding truth in such matters as 'the afterlife', which is the main theme behind this thread.

No no no. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that skeptics are interested in discovering the truth. Just look at your unbelievably facile contributions to this thread. It speaks volumes matey.

Many of the posts on this issue which I've seen on countless boards over the net seem to concentrate fully on the politics of the actual argument, rather than the subject itself. It seems to have developed into a war of paradigms, with the prize of intellectual superiority and the right to say 'ha, told you so!' for the winner.

I think there is so much ego involved in posts around the Randi forums and many other forums - and yes of course, forums the world over that debate all manner of things.

But what does irritate me, is when I see a poster who fights tooth and nail, clinging on to the last vestige of credibility time and time again just to save some kind of face.

Who are you talking about?? One presumes you're talking about Glee??

That to me is completely and utterly futile in the face of what we're all here for.
It's lying to oneself. Not picking on Ian solely here, we've all seen it I'm sure - but this thread is a good example to me. [/B]

Not picking on me here???

What the hell are you talking about??? What is contained in that thick skull of yours?? If you fail to understand that Glee just blundered in without understanding anything of relevance that had been said then I can only conclude that knucklehead of yours must be full of sawdust.

In future try reading my posts. Let me know any flaw in anything I have said. Or are you like all the others?? Completely unable to outargue me so contenting yourself with insults? Do you have any notion of how much loathing I have for your kind?? Unable to argue with me so resorting to insults??

 

[Yahweh]

Ian,

So why keep posting? What satisfaction do you derive from constantly belittling people who are clearly your intellectual inferiors? Wouldn't have anything to do with you needing to feel "superior" would it?

At least in my opinion, I dont really think anyone should have to justify why they post here. "I follow the rules, I want to post at JREF" is as good a reason as any, and as a general principle any ulterior motives are irrelevant.

 

[HenDralux]

Do you have any notion of how much loathing I have for your kind?? Unable to argue with me so resorting to insults??

Good grief, no, but I do now. Thanks for all your 'counter-insults' there.

I wasn't intentionally trying to insult you, it was a remark on what I see time and time again in threads like these. Don't you agree that ego gets in the way of many debates? I'm not saying you are the only one...and apologies for inferring you are in the first place, but that's just the way I saw it.

If you read through many threads, everybody's posts are dissected and commented upon line..after line...and I feel the reason why we're here and why we're debating many issues is often lost. It just seems to come across as a need to secure a place on higher ground, for whatever personal reason a lot of the time.

On considering my post again, I do apologise for making you out as the main perpetrator - or indeed, guilty of it at all.

 

[Loki]

Yahweh,

At least in my opinion, I dont really think anyone should have to justify why they post here.

I'd agree, but I'd prefer "explain" rather than "justify". I'd like to hear Ian explain why he persists - for over 2 years! - in arguing with people that he believes (a) are clearly intellectually inferior; (b) will never understand what he is saying; and (c) will never change their minds about anything.

Ian isn't required to justify himself to me. ANd I'm not asking for a justification. I'm asking him "why?", since it seems there is no clear, sensible, obvious reason for his persistant behaviour.

I've been to internet Forums where I've encountered people that seem unwilling or unable to consider alternative opinons. I've stayed a week or two and moved on, since there's clearly nothing to be gained by either myself or the other posters from my staying. Yet with Ian the following statements are apparently true :

1. This forum is full of poeple who continually fail to meet his standard of debate, and who he has no (intellectual) respect for at all.

2. He posts continuously, day after day, for years.- averaging 10 posts a day, 365 days a year!

I find the two statements to be a strange blend. I think it says something about Ian and his reasons for being here. I think it suggests something other than what he claims to be his reasons. I find the contrast between his actions and his words to have some relevance upon his claims of 'intellectual honesty'.

...as a general principle any ulterior motives are irrelevant.

And as with any general prinicple, there are occasional cases in which it doesn't apply. Understanding any 'ulterior motive' can be a valuable tool in determining the accuracy or content of a given post.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Good grief, no, but I do now. Thanks for all your 'counter-insults' there.

I wasn't intentionally trying to insult you, it was a remark on what I see time and time again in threads like these. Don't you agree that ego gets in the way of many debates? I'm not saying you are the only one...and apologies for inferring you are in the first place, but that's just the way I saw it.

If you read through many threads, everybody's posts are dissected and commented upon line..after line...and I feel the reason why we're here and why we're debating many issues is often lost. It just seems to come across as a need to secure a place on higher ground, for whatever personal reason a lot of the time.

On considering my post again, I do apologise for making you out as the main perpetrator - or indeed, guilty of it at all.

Yes egos are a problem. And yes, little or no progress ever gets made in these arguments. And it seems to me that very little agreement is ever reached and we get mutual states of complete incomprehension. Then we get the insults.

So yeah, it's pretty hopeless.

Anyway, not to worry, I expect I'll be banned very soon. Eventually this place will be paradise for the skeptics and they can all write threads droning on about how right they are in everything, clapping each other on the back, and going on about how stupid anyone is for not subscribing 100% to orthodox beliefs.

 

[HenDralux]

Ian, have a go in the 'roleplaying' thread I created...could be fun.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yahweh,


I'd agree, but I'd prefer "explain" rather than "justify". I'd like to hear Ian explain why he persists - for over 2 years! - in arguing with people that he believes (a) are clearly intellectually inferior; (b) will never understand what he is saying; and (c) will never change their minds about anything.

Ian isn't required to justify himself to me. ANd I'm not asking for a justification. I'm asking him "why?", since it seems there is no clear, sensible, obvious reason for his persistant behaviour.

I've been to internet Forums where I've encountered people that seem unwilling or unable to consider alternative opinons. I've stayed a week or two and moved on, since there's clearly nothing to be gained by either myself or the other posters from my staying. Yet with Ian the following statements are apparently true :

1. This forum is full of poeple who continually fail to meet his standard of debate, and who he has no (intellectual) respect for at all.

2. He posts continuously, day after day, for years.- averaging 10 posts a day, 365 days a year!

I find the two statements to be a strange blend. I think it says something about Ian and his reasons for being here. I think it suggests something other than what he claims to be his reasons. I find the contrast between his actions and his words to have some relevance upon his claims of 'intellectual honesty'.


And as with any general prinicple, there are occasional cases in which it doesn't apply. Understanding any 'ulterior motive' can be a valuable tool in determining the accuracy or content of a given post.

I came on here from the survivalscience forum to try and understand the opposing point of view. It's what I do. I like to read and hear from both sides of the debate. This includes the reading of books.

Why am I still here? Hell, I don't know. Just got sucked in to it all. Some people like chat rooms. I find them mind numbingly boring. I like forums. I like arguing with people.

 

[Loki]

Ian,

I came on here from the survivalscience forum to try and understand the opposing point of view. It's what I do. I like to read and hear from both sides of the debate. This includes the reading of books.

So you've changed your mind and decided to read some Dennett? Seriously, he's a very very good example of an "opposing view". If you haven't read "Consciousness Explained" then you aren't trying very hard to "hear" both sides of a debate. Of course, I doubt you'll find it compelling, since you have always "just known" the truth about consciousness since you were 4 years old.