The "Process" of John Edward

[neofight]

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.

Hi there! I'm not sure there is a good basis for saying this, Walter, since a good percentage of the spirit energies that come through belong to children and young people. .....neo

 

[Lurker]

Ah, finally Bill starts to answer some of the salient questiuons I have been asking for over two weeks!

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.

Bill, look at #1 through #5 again and pay particular attention to #4 and #5. Think about your sample size of 85. Consider the case where your sample size was 5 and the probability was 0.8.

Think about it Bill, Integrate your pdf to get your cdf for the range (0:5). When you complete this exercise, then the light may go on for you.

Lurker

 

[CFLarsen]

Hi there! I'm not sure there is a good basis for saying this, Walter, since a good percentage of the spirit energies that come through belong to children and young people. .....neo

Please point to those statistical analyses that show the age groups of "spirit energies" coming through.

Please either:

• address the question, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or
• state that you refuse to answer.

 

[Thanz]

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?

You did not have an idea. You simply copied BillHoyt. You do not actually KNOW what the questions you were asking meant. You simply wanted to harass me. Also, why do you want to shift the focus from you to me? We are discussing your lack of any ability to answer simple questions. I don't know why you keep bringing up my level of stats knowledge.

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

I asked because I thought you might have something to say about the topic, given your interest in the area of mediumship. You claim to know something about experimental design. You seem to claim that you are qualified to test JE to determine if he is a genuine medium. I am not sure why you think that you are qualified to do this, but have no idea how to count the number of J guesses in a transcript.

However, it appears I am mistaken. You do not want to answer my questions, probably because you do not want to go against BillHoyt and need to wait for him to tell you what to think. That's fine.

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

No, I am simply pointing out the obvious:
1. You have not provided anything of value to this discussion.

2. You asked me a set of questions that you do not understand. Your motive seems to have been to harass me, as you would not understand the answers to the questions anyway.

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

I am really not sure how my "lacking statistical knowledge" could NOT be noticed, considering that I have admitted the limits to that knowledge. I have, however, contributed positively to the discussion of this topic. I have performed the Poisson analysis to the count provided by Kerberos, and showed that on his count we could not reject the null hypothesis. I have done my own count of the J hits in Renata's JE LKL transcripts, and done the Poisson calculation on that count. On my count, we also cannot reject the null hypothesis according to the parameters set out by BillHoyt.

The only count that we can reject the null hypothesis is the count from BillHoyt. I have pointed out that Mr. Hoyt's counting procedure is not logical for the purposes of his test, and therefore his data is flawed.

What have you done? Nothing but harass me. When asked simple questions of logic, you hide. You are a poor skeptic, Mr. Larsen.

 

[BillHoyt]

Ah, finally Bill starts to answer some of the salient questiuons I have been asking for over two weeks!

I have been answering. You still refuse to listen.

Bill, look at #1 through #5 again and pay particular attention to #4 and #5. Think about your sample size of 85. Consider the case where your sample size was 5 and the probability was 0.8.

Think about it Bill, Integrate your pdf to get your cdf for the range (0:5). When you complete this exercise, then the light may go on for you.

Lurker

N is not part of the distribution. Period. You have not found an error by finding probability beyond N. You simply make a laughable error. I am tired of saying it. YOU read my description and try to understand it this time.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

I did not want to "harrass" you. Please stop attributing motives to me I don't have.

I merely pointed out that you had no idea what you were asking BH about. Which was not all that far from the truth, was it?

If you feel I have "harrassed" you, I urge you to report me to the moderators, so we can clear this thing up. I, for one, would rather not have this serious accusation hanging over my head.

So, either report me, or stop crying about harrassment. Be true to your word or be a crybaby.

 

[Lurker]

I have been answering. You still refuse to listen.

N is not part of the distribution. Period. You have not found an error by finding probability beyond N. You simply make a laughable error. I am tired of saying it. YOU read my description and try to understand it this time.

Integration will set you free, Bill. You DO know how to integrate, don't you?

Lurker

 

[BillHoyt]

Integration will set you free, Bill. You DO know how to integrate, don't you?

Lurker

Laughingstock.

 

[Thanz]

Thanz,

I did not want to "harrass" you. Please stop attributing motives to me I don't have.

Then what was your motive? The answers to the questions you were asking me would mean nothing to you. Actually getting the answers could therefore not be your motive.

 

[CFLarsen]

Then what was your motive? The answers to the questions you were asking me would mean nothing to you. Actually getting the answers could therefore not be your motive.

I answered this already. I pointed out that you did not know what you were talking about. If you consider this "harrassment", well....

I answered your question, please answer mine:

Have you reported me to the moderators for harrassing you?

 

[Thanz]

I answered this already. I pointed out that you did not know what you were talking about.

You did not know anything about statistics yourself. Wasn't BillHoyt already posting in a similar vein? Doesn't he actually know something about statistics? Why did you not leave this for the "experts" as well? Why is it that you hide when asked to actually think for yourself?

I answered your question, please answer mine:

Have you reported me to the moderators for harrassing you?

No, and I'm not going to run and tell mommy either.

 

[CFLarsen]

You did not know anything about statistics yourself.

Not correct. I am not an expert on statistics, that's all.

Wasn't BillHoyt already posting in a similar vein? Doesn't he actually know something about statistics? Why did you not leave this for the "experts" as well? Why is it that you hide when asked to actually think for yourself?

I don't know why BH does things. You really have to ask him about that. However, I did not detect anything wrong with what he was saying.

Which does not mean that he - or I - could be wrong. Which I have made clear before, too.

No, and I'm not going to run and tell mommy either.

Fine. Then stop complaining about being harrassed.

 

[Thanz]

Not correct. I am not an expert on statistics, that's all.

Oh, so you DO know something about statistics? What do you know? Have you taken any courses? Did you understand the questions you were asking me? Would you have understood the answers to those questions? Can you do any statistical analysis yourself? Can you make any informed decisions about what statistical tools to use for a given situation?

I don't know why BH does things. You really have to ask him about that. However, I did not detect anything wrong with what he was saying.

Which does not mean that he - or I - could be wrong. Which I have made clear before, too.

But you were simply asking me questions that BillHoyt was already asking. Why bother repeating them? If you don't care about the answers (as you would not have understood them) why bother asking?

Fine. Then stop complaining about being harrassed.

No. If I think you are harrasing me, I'll say so.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Do you have a problem regarding getting attention? Or do you have a Claus-fetish? You seem to want to provoke discussions with me, no matter what, even if no subject exists.

I've said what I want to say here. I haven't made any claims here (other that I am not an expert on statistics - how do I prove that? Easy...!).

Find another playmate to pick fights with. I prefer discussions of some intellectual merit. You merely bore me.

 

[Thanz]

Do you have a problem regarding getting attention? Or do you have a Claus-fetish? You seem to want to provoke discussions with me, no matter what, even if no subject exists.

No, it is not about you, it is about discussing claims and the paranormal and research design. Things that you claim to be interested in. But refuse to actually answer questions about. If you won't share your knowledge, why are you posting here?

I've said what I want to say here. I haven't made any claims here (other that I am not an expert on statistics - how do I prove that? Easy...!).

No, you have claimed some positive level of knowledge of statistics. I am asking you to back that up with some details, so I know in the future what questions I can ask for your opinion on and what weight to give to that opinion. So, are you going to answer my questions about your claim that you know something about statistics?

Find another playmate to pick fights with. I prefer discussions of some intellectual merit. You merely bore me.

I tried to engage you in a conversation with intellectual merit. I asked for your contribution on test design and for a proper method of counting the JE guesses. You, despite what you say above, were not interested. Instead, you want to make long lists of questions to harass others with. You also need time to follow Clancie around the board so that you can disagree or pick apart anything she says.

Claus, I know that you feel that I am somehow not being fair with you. But all I did was ask for your input on the substantive content of the thread. It was something that you seemed perfectly willing to do when it consisted of buggin me about stats. But when asked to actually contribute something worthwhile, you clam up. You haven't even told me why my questions require "expertise" in the field of statistics.

You claim to be a skeptic. But you seem to be focussed on things other than an actual inquiry into the paranormal. If you can't "embarrass" some "believer", it seems that you lose interest rather quickly. I question your true motives.

 

[Lurker]

Bill:

I apologize. I seem to have been talking over your head. I will no longer mention integrals to you. It seems you fail to understand them.

Lurker

 

[BillHoyt]

Bill:

I apologize. I seem to have been talking over your head. I will no longer mention integrals to you. It seems you fail to understand them.

Lurker

Laughingstock.

 

[Thanz]

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.

Mr Hoyt -

I am still fuzzy as to why Poisson is appropriate for the analysis we are doing here. Could you perhaps specifically apply your general description of Poisson (quoted above) to the specific analysis we are doing here? What about the JE guesses makes you think it is a "Poisson Process"?

Much appreciated.

 

[Lurker]

Laughingstock.

Hmm, when one looks around the room and notices that nobody else is laughing, a clueless person would continue laughing.

Lurker

 

[Lurker]

Show me the math, Bill. It is a rather simple request, is it not?

Lurker