The "Process" of John Edward

[TLN]

Why the cop out, Mr. Larsen?

Because he's not a statistician and neither are you. Therefore, neither of you are qualified to say what would be statistically significant in this example.

When you've got nothing left but bashing folks based on admissions of ignorance you've got nothing left at all.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why the cop out, Mr. Larsen? You were all over me with stats questions earlier in the thread.

Not a cop out. But I can spot a fake a mile away. I spotted you. And I've watched you, "grilling" BillHoyt on statistcal matters. You're not fooling anyone, you know. You have no idea what you are talking about.

You don't have to be a stats expert to answer some of the basic questions here.

I prefer to leave the expert question to the experts. What's wrong with that? You should try it, you know...

 

[Lurker]

Lurker,

Do you think it would be prudent for people to have a chance to be able to get back to you, before you chastise them for not answering?

Not everyone is on JREF 24/7, you know.

Claus,

I have been asking the same questions, or variations for over a week now with no answers from Bill. He refuses to answer direct questions. You would know that if you had bothered to read the thread.

Lurker

 

[Thanz]

Because he's not a statistician and neither are you. Therefore, neither of you are qualified to say what would be statistically significant in this example.

I am not asking him to give me the derivation of Poisson, or how we should set significance levels, or anything else. I am NOT asking him what is "statistically significant".

I am asking about simple test design. If he doesn't think he is qualified to comment on any of this, why did he attack me earlier? He was asking some very pointed statistically based questions earlier. Much more statistically based than my questions. Shouldn't he have left that to the experts?

Also, since when does someone have to be a statistician to make a comment here? Is Mr. Larsen an expert on fraud? On cold reading? On speaking to the dead? On scientific design? He comments on all of these things.

The questions I have asked are extremely basic, and if Mr. Larsen is as serious as he claims to be about paranormal research he should be able to answer them easily. I chalk his refusal up to simple avoidance. Since when does one need be a statistician to have an opinion on how to count J guesses?

 

[Thanz]

Not a cop out. But I can spot a fake a mile away. I spotted you. And I've watched you, "grilling" BillHoyt on statistcal matters. You're not fooling anyone, you know. You have no idea what you are talking about.

How can you know this? You are no "expert" by your own admission..... Oh, I know. Maybe it is because I admitted that I was not an expert. I am not trying to fool anyone, doof.

I prefer to leave the expert question to the experts. What's wrong with that? You should try it, you know...

I am not asking expert questions. I am asking basic test design questions. Is it more meaningful to test all letters or one letter? How should we count a guess of "J"?

You seem to think that you are qualified to comment on the validity of Schwarz's experiments and to design and conduct your own experiments into whether JE is talking to the dead. What expertise allows you to do that, but not answer my simple questions?

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Let's see. You are only arguing basic test design questions and not asking expert questions?

Needless to say, I get numbers substantially different than BillHoyt's. In the LKL readings posted by Renata, I counted 43 guesses, of which 9 were J. If I plug this into the Poisson calculator, I get a probability of >= 9 of .128, which means that we cannot reject the null hypothesis.
...
One more thing - Kerberos' count of hits was 14 J hits out of 78 guesses. If I pop those numbers into the ol' Poisson calculator, I get a probaility of >= 14 of .168, which also means that we cannot reject the null hypothesis.
...
I am not ignoring the fact that the method was applied equally to all initials. I am saying that the method is incorrect, and leads to incorrect counts for both the J value AND the denominator. Having both numbers wrong leads to a wrong analysis. It just means that ALL of your data is incorrect. I was not accusing you of bias in the data - in that you would count only extra "J" guesses. I am saying that your methodology was flawed from the beginning.
...
That could be because we don't have enough data to do a more comprehensive test on multiple letters. Of course, Mr.Hoyt won't admit this, and will stick to his flawed J analysis, as it may mean admitting that I was correct when I said the sample size was too small.
...
Why? What makes Poisson the appropriate tool here?

These questions are not about test design but definitely expert questions about statistics. And you are definitely a fake, when it comes to statistics. When reading your posts here, it is obvious you take your leads from other posters. Did you know what Poisson was before this thread started?

My "expertise" in commenting on Schwartz' abominations and design my own experiments comes from my studying what has been done, where the flaws are, and how it can be improved.

In other words, I read and learn.

What questions of yours have I not answered?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'll await the statistical experts.

I'll give you an answer: readings are done with more than one letter. Therefore our statistical analysis should reflect that, and we should look at more than one letter. It seems sensible to analyze all the high frequency letters together (there are about 5 or 6 of them).

Bill's counting of the J's and focusing solely on the J, is probably consciously or unconsciously a wish for a rejection of a null hypothesis. I wonder if any statistician would say the analysis is appropriate.

 

[Thanz]

Thanz,

Let's see. You are only arguing basic test design questions and not asking expert questions?

Can't you "read and learn" in this thread? Nothing in those posts requires any massive amounts of statistical understanding. The counting method I used to get the counts in the first quote was explained in that post. I thought it was simple and easy to understand. As to the numbers from the Poisson calculation, I used a calculator available on the web and reported the results. Nothing magical here either.

The third quoted portion deals with the counting method, and I am coming to the stunning conclusion that if your counting method is flawed, your data will also be flawed, and you will not get an accurate analysis from flawed data. Is that too hard for your non-expert brain to comprehend?

Finally, asking why he used a certain distribution (Poisson) instead of others is a simple question for someone who understands stats (as BillHoyt claims to) to answer. He picked hte test. I am just asking why.

These questions are not about test design but definitely expert questions about statistics. And you are definitely a fake, when it comes to statistics. When reading your posts here, it is obvious you take your leads from other posters. Did you know what Poisson was before this thread started?

It is called "reading and learning". Of course I take leads from other people in this thread that understand stats better than I do. I'd be an idiot if I didn't. Also, none of those questions were aimed at you. Nice try at diversion. I didn't ask YOU whay Poisson was appropriate, I asked BIllHoyt. I am asking not to trap him, but because I don't know why he chose Poisson. Other people here seem to disagree with him on his chosen test.

As for your specific question, no I did not know what a Poisson distribution was before this thread. I may have heard the term back in my undergrad days, so it was a little familiar, but if pressed I would not be able to explain it. But I ask you, so what? I have learned in this thread how to use the Poisson calculator and apply it to data as presented. I have a limited understanding of what the output of the calculator tells me (I can apply it to the test Mr. Hoyt did here).

My "expertise" in commenting on Schwartz' abominations and design my own experiments comes from my studying what has been done, where the flaws are, and how it can be improved.

In other words, I read and learn.

Just as I have done here.

What questions of yours have I not answered?

Do you really not know? They were specifically directed to you. Here they are again:

1. Do you think that an analysis of only one letter is meaningful to ascertain whether or not JE is cold reading? If someone were to ask you what you thought was a good test for cold reading comparison, would it be a test of one letter or multiple letters?

2. What do you see as the proper counting technique for the following JE (style not a quote) guess: "I am getting a John or Joe or some other J, J-o connection here". How many J guesses would you count out of that?

 

[BillHoyt]

And what does one assume when one derives it from those equations? Hmm? You always seem to avoid that question. Why is that, Bill?

The definition of a Poisson distribution is based on that of a Poisson process. A Poisson process is one that satisfies the following:


1. The changes (or events) that result from the process can be grouped into nonoverlapping intervals.

2. The numbers of changes (or events) in the nonoverlapping intervals are independent from one another.

3. This independence holds for all intervals.

4. The probability of exactly one change (or event) in a sufficiently small interval, h = 1/n equals n*p , where p is the probability of one change (or event) and n is the number of trials.

5. The probability of more than one change (or event) in a sufficiently small interval, h, is essentially 0.

The Poisson distribution results when such a process occurs over n trials.

There are no hard and fast definitions to it, other than the above.

Lurker, you continue to insist that there is a question for me to answer about what one assumes when one derives Poisson from other distributions. This question makes no sense. The assumptions are grounded in the terms of those other distributions to derive Poisson, and are meaningless once you get to Poisson.

Poisson does not make an error when it predicts a p(x) beyond your n. The "n" is not in the Poisson distribution. Look closely at the definition above. "n" comes into play when you design your "bins" (the intervals). It affects your expected mean. Once you decide your expected mean, you have identified everything in Poisson. The "n" is now gone.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

There's a difference between learning and parroting. Because you can punch in numbers on a calculator does not mean you understand how the method works.

I have replied to the questions you refer to. I await the experts. Do you have a problem with understanding what people tell you?

 

[Thanz]

Thanz,

There's a difference between learning and parroting. Because you can punch in numbers on a calculator does not mean you understand how the method works.

I guess that you are quite familiar with the difference between learning and parroting. In this thread, for instance, the questions that you asked me earlier were clearly "parroting". It is also obvious that you haven't been able to learn anything in this thread.

As for whether I understand how the method works, well, no, I can't derive the Poisson distribution, nor do I know the specific formula. I understand enough, however, to be able to do the various calculations and determine whether we can reject the null hypothesis. Which is apparently more than you have been able to pick up.

You see, at least I am trying to understand. You, however, are simply parroting Mr. Hoyt and avoiding questions that require no expertise in statistics at all. I guess that avoiding questions and giving non-responsive "answers" is your true expertise.

I have replied to the questions you refer to. I await the experts. Do you have a problem with understanding what people tell you?

I have a problem figuring out what part of "What do you see as the proper counting technique for the following JE (style not a quote) guess: "I am getting a John or Joe or some other J, J-o connection here". How many J guesses would you count out of that?" requires any expertise in statistics.

You are familiar with mediums. You are familiar with the guesses they make. Do you not know how to count? Is that it? Do you need a statistician to count for you?

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

I see you do have a problem with what people tell you. Especially if you don't like it. I notice that you merely dismiss me, while admitting that you have, indeed, no idea what you are talking about. Thanks for proving my point.

You need to understand one thing, though: You do not control the life of other people. You do not have the right to command other people to do what you want them to do. And you have no right to point your finger at them, either.

Do you understand this simple thing, or do we have to go 2589 rounds before you get it?

Have a nice day.

 

[Thanz]

I notice that you merely dismiss me, while admitting that you have, indeed, no idea what you are talking about.

I dismiss you as you seem completely unable to come up with any thoughts on the matter on your own. I have by no stretch admitted that I "have no idea what [I am] talking about". You, sir, are a liar. All I have done is admitted the limits of my knowledge, which is more than you have done.

You have simply parroted Mr. Hoyt while asking me questions, giving the impression that you have a clue about what the questions mean. Then, when asked some simple questions that do not require anything close to any expertise in statistics, you say "I'll wait for the experts". Which, in reality, I suspect means "I'll wait and say whatever BillHoyt tells me to say".

You need to understand one thing, though: You do not control the life of other people. You do not have the right to command other people to do what you want them to do. And you have no right to point your finger at them, either.

It will be a long, long time before I get over the irony of being told this by Mr. Larsen, who consistently hounds others and even starts threads with lists of questions that he demands other people answer.

Mr. Larsen, you dish it but you can't take it. You revel in making the lives of "believers" miserable on this forum (and probably other forums). For you to turn around and tell me that I "do not have the right to command other people to do what I want them to do" or "to point the finger at them" is quite simply the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

I trust that this point has been lost on you, however.

I notice, as well, that you can't even explain why you are waiting for the "experts" or what expertise my questions would require.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Have I made claims about my statistical knowledge? Far from it, I believe. Do you understand the difference between making a claim and not making a claim? Here, on this board, claims are questioned. When people don't make claims, they should not be challenged to defend themselves. That's what you are trying to do here.

You do your best to cast doubt about me. You fail miserably, though. Why are you falling back on nasty innuendo about my behavior on other boards? Is that because you have run out of arguments?

You clearly don't like my answers. It is because they don't satisfy you. So, you feel entitled to call me a liar and start imagining my objectives.

Go on, Thanz. Imagine. It's what you do best.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I dismiss you as you seem completely unable to come up with any thoughts on the matter on your own. I have by no stretch admitted that I "have no idea what [I am] talking about". You, sir, are a liar. All I have done is admitted the limits of my knowledge, which is more than you have done.

You have simply parroted Mr. Hoyt while asking me questions, giving the impression that you have a clue about what the questions mean. Then, when asked some simple questions that do not require anything close to any expertise in statistics, you say "I'll wait for the experts". Which, in reality, I suspect means "I'll wait and say whatever BillHoyt tells me to say".

It will be a long, long time before I get over the irony of being told this by Mr. Larsen, who consistently hounds others and even starts threads with lists of questions that he demands other people answer.

Mr. Larsen, you dish it but you can't take it. You revel in making the lives of "believers" miserable on this forum (and probably other forums). For you to turn around and tell me that I "do not have the right to command other people to do what I want them to do" or "to point the finger at them" is quite simply the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

That must be what they call a 'Hot read' then is it?

 

[Thanz]

Have I made claims about my statistical knowledge? Far from it, I believe.

Some level of statistical knowledge was implied when you were asking me specific statistical questions. Or are you admitting that you had no idea what those questions meant and you were just parroting BillHoyt?

Do you understand the difference between making a claim and not making a claim? Here, on this board, claims are questioned. When people don't make claims, they should not be challenged to defend themselves. That's what you are trying to do here.

Dude, I was just asking for your opinion on a couple of questions. Questions that do not require any expertise in statistics, just some logical and critical thinking skills. Since you can't answer them, I guess you don't have any of those skills.

You clearly don't like my answers. It is because they don't satisfy you.

I don't like your answers because they provide nothing of value to the discussion. Have you provided ANYTHING of value to this entire discussion? Or did you just want to jump in to ask me stats questions that you don't even understand?

Look, if you lack the logical and critical thinking skills to answer my questions, that's fine. Be a dolt. I don't care. Continue on your mission to fight against the "believers" no matter what they actually say.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Has anyone looked at other letters besides the letter J yet?

 

[CFLarsen]

Some level of statistical knowledge was implied when you were asking me specific statistical questions. Or are you admitting that you had no idea what those questions meant and you were just parroting BillHoyt?

Oh, I had an idea, that's all. That idea was not unfounded. Why do you want to shift the focus from you to me?

Dude, I was just asking for your opinion on a couple of questions. Questions that do not require any expertise in statistics, just some logical and critical thinking skills. Since you can't answer them, I guess you don't have any of those skills.

Did I make a claim? If so, what was it? If not, what right have you to demand an answer?

I don't like your answers because they provide nothing of value to the discussion. Have you provided ANYTHING of value to this entire discussion? Or did you just want to jump in to ask me stats questions that you don't even understand?

Oh, come off it! You were cornered on statistical issues, and now it's all my fault. Pluhease...!

Look, if you lack the logical and critical thinking skills to answer my questions, that's fine. Be a dolt. I don't care. Continue on your mission to fight against the "believers" no matter what they actually say.

Sure, go ahead with the personal attack, in the (vain) hope that your lacking statistical knowledge will not be noticed.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Has anyone looked at other letters besides the letter J yet?

Yes. I looked at the three transcripts from Renata's thread. Counting Robbie, Rob or Robert as a single R, I found the following doing very rudimentry stats stuff.

6 J's of 28 is statistically high though not within p=0.05. The next question becomes, what letters where "sacrificed" in order to give more J answers? Were low percentage letters neglected more than the remaining high percentage letters?

Of the remaining 22
2 M's: about right
3 R's : slightly higher than expected
2 from the bottom 14 percentile (P,W,H,N,F,V,I,O,Y,Z,Q,U and X): slightly below expectation

The reason I lumped the bottom ones together is that each of them individual has an expected value less than 1. I chose 14% to lump together because that group of 13 letter the same probability as J alone.

The above are consistant with guessing only high percentage values in order to improve hit rates. J, M and R are guessed often at the expence of the unlikely letters. But nothing came anywhere near a p=0.05.

However, continuing down the high probability letters D, C, A, and S each have 1 guess. Then middling probality letters L and B have 4 and 3 guesses respectively. This appears contradictory to our original conclusion. Why guess L and B so frequently at the expense of some higher probability letters.

So, based on a very small number of readings, JE has affinities for J, M and R as expected and aversion to the low probability letters, also expected. However, he seems to have an "unnatural fetish" for L and B.

Admittedly, I used a less then perfect method for doing analysis on a group of related bins but for my curiousity purposes it was sufficient.

The reason I didn't post this earlier was:
1. I have a probablem with using census statistics. After all he is trying to contact/emulate dead people. So the statistic we should look at are for older people, not the population at large.
2. The number was so small from those three transcript, I didn't think the statistics meant anything anyways.
3. This thread had fallen off the front page, and I had hoped laid to rest.

My count from the transcripts, in order from most likely letters to least, was:
28 easily binned guesses
6 J
2 M
3 R
1 D
1 C
1 A
1 S
4 L
3 B
1 E
2 T
1 K
- G
1 P
- W
- H
1 N
- F, V, I, O, Y, Z, Q, U , X

8 guesses in "other"
2 J or G
1 C or K
1 H or E
1 E or L
1 vowel then B
1 vowel then L
1 "spice" name

 

[neofight]

It will be a long, long time before I get over the irony of being told this by Mr. Larsen, who consistently hounds others and even starts threads with lists of questions that he demands other people answer.

Yes, Thanz. The irony is exquisite indeed. And "pinnacle of hypocrisy" does fit Claus quite well.

I trust that this point has been lost on you, however.

No doubt.......neo