The "Process" of John Edward

[BillHoyt]

Say JE uses J more than expected. BUT, what if JE also uses some of the other high frequency letters less than expected?

Could we say anything meaningful here?

I thought you were a statistician. An astounding question. How about you spin some hypotheses. You might even answer one of the naive questions that has haunted some of the woos on this thread.

 

[Thanz]

There are three choices as I see them: drop such guesses entirely and thereby lose most of the data, pick one letter and run with it (but which one?) or make a uniform rule allowing him as much leeway as you can. I said I tried to honor his process as much as possible, and I decided to grant him the leeway. The specific leeway I did not grant was "Rich or Richard", where one is clearly a nickname for the other. In those cases, I counted one guess. If he said "Rich or Richard or R" I counted two guesses.

I am quoting this again because I do not think that you have provided any logical basis for your counting method. You have adequately explained what the counting method was, but not the logical reason behind it.

Specifically, WHY is it appropriate to count "Rich or Richard or R" as two separate guesses of "R"? He is clearly guessing for ONE person, not two, and hoping that he gets a hit close to richard. If they say "Randy" he will still accept it as a hit. But either way, he is just casting ONE R net here for ONE person.

The comparison we are doing is to the census data, which obviously counts people. Should we not also be counting people in the guesses, rather than just names? Isn't it obvious in this example that JE is referring to only one person?

Your count is inaccurate and inappropriate to be used in a comparison to the census data. Unless you think the census counts people more than once.

 

[BillHoyt]

The comparison we are doing is to the census data, which obviously counts people. Should we not also be counting people in the guesses, rather than just names? Isn't it obvious in this example that JE is referring to only one person?

What is obvious is that JE calls for a person with a spice name and accepts a dog's name as an answer. What is obvious is that JE sometimes calls out the same initial and states there are two people by that name. What is also obvious is that his multiple guesses are difficult to tally in a regularized way. I chose a rule that would cover the most cases: count all names cited unless one is clearly a nickname of another. This rule covers JE in cases where he guesses "Ellen, Helen, or some 'L' name" and it covers "Richard or some 'R'" name. You may disagree with the method, but I have explained it. Again.

 

[Clancie]

So, Bill, if JE said to you, "I'm getting someone with a 'B' name, like Bob, Bill, Ben" you would count that as four guesses for 'B'.

And that counting method makes sense to you.

(Also, as I've said before, "Ginger" shouldn't count at all, btw, since JE got the name symbolically, not phonetically).

Oh well. Just another example of a "skeptic" who is unwilling to admit when he's wrong.

 

[Thanz]

What is obvious is that JE calls for a person with a spice name and accepts a dog's name as an answer.

So what? We shouldn't count nicknames anyway as they are not part of the census.

What is obvious is that JE sometimes calls out the same initial and states there are two people by that name.

And in those cases we count two guesses. Not hard.

What is also obvious is that his multiple guesses are difficult to tally in a regularized way.

Difficult, maybe. But not impossible. Re-read my method and tell me where the flaws are, if you can.

I chose a rule that would cover the most cases: count all names cited unless one is clearly a nickname of another. This rule covers JE in cases where he guesses "Ellen, Helen, or some 'L' name" and it covers "Richard or some 'R'" name. You may disagree with the method, but I have explained it. Again.

The only reason you picked it is because it is easy? Even though you know that it is incorrect?

Let's look at it from another angle. What are we trying to determine? We are trying to determine whether or not JE is cold reading. We have theorized that JE will guess higher frequency letters more often as they increase the chance of a hit. What we are concerned with is how much JE's methods seem directed to increasing his chance of a hit. The way that he does this is by casting as wide a net as possible.

One way to cast a wide net is to guess high frequency letters. Another is to guess multiple names. When we look at the data, we see that he rarely guesses multiple names that are dissimilar from one another. He does not say "Bob or John or Peter". he will say "Peter or some P name". In this instance, saying "Peter" does nothing to increase his chances of a hit (a hit of Peter will already be covered in "P"), it only makes him seem better if the P name IS Peter. If we are simply looking at frequency of letters, it makes no sense to count "Peter" and "P" as two separate and distinct guesses of the letter "P". They are not. It is only one "P" guess for one person.

Frequently this occurs when JE will guess a name like Peter, get nothing, and expand his guess to any P. It is still one P guess, not two, as he is still guessing for one person.

As for the Ellen/Helen, or J or G name, I counted each of those as 2, as he is attempting to widen the guess net beyond just one letter.

My method is also easy to apply, and it yields, IMO, a more accurate count for our purposes. Can you make any argument, beyond "Ease" for your method? Specifically, can you make any argument that it is more accurate?

 

[BillHoyt]

Thanz,

First post out of the box in reply to me and already you distort my post? Where did I say "ease" or "easy"? Would you care to try again or do you just wish to push an agenda?

 

[CFLarsen]

So, Bill, if JE said to you, "I'm getting someone with a 'B' name, like Bob, Bill, Ben" you would count that as four guesses for 'B'.

And that counting method makes sense to you.

Do you have a better solution?

(Also, as I've said before, "Ginger" shouldn't count at all, btw, since JE got the name symbolically, not phonetically).

Why not? Ginger is a name, such as Mary and Deborah. How do you know when JE gets a name symbolically? What's the symbol for "Eula"??

Oh well. Just another example of a "skeptic" who is unwilling to admit when he's wrong.

Perhaps you could spare us your personal dislikes and instead try focusing on the issues.

 

[Thanz]

Thanz,

First post out of the box in reply to me and already you distort my post? Where did I say "ease" or "easy"? Would you care to try again or do you just wish to push an agenda?

Well, if the reason is not ease of applicability, then what is it? That is what I got out of your post. If it is something else, let me know.

 

[Thanz]

Do you have a better solution?

I do. And I have posted it a couple of times.

Why not? Ginger is a name, such as Mary and Deborah. How do you know when JE gets a name symbolically? What's the symbol for "Eula"??

Personally, I don't car about getting it symbolically. It should be ignored because it is a nickname, and nicknames are not part of the control census data. From Renata's thread:

CALLER: Hello?
EDWARD: Hello.
KING: Hello.
CALLER: Good. How are you doing, John?
EDWARD: I'm doing good.
CALLER: Good. I'm just seeing if you can connect with anything?
EDWARD: The first thing -- actually, a couple of things. Somebody's got a nickname after a spice, like pepper?
CALLER: I'm sorry?
EDWARD: Somebody has a nickname after a spice, like pepper? Who's got a spice name?
CALLER: Spice name? Don't know.
EDWARD: Salty or pepper, cinnamon.
CALLER: Oh, my dog.
EDWARD: OK. What's the name?
CALLER: Her name is Ginger.

 

[CFLarsen]

I do. And I have posted it a couple of times.

I asked Clancie.

Personally, I don't car about getting it symbolically. It should be ignored because it is a nickname, and nicknames are not part of the control census data. From Renata's thread:

Animals have nicknames and not names? I would never ask someone "What's your dog's nickname?"

Would you?

 

[Thanz]

I asked Clancie.

Why do you care what she thinks about this? You don't even have any thoughts on it yourself.

Animals have nicknames and not names? I would never ask someone "What's your dog's nickname?"

Would you?

No, it is not the fact that it is a dog. It is the fact that JE says he is bringing through a nickname. Read the transcript - he is not guessing a name, he is guessing a nickname. I even bolded it for ease of reference.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Thanz is correct here on this point. JE is clearly talking about a nickname and not a proper name.

 

[Loki]

You can't count "Ginger" as a guess, because JE didn't make that guess. "Ginger" is the answer, not the guess.

If JE said "Whos the relative named after a film star" and the sitter replied "Arnold". then this isn't a guess against "A".

 

[CFLarsen]

Why do you care what she thinks about this? You don't even have any thoughts on it yourself.

She complains that BillHoyt's suggestion isn't good enough. Therefore, she must have thought of something better. If she hasn't, then she merely wants to prevent such an analysis, by pooh-pooh'ing everything that comes up.

I ask because I want to find a solution. Do you have a problem with that, Thanz? Why don't you have a problem with Clancie not presenting her own view (she must have one)?

No, it is not the fact that it is a dog. It is the fact that JE says he is bringing through a nickname. Read the transcript - he is not guessing a name, he is guessing a nickname. I even bolded it for ease of reference.

Yeah, but I'm a bit uneasy with it being a dog - and a living one, too. You see, I fail to see where in JE's "process" he can talk to living animals...unless it's the sitter that makes this fit. Then, JE has no problems accepting that it's an animal.

Red Flag Rising.

 

[BNiles]

I agree. What ever process JE uses, if he can tell "symbolicly" between male or female, father figure or mother figure, I'm sure he should be able to extract the difference between Homosapien and Canine.

 

[Thanz]

I ask because I want to find a solution. Do you have a problem with that, Thanz? Why don't you have a problem with Clancie not presenting her own view (she must have one)?

If you look back in the thread - to page 19 - you will see that Clancie has already posted her own view that

"I'm getting a J name like Jenny, John, Joan" is one guess, Bill, only one 'J' name.

I am glad that you want to find a solution. Do you have any thoughts that might actually help us come to a solution? I have posted my view, Clancie has posted hers, and Bill started the ball rolling. He has failed to defend the accuracy of his count, however.

But you, Claus, have been silent on the matter. If you want to find a solution, why not at least post something substantive on the topic? How would you count the guesses?

Yeah, but I'm a bit uneasy with it being a dog - and a living one, too. You see, I fail to see where in JE's "process" he can talk to living animals...unless it's the sitter that makes this fit. Then, JE has no problems accepting that it's an animal.

I'm not crazy about this either, but that is really a different topic. We can, and do, discuss the various "hits" of JE to death. What we are trying to do with this stats stuff is get an accurate count of his name guesses to compare them to the census. As this is not a proper name guess (either by guessing a letter or by guessing for a proper name that would be included in the census) it should not be part of the count.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nice try. I've already said what my stance is.

 

[Thanz]

Nice try. I've already said what my stance is.

Yes - you'll "wait for the experts". Because you don't know how to count, I guess.

If that is your stance, don't criticize others for not doing what you refuse to do. Especially when you are wrong and they have already done it.

 

[BillHoyt]

If you look back in the thread - to page 19 - you will see that Clancie has already posted her own view that ...

Yes, she has. But her view doesn't help the problem with JE's guesses. Sometimes he gives multiple names, apparently identifying a single person. Sometimes he gives a single name and clearly states that he is identifying two people. Sometimes he says "nickname" for a person and ends up identifying a dog's name (not "nickname").

My solution is to make the fewest assumptions about his process or intent and to simply count the separate guesses. Where he gives a combination of name and its corresponding nickname, I collapse those into a single guess.

I am glad that you want to find a solution. Do you have any thoughts that might actually help us come to a solution? I have posted my view, Clancie has posted hers, and Bill started the ball rolling. He has failed to defend the accuracy of his count, however.

Get your facts straight. I didn't start the ball rolling. I have defended the accuracy.

I'm not crazy about this either, but that is really a different topic. We can, and do, discuss the various "hits" of JE to death. What we are trying to do with this stats stuff is get an accurate count of his name guesses to compare them to the census. As this is not a proper name guess (either by guessing a letter or by guessing for a proper name that would be included in the census) it should not be part of the count.

In this case, JE said "nickname" and he said "name". It turned out to be a dog, not a person. It turned out to be the dog's name, not its nickname. JE specifically said "salty", "pepper" and "cinnamon" as the name guesses. And here, please get your facts straight again. 1. The name guesses do not have to be in the census. 2. "Pepper" and "Cinnamon" are both people's names. In the U.S., they are usually girl's names. Although "Pepper" has also been used as a man's nickname. 3. The dog's actual name, "Ginger", was not counted as a JE guess and is also a female (human) surname.

Cheers,

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Thanz

If you look back in the thread - to page 19 - you will see that Clancie has already posted her own view

Yes, Thanz. And more of my views on tallying are on page. 18, too.

What we are trying to do with this stats stuff is get an accurate count of his name guesses to compare them to the census.

Yes, and did Bill ever answer T'ai Chi's question about tallying other letters, too?

And...the new book adds this to the mix:

"After Life" p.80

"...For me when I hear names that start with a vowel, I will not hear that first vowel. I'll hear the consonant sounds following that vowel as strong and predominant. So in this case "Elan" becomes more of a "Lan" or "Lin" sound in my head because I didn't hear the "E" sound."