The "Process" of John Edward

[BillHoyt]

This is, I think, the SH reading Mr. Hoyt is bringing up with me. I score this as one guess. It seems clear to me that he is fishing for one name, and a first name at that. Mr. Hoyt's method counts it as three. He claims that my method is illogical as the sitter validates a family name. I say that this does nothing to refute the guess JE makes - he is guessing one name. Mr. Hoyt would count this as three guesses. What is the logical basis for that?

Hello? Did you not read that? He fished for a first name, but got a family name! A whole family. JE accepted that. That is but one refutation your assumption of one guess/ one name.

o Have you found Pepper in the census data?
o Have you found Cinnamon?
o How about Brooklyn?
o Have you found all twenty-six initials in the census data?
o What is your logical basis for excluding names that are clearly part of the census data?
o What is your logical basis for including initials that are clearly not part of the census data?

 

[Thanz]

Please stop this tired strategy of yours. My comments specifically pointed out, repeatedly, what is actually in the transcript evidence. I have discussed both them and what I did with the data to account for them. You continue to make assumptions about JE's process. We are trying to first determine if there is any process to discuss at all. We cannot make your assumptions. Talk about JE hearing phonetically or seeing visually or making one name guess for one person, dead or alive, are all assumptions without foundation. The Ginger example specifically refutes the assumption of a "person". The "Sh" example, where JE names a whole freakin' family clearly refutes the one guess/ one person assumption. As does the case where JE calls out a single initial and specifically says it refers to two different people.

You are also making assumptions, Mr. Hoyt. It is inevitable. You are assuming that everytime he utters a letter or a name he is making a separate guess. There is no basis for this assumption. Why have you not addressed my numbered readings above and what they show about counting methods?

If you actually read the transcipts, you see that there is evidentiary basis for my assumptions.

JE started out with no claims about dog/ cat/person or iguana. He named three "spice nicknames", two of which are surnames recorded in the census data

First, we are focussed on forenames, not surnames. Second, he is guessing a nickname, not a forename or a surname. Third, he is not making a guess based on letters, but rather a different connection. He is not doing the guess a common letter thing here - or guess any letter. It does not belong in a count of letter guesses.

I have said many times now that "easy" or "hard" are not issues. The problem is not that particular guess. The problem is what it means to your unwarranted assumption about the JE process. Here, he specifically says "two". That means the process, as JE sees it, includes this possibility. In the case of the "Sh" guess, he said nothing about how many people it applied to. The sitter said that matched the last name of part of her family. JE accepted it. So now we cannot assume JE will warn us when he means dozens or thousands of people. Your assumptions do not stand up to the evidence.

In the SH, the sitter only referred to her sister. Again, it doesn't matter what the sitter says. Why don't you understand this? We are counting his guesses. How many guesses did he make? ONE. If he says "two people with a J name" how many guesses is he making? TWO. Simple, logical, and backed by the evidence. Saying "Two people with J" is the same as saying "A J connection", getting a hit, and then saying "Another J connection". Two guesses.

Now in this latest post of yours you go on about the initials. Hmm. They're not in the census data either. But you include them. Then you say the nicknames should be excluded. But they are part of the census data. Which is it? What rule are you using? Do you even understand the need to apply rules and procedures consistently?

I really don't know what you are talking about here. I stand by what I said previously. There is more than one reason to exclude the dog - and none of them have to do with the sitter validating it as a dog.

Are you ever going to answer my specific questions that were posted above? You said you would if I explained the difference between hypothesis and experimental method, which I have done. So - where are the answers? Why don't you respond to those posts? They won't go away, you know.

 

[Thanz]

Oh, my stars and garters.

He counts them as multiple guesses because they are multiple guesses. That's the point.

You are correct that he only wants one name in return, but he is giving more than one guess to get it.

But we are counting the number of time he guesses an initial letter. In the B example, he guesses "B", and then rattles off a bunch of examples. This does not change the fact that he makes one guess of B.

If you want to score each name, go ahead. But then you have to compare each name to the distribution of THAT NAME in the census data. What BillHoyt is doing is counting the B example the same as if he said "B? B,B,B,B,B?" or, B once in 6 different readings, which is incorrect. See my numbered readings above.

 

[Garrette]

Okay, then it's possible I'm speaking out of turn and ill-informed because once this thread got really statistical, I only skimmed it. If that's the case, then my apologies in advance.

But it seems to me that there is a flaw in the procedure if done your way. It reduces the actual number of JE guesses (as opposed to the number of "initial letter" JE guesses) without reducing the pool of hits/misses. This procedure, to my statistically ignorant mind, seems to guarantee a better success rate for JE than he actually deserves.

 

[BillHoyt]

You are also making assumptions, Mr. Hoyt. It is inevitable. You are assuming that everytime he utters a letter or a name he is making a separate guess. There is no basis for this assumption. Why have you not addressed my numbered readings above and what they show about counting methods?

Oh, stop! I have explained that the data lead me to the conclusion that we cannot assume this 1 to 1 mapping that you assume.

If you actually read the transcipts, you see that there is evidentiary basis for my assumptions.

Cripes. Asked and answered. Please address my answers.

First, we are focussed on forenames, not surnames. Second, he is guessing a nickname, not a forename or a surname. Third, he is not making a guess based on letters, but rather a different connection. He is not doing the guess a common letter thing here - or guess any letter. It does not belong in a count of letter guesses.

Thank you for the correction. I meant "forename".
Yes, he said nickname, but he named actual forenames. What is your basis for excluding them? Then he got a dog, not a person. And the dog's actual name, not nickname, matched the criterion "spice". So, once again JE said one thing, and accepted something else entirely. You toss in specious assumptions and try to sweep both the count data and the more general process evidence under the rug.

In the SH, the sitter only referred to her sister. Again, it doesn't matter what the sitter says. Why don't you understand this? We are counting his guesses. How many guesses did he make? ONE. If he says "two people with a J name" how many guesses is he making? TWO. Simple, logical, and backed by the evidence. Saying "Two people with J" is the same as saying "A J connection", getting a hit, and then saying "Another J connection". Two guesses.

Last time, Thanz, because you are being dense here. The "Sh" case is a clear refutation of the 1-to-1 ratio you claim. "Sh" was not a forename. It was a surname. A whole freakin' family. JE accepted the answer. In doing so, he provides clear evidence that he is not guessing in the 1-to-1 process you claim.

Thanz, this debate is going nowhere because you continue to ignore what I am presenting. You continue to mischaracterize what I am saying. It is irksome.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD: How are you doing, Carol. Carol, who around you has the SH connection?
CALLER: SH?
EDWARD: Like Sharon, Sherie.
CALLER: Sherum.
EDWARD: Sherum. What is that?
CALLER: That's my sister's last name.
EDWARD: OK, is she still here?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, do you know if there's somebody younger in that family whose passed?
CALLER: No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is, I think, the SH reading Mr. Hoyt is bringing up with me. I score this as one guess. It seems clear to me that he is fishing for one name, and a first name at that. Mr. Hoyt's method counts it as three.

Garrette and Billy have responded here, but here's my .02 anyway since the ' Diogenes ' method gets a five count...

1. .... who around you has the SH connection?

2. Sharon ?

3. Sheri ?

4. ... is she still here?

5. OK, do you know if there's somebody younger in that family whose passed?



What's hillarious is that people actually pay money to be interrogated by this clown.. Why can't law enforcement agencies take advantage of this tendancy?

 

[Clancie]

Actually there are 5 LKL transcripts, the first two are no longer archived at LKL. There are the three renata used (01, 02, 03) plus these two from 1998:

Transcript #1 (6/98) Not available at LKL

LKL Transcript #1, June 1998

Transcript #2 (10/98) Not at LKL. Greta van Susteren guest hosts

LKL Transcript #2, October 1998

 

[Thanz]

Hello? Did you not read that? He fished for a first name, but got a family name! A whole family. JE accepted that. That is but one refutation your assumption of one guess/ one name.

No. Once again - hits/misses make no difference. WE ARE COUNTING GUESSES. It doesn't matter what the sitter says, or what JE accepts as a hit. Do I need to give you your own monkey here?

o Have you found Pepper in the census data?

It doesn't matter. The census is not a survey of nicknames. We do not know the expected distribution of nicknames, which is what JE was guessing.

o Have you found Cinnamon?

See above.

o How about Brooklyn?

I'm not sure why I would even look. What is your point here?

o Have you found all twenty-six initials in the census data?

Are you saying that all 26 letters are not reflected in the census? The distribution of intials in the census was given by juninho on page 10 of this thread.

o What is your logical basis for excluding names that are clearly part of the census data?

What names? Once again, the census data is a survey of first names. We used it to get our expected distribution for each initial letter of first names. It is not a survey of nicknames. Nicknames are not the same as first names. We do not know the expected distribution of nicknames. Therefore, we do not count them. If you are counting the number of dead crows in a field, and you come across a dead sparrow, do you count it too because it is a dead bird?

o What is your logical basis for including initials that are clearly not part of the census data?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[BillHoyt]

No. Once again - hits/misses make no difference. WE ARE COUNTING GUESSES. It doesn't matter what the sitter says, or what JE accepts as a hit. Do I need to give you your own monkey here?

Alright. I'm done with you. Come back around thanksgiving, when I'm more tolerant of turkeys.

 

[Thanz]

Alright. I'm done with you. Come back around thanksgiving, when I'm more tolerant of turkeys.

Just run away. That's fine. Without, I note, addressing any of my specific points about your results and the rejection of the null hypothesis, despite saying you would.

Perhaps we could take this in baby steps.

WHY do you think it is relevant to consider what the sitter says?

How did you score the SH reading? On what basis?

 

[Lurker]

What the sitter responds with is TOTALLY irrelevant. IF JE were to preface his statement with something like "I am getting a nickname here..." or something similar then it might be more important. But he does not.

Since we know by JE's own words that he focuses on first names we can presume that when he makes a guess, without any statement before the guess, that the guess is for a first name. That is JE's intent. On the rare occasion where the sitter confirms as a nickname, or as a dog, unless there was prior modification of intent by JE, we should assume each guess is for a first name.

Lurker

 

[Clancie]

Bill,

Are you planning to join in on counting for all 5 transcripts to see if your "J'" pattern remains consistent (as well as to check on the other high frequency letter patterns, in case "J" was just an anomaly?)

 

[Thanz]

But it seems to me that there is a flaw in the procedure if done your way. It reduces the actual number of JE guesses (as opposed to the number of "initial letter" JE guesses) without reducing the pool of hits/misses. This procedure, to my statistically ignorant mind, seems to guarantee a better success rate for JE than he actually deserves.

For the analysis that we are doing, we are not interested in whether any of the guesses are hits or misses.

The basic idea here is that if JE is cold reading, he will focus on the more frequent initials as they are more likely to get a hit. So, the theory goes, if he is a cold reader he will make a lot of "J" guesses (for example) as "J" is the most common letter for names to begin with.

Of course, if he were real he would make more J guesses than other letters for the same reason - it is the most common. So, we compare how many J guesses he makes to how many we would expect based on the census to see if he makes statistically significantly more J guesses.

In order to do the count, we need to count the total number of guesses for each initial letter. For our purposes, we have been considering a guess of "John" to be equivalent to a guess of "J". I have some reservations about this, but that is how the count was done.

The current disagreement is about what to count as one "guess". I count as one guess any connection he tries to make that is for one person with the same letter - in B example above, he is trying to make one B connection, with a number of specific guesses. Mr. Hoyt counts each name guess as if it were a separate guess.

Another example is the Jane/Jeannie guess. One guess, with two names to increase chance of a hit. Mr. Hoyt counts it as two, as if JE had said "a J connection" once in two separate readings. I count it as one, which would be the same as if he just said "a J connection" in this reading. Note that "J connection" would actually have been a wider net (better for cold reading) than "Jane/jeannie" is. Mr. Hoyt inaccurately counts these as two, even though it is a narrower guess than even one of "J connection".

I hope this summary helps you understand what we are going on about.

 

[voidx]

Posted by Thanz:
Another example is the Jane/Jeannie guess. One guess, with two names to increase chance of a hit. Mr. Hoyt counts it as two, as if JE had said "a J connection" once in two separate readings. I count it as one, which would be the same as if he just said "a J connection" in this reading. Note that "J connection" would actually have been a wider net (better for cold reading) than "Jane/jeannie" is. Mr. Hoyt inaccurately counts these as two, even though it is a narrower guess than even one of "J connection".

While I know that you guys are trying to do a statistical analysis of first letter name guess' I feel in this stated case above you're starting to mix first letter guess' with actual name guess'. Something I think is wrong. If he is making a guess by stating a starting letter then fine I agree with you. But if he states Jane/Jeannie, that is two "name" guess'. While I agree it would be a narrower range for accuracy than just a "J connection" in actual practice it doesn't really matter. JE tosses out names all the time, in almost every reading, and is often wrong. No one ever bats an eye at the numerous name toss outs that do not fit, but rather those that do when they happen. So again while I agree he's being more specific I don't give him credit for this because no one ever takes him to task if he's not even close, its still a safe bet for him because he can always invoke the "difficulty" of telepathic communication excuse.

edited to add: However, I suppose from a mindset of a first letter guess Jane/Jeannie would just be 1 guess, as they both start with J. But I don't know that its logical to start lumping "name" guess' in with first "letter" guess'

 

[Thanz]

edited to add: However, I suppose from a mindset of a first letter guess Jane/Jeannie would just be 1 guess, as they both start with J. But I don't know that its logical to start lumping "name" guess' in with first "letter" guess'

I think that we are in agreement. Earlier in the thread when I suggested that a guess of a name should be treated differently than a guess of just a letter, Mr. Hoyt said it was "Malarky". I disagree with him, but I still did a count with his rule of just looking at the first initial.

If we were counting name guesses (and charting those specific name guesses - ie, counting how many "John" guesses, etc) then I would agree that you need to count each name guess separately. As we are just counting letters however, we shouldn't be counting extra guesses.

I think that what we generally see is that JE will either guess a letter, a letter with a couple of specifics, or just a couple of specifics. In most cases, the initial within the guess is consistent. On other occasions, he guesses somewhat phonetically (Ellen/Helen, J or G, C or K). In those cases, I counted one for each letter.

 

[neofight]

But we are counting the number of time he guesses an initial letter. In the B example, he guesses "B", and then rattles off a bunch of examples. This does not change the fact that he makes one guess of B.

If you want to score each name, go ahead. But then you have to compare each name to the distribution of THAT NAME in the census data. What BillHoyt is doing is counting the B example the same as if he said "B? B,B,B,B,B?" or, B once in 6 different readings, which is incorrect. See my numbered readings above.

Thanz, I don't understand how a logical person can reasonably look at this in any other way. JE never gets the initial wrong. For instance, he will never say I'm getting a short name like Fel, Bill, or Rob. Now, to count those examples as three separate names, an "F", a "B" and an "R" name would make sense. Something like "Steve, Stephanie or Stan", would not. That should only be considered as one "S" name. Anything else would skew the count in such a way as to render it misleading, and therefore useless.

If two skeptics cannot agree on something as basic as this, I don't see how there's any hope for coming up with a fair way to count these names......neo

 

[Darat]

...snip...

JE never gets the initial wrong.

...snip...

Neo - are you saying that JE never gives a letter or a name sound out and gets no takers/connection?

 

[neofight]

Neo - are you saying that JE never gives a letter or a name sound out and gets no takers/connection?

No, Darat, that is not what I am saying, although I would have to add that it is fairly rare that the sitter cannot identify either the letter or name that JE gives them.

But to further clarify my point, no, what I am saying is that John does not mix his letters when he is conveying to the sitter the name that he is getting, except in the unique cases that we've already discussed. i.e. in the soft "G" and "J" instance, the hard "C" and "K" instance, or the case where there is a prominent "L" sound, but softened by a vowel, as in "Elena" or "Ellen" or even "Helen". John admittedly does sometimes have a problem differentiating these sorts of names when he hears them. Since he "hears" these names clairaudiently, phonetics obviously would be a factor here.......neo

 

[voidx]

Posted by neofight:
John admittedly does sometimes have a problem differentiating these sorts of names when he hears them. Since he "hears" these names clairaudiently, phonetics obviously would be a factor here

This is also complete hearsay. We only have John's word to verify this phonetic difficulty. It has not been clarified what he "hears" period. Is it in his own voice? Does he hear it in the spirits voice? Do they have accents? Does he "hear" different languages? If he does do they get translated into english, or some other language he understands? If so are the translated voices his? Or the spirits? All these above questions would go towards understanding what possible phonetic problems JE might experience with his clairaudience. Do we have a detailed description of how and what he hears that covers all our bases here? I don't think you can state anything "obviously" when it comes to the as of yet non proven ability of clairaudience, sorry.

 

[BillHoyt]

No, Darat, that is not what I am saying, although I would have to add that it is fairly rare that the sitter cannot identify either the letter or name that JE gives them.

But to further clarify my point, no, what I am saying is that John does not mix his letters when he is conveying to the sitter the name that he is getting, except in the unique cases that we've already discussed. i.e. in the soft "G" and "J" instance, the hard "C" and "K" instance, or the case where there is a prominent "L" sound, but softened by a vowel, as in "Elena" or "Ellen" or even "Helen". John admittedly does sometimes have a problem differentiating these sorts of names when he hears them. Since he "hears" these names clairaudiently, phonetics obviously would be a factor here.......neo

"Somebody has a name like would be off of a map or something. Like they would be named for a location. Like they called the person, you know, New York or they called the person, Brooklyn or they called the person, you know, Boston."

"Somebody has a nickname after a spice, like pepper? Who's got a spice name?... Salty or pepper, cinnamon."

Explain these, please. Phonetically How does one "hear" a map name? How does one "hear" a spice name?