Examples of Skeptics Cold Reading?

[UnTrickaBLe]

I was reading Paul Sandoval's lengthy breakdown of JE's cold reading techniques here:

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jelkl.htm

I got to wondering. Are there any good examples of skeptics -- having mastered the basics of cold reading -- successfully doing it themselves? Maybe as a hoax? Or maybe even for profit, once they figure out how basic it is! I'm interested in getting some links I can read.

Has anyone here given cold reading a try? :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
I was reading Paul Sandoval's lengthy breakdown of JE's cold reading techniques here:

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jelkl.htm

Such a nice site, isn't it? ;)

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
I got to wondering. Are there any good examples of skeptics -- having mastered the basics of cold reading -- successfully doing it themselves? Maybe as a hoax? Or maybe even for profit, once they figure out how basic it is! I'm interested in getting some links I can read.

Has anyone here given cold reading a try? :D

Plenty. The easiest would be to ask T'ai Chi (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=4370). He asked people to send him examples of readings some weeks ago for a botched experiment. I doubt you'll be successful, though: For some reason, he has refused to share them with others.

[UnTrickaBLe]

CFLarsen, do any famous examples come to mind?

How difficult would it be for a skeptic to apply what we know about cold reading techniques and actually be successful at it themselves. I know Randi has tried this, though I don't have any links.

I imagine much of the answer comes down to the individual skeptic, their showmanship, savvy, and of course their natural talent at "speaking to the dead." ;)

[Marian]

There's a link on the JREF site (I'm trying unsuccessfully to find it) about a woman who did cold readings for a P&T Bullsh*t episode, and she goes into detail on how she 'practiced' at one of the casinos (in costume) and then later did it for the show. (Plus how she prepped, etc.)

As far as being able to do it for profit, sure someone could do so as a self-proclaimed psychic if they were morally bankrupt. To do so as a labeled 'cold reader' would probably be much more difficult as you don't have audience belief to prop you up. Even with audience belief, many people walk out unimpressed from big name mediums. (As was shown on exit interviews from a John Edward's show)

A good example in one respect would be in psychology. Many therapists can have 'amazing insights', but they're not considered that amazing because there's no smoke and mirrors. Patients are giving them data from which they can make reasonable inferences, and then the patient themselves can confirm them.

[Marian]

Found it! :D

http://www.randi.org/swift/current/psychic.html

[CFLarsen]

UnTrickaBLe,

I see Marian beat me to it. :)

You can also get Ian Rowland's book. www.ianrowland.com

[HenDralux]

It's actually frightening just how easy it is to fool people in to believing all manner of crap.

I had my sister - intelligent, grounded, no interest in the paranormal - believing I had supernatural powers a few months ago with a simple 'suggestion' trick.

Did the same with an ex-girlfriend.

Those are just two examples of me, complete amateur, idly testing out a theory for a laugh.

Humans are so easy to fool. One of the main reasons being, that people believe they're too intelligent to be fooled, thus, it must be true.

Raw intelligence has no bearing on how people can be conned.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by HenDralux
It's actually frightening just how easy it is to fool people in to believing all manner of crap.

I had my sister - intelligent, grounded, no interest in the paranormal - believing I had supernatural powers a few months ago with a simple 'suggestion' trick.

Did the same with an ex-girlfriend.
So was she an ex-girlfriend before you tricked her? :p

[Donn]

HenDralux - would you share your 'suggestion' trick with us?
I would love to give it a go myself!

[HenDralux]

Ah, was an incredibly simple psychosomatic job I guess.

Firstly I'd shown her a 'matchstick trick', which is very hard to detect how it's actually done - basically it looks like I can make a matchstick 'jump' via focusing energy through my fingers.

So, there was the suggestion dealt with - that I could direct and focus energy through the tips of my fingers.

Then came the second part...

I told her she could 'feel' this energy coming from my fingers if she held her palm out. I then circled my index finger round her palm (withouth actually touching it) suggesting that I'm concentrating the energy via the tip of my finger.

As she watched the area I was focusing on, simple psychosomatic reasons and the initial suggestion had her 'feeling' this energy.

All quite simple.

[Donn]

Ah, ok - thanks.
I have tried it (sans the jumping matchstick - cos I am magically challenged) on myself - and I can almost feel a circle of tingles on my palm... eerie :)
This reminds me of a child's trick; they scratch your palm with their fingers for a long time and then pretend to "draw" and "pull" an energy out of your hand - you can actually feel something leaving your palm like lines of fine tissue - it's a wonderful illusion.

[HenDralux]

soon as you put a blindfold on them, and they have no idea what part of the skin you're 'focusing energy' on, it fails as you can imagine. :)

[Clancie]

You might find these of interest:

Michael Shermer, “Psychic For A Day, Or How I Learned Tarot Cards, Palm Reading, Astrology, and Mediumship in 24 Hours", by Michael Shermer Skeptic, Vol 10. No.1 2003

The Cold Reading/Psychic Medium Challenge (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=29974)

Cold Reading Puzzles (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=39133)

However, as Ian Rowland himself says, (The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading, p. 21), "If you have a good grasp of how cold reading works, and how to block it, then it cannot be used on you."

So, by all means, learn all you can about it. But if you do, and you continue to explore this for yourself, you may find (as I have), that not -everything- will be adequately explained away as simply "cold...hot...warm reading, plus sitter buy-in".

[HenDralux]

I don't come here too often Clancie but I've seen some of your posts here and there - not enough to get a full grasp on where you stand on this issue though.

Do you believe that mediums are in contact with dead people?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Clancie
So, by all means, learn all you can about it. But if you do, and you continue to explore this for yourself, you may find (as I have), that not -everything- will be adequately explained away as simply "cold...hot...warm reading, plus sitter buy-in". But the articles you quote and Sandaval's list more techniques than those, not to mention selective recall by the sitter, confirmation bias, variations of the file drawer effect,and so forth.

[Clancie]

Posted by HenDralux

I don't come here too often Clancie but I've seen some of your posts here and there - not enough to get a full grasp on where you stand on this issue though.

Do you believe that mediums are in contact with dead people?

Hi HenDralux,

My view is, "There might be something to it." There's no doubt that you can explain away much of readings I've seen, read, and had, as "cold/warm/hot reading plus sitter buy in". And there's also always some "junk" included, stuff that makes no sense.

Nevertheless, I've concluded that when you discount all of that, you're often left with apparently evidential information that cannot be explained away using any of the above reasons.

Does that mean there isn't a "natural" explanation? Of course not. But, imo, I haven't found it yet and I haven't seen anyone else who has either.

(And, fyi, I'm not alone in this. Mark Edward, a CSICOP board member and mentalist, considers himself "both a skeptic and a believer" from his experience in actually doing psychic readings and feeling there are things he "gets" that even he is unable to explain away as one of the "usual suspects". Even a skeptic like Mark Edward thinks "there's something to it"...so...not quite as simplistic, imo, as some people here make it seem..... :) ).

[HenDralux]

Thanks Clancie.

Can you tell me what kind of evidential information you feel hasn't yet been explained? I've never yet come across something that I don't feel could have a natural explanation myself, so I'd be interested to hear.

[Clancie]

Well, I'm not out to convince anyone (aside from which, if anything's impossible around here, that is. :) ). So I'm not going to debate this, "yes/no/maybe" in this thread since most people (myself included) are pretty set in their ways on it.

However, you asked for an example, so I'll provide one (caveat: it's not intended to persuade you of anything. It's an example of information in a reading that I see as the kind of thing I was talking about).

I had a phone reading with a medium who asked me if the deceased and I had taken a trip to San Luis Obispo, here in California (And, yes, she could have already easily known I lived in Ca., but nowhere near SLO). The answer was "Yes".

Medium: "Did a snake come out on that trip?"

Me: A snake? No, no snake.

Medium: "You didn't see a snake on that trip? Because he's showing me a snake."

Me: Oh. We went to visit his son. He goes by the nickname of 'Snake'.
Coincidence? Lucky guess? Maybe to you. But it is hits like that that keep me so interested in this process.

[HenDralux]

I see...

Thanks for that Clancie.

I won't debate it with you seeing as you don't wish to, but thanks for the example. :)

Dave

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
My view is, "There might be something to it."

No, it isn't. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870297680)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Plenty. The easiest would be to ask T'ai Chi (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=4370). He asked people to send him examples of readings some weeks ago for a botched experiment. I doubt you'll be successful, though: For some reason, he has refused to share them with others.

For some reason, you often refer to it as an "experiment".

You don't seem to know what an experiment actually means.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
CFLarsen, do any famous examples come to mind?

How difficult would it be for a skeptic to apply what we know about cold reading techniques and actually be successful at it themselves. I know Randi has tried this, though I don't have any links.


Yes, Randi tried it in this TV programme on ch 5 in the UK last year. Acordding to Montague Keen, he was such an embarrassing flop they cut it out and he did some hot reading instead :)

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes, Randi tried it in this TV programme on ch 5 in the UK last year. Acordding to Montague Keen, he was such an embarrassing flop they cut it out and he did some hot reading instead :)

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

Hi Ian,

If it's the same show I'm thinking of (it may well not be) then I'd have to say the *actual* mediums were a whole lot more 'floppy' than Randi.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by HenDralux
It's actually frightening just how easy it is to fool people in to believing all manner of crap.

I had my sister - intelligent, grounded, no interest in the paranormal - believing I had supernatural powers a few months ago with a simple 'suggestion' trick.

Did the same with an ex-girlfriend.

Those are just two examples of me, complete amateur, idly testing out a theory for a laugh.

Humans are so easy to fool. One of the main reasons being, that people believe they're too intelligent to be fooled, thus, it must be true.

Raw intelligence has no bearing on how people can be conned.

I don't agree. For example I was just watching Derren Brown last night. Even though he's not very good at chess, he simultaneously played 5 good chess players at once, a couple of grandmasters amongst them, and he managed to beat most of them. They all seemed to be extremely impressed. But I twigged on how he did it.

My sheer raw intelligence you see :p

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by HenDralux


Hi Ian,

If it's the same show I'm thinking of (it may well not be) then I'd have to say the *actual* mediums were a whole lot more 'floppy' than Randi.

I scarcely think so. Obviously Randi's hot reading was slightly more impressive. But a couple of the readings by mediums were beyond what would be expected by chance :)

[HenDralux]

We must be thinking of a different show then.

What I saw was laughable. They used a screen for one of the mediums. He got it totally and utterly wrong, then used the old trick of 'oh, must be picking up a dead person related to someone in the audience'.

How is that possible? Has the spirit suddenly forgot who he/she is related to?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't agree. For example I was just watching Derren Brown last night. Even though he's not very good at chess, he simultaneously played 5 good chess players at once, a couple of grandmasters amongst them, and he managed to beat most of them. They all seemed to be extremely impressed. But I twigged on how he did it.

My sheer raw intelligence you see :p
So how do you think he did it?

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I scarcely think so. Obviously Randi's hot reading was slightly more impressive. But a couple of the readings by mediums were beyond what would be expected by chance :)

You were obviously looking out for the trick, because he's Derren Brown.

Let me ask you - if Derren never let on to the fact he was a fake and was using trickery, how many people do you think would have believed he was great at chess?

[HenDralux]

oops, wrong quote, but you know what I'm referring to Ian. :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I'm not out to convince anyone (aside from which, if anything's impossible around here, that is. ). So I'm not going to debate this, "yes/no/maybe" in this thread since most people (myself included) are pretty set in their ways on it.

However, you asked for an example, so I'll provide one (caveat: it's not intended to persuade you of anything. It's an example of information in a reading that I see as the kind of thing I was talking about).

I had a phone reading with a medium who asked me if the deceased and I had taken a trip to San Luis Obispo, here in California (And, yes, she could have already easily known I lived in Ca., but nowhere near SLO). The answer was "Yes".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medium: "Did a snake come out on that trip?"

Me: A snake? No, no snake.

Medium: "You didn't see a snake on that trip? Because he's showing me a snake."

Me: Oh. We went to visit his son. He goes by the nickname of 'Snake'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Coincidence? Lucky guess? Maybe to you. But it is hits like that that keep me so interested in this process. [/B]

Hmmm . .extremely interesting Clancie! :) Clearly it is highly unreasonable that the medium just got this by chance. The only "normal" possibility here would be hot reading.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
For some reason, you often refer to it as an "experiment".

You don't seem to know what an experiment actually means.

Fine, it was a study of your incompetence. Satisfied? Now, are you going to supply HenDralux with the transcripts you had people send you?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes, Randi tried it in this TV programme on ch 5 in the UK last year. Acordding to Montague Keen, he was such an embarrassing flop they cut it out and he did some hot reading instead :)

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

Neither you or the article mention the reason: Randi was recognized. Now, for cold reading to work, the sitter has to believe that the medium has the ability to talk to dead people.

You know that. Keen knew that. You both ignored it. Very dishonest of both of you.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Kerberos
So how do you think he did it?

He actually played 11 opponents, I think. The trick was he simply remembered each player's moves, and duplicated them on other tables. In effect, the grandmasters were playing each other.

They revealed the solution on the show.

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hmmm . .extremely interesting Clancie! :) Clearly it is highly unreasonable that the medium just got this by chance. The only "normal" possibility here would be hot reading.

Ian, I don't know you, so I don't know if you're being sarcastic. I didn't want to comment on Clancie's example because she stated she didn't wish to debate it.

But, are you serious about the quoted statement? I could give you some incredibly simple explanations for that particular one. Infact, I was quite surprised when I saw Clancie's example, I was expecting something impossible to explain by merely reading the text in a forum.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Coincidence? Lucky guess? Maybe to you. But it is hits like that that keep me so interested in this process.

No, not coincidence, not lucky guess. The medium didn't get a hit: You fitted the information.

She guessed an animal. You turned that into a person.

Snakes? Aplenty in California.

Not coincidence, not lucky guess. But a classic example of an all-too-willing sitter turning a wrong guess into a hit.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by HenDralux


You were obviously looking out for the trick, because he's Derren Brown.

Let me ask you - if Derren never let on to the fact he was a fake and was using trickery, how many people do you think would have believed he was great at chess?

Yes I agree. It was psychological. He deliberately told these excellent chess players that he himself was also very good at chess. But he told us, the viewing audience, that he in fact was pretty useless at chess. So I was looking out for the trick. If I knew nothing about Derren Brown it would have been unlikely I would have realised what he was doing.

On occasions I can see how he does his tricks, most times I can't. But I hate these TV programmes anway because, obviously, they cut out all the failed attempts for a kick off. They're a cheat! :mad:

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But I hate these TV programmes anway because, obviously, they cut out all the failed attempts for a kick off. They're a cheat! :mad:

lol, you don't say...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
He actually played 11 opponents, I think. The trick was he simply remembered each player's moves, and duplicated them on other tables. In effect, the grandmasters were playing each other.

They revealed the solution on the show.

Clever... :) Must remember that one....

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Fine, it was a study of your incompetence. Satisfied?


No, I'm not satisfied by your use of incorrect terms, your insults, your non apology for it, and your other amusing tactics.


Now, are you going to supply HenDralux with the transcripts you had people send you?


WTF does HenDralux have to do with it??

[Clancie]

Posted by Interesting Ian

Hmmm . .extremely interesting Clancie! Clearly it is highly unreasonable that the medium just got this by chance. The only "normal" possibility here would be hot reading.
Well, yes, but there was no way to hot read this that I can see (i.e. no "researchable connection" between me and the son...much less the nickname, which was one that only he and his father used).

I figure people will attribute it to "lucky guess" or me just "making it fit". However, neither of those explanations work for me (nor is the city of SLO known for its indigenous snake population :) ).

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by HenDralux
We must be thinking of a different show then.

What I saw was laughable. They used a screen for one of the mediums. He got it totally and utterly wrong, then used the old trick of 'oh, must be picking up a dead person related to someone in the audience'.

How is that possible? Has the spirit suddenly forgot who he/she is related to?

It was definitely the same show. The guy behind the screen was an absolute joke. Randi, as far as I am aware, has never declared himself an expert cold reader so it seems unfair to expect him to perform as one. But he clearly thought he could do it on this occasion, so it's a shame his reputation preceded him.

Alistair Cook on Psychic Secrets Revealed was much more impressive, according to the powerful effect he had on his sitters, and his anonymity must have helped. The guy on Penn & Teller also got great reactions from his audience.

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Clancie

(nor is the city of SLO known for its indigenous snake population :) ).

May I ask you though Clancie, how likely is it that you may see a snake in a road-trip in California? How often do you see them?

I don't know, I'm English, never been there.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by HenDralux
We must be thinking of a different show then.

What I saw was laughable. They used a screen for one of the mediums. He got it totally and utterly wrong, then used the old trick of 'oh, must be picking up a dead person related to someone in the audience'.

How is that possible? Has the spirit suddenly forgot who he/she is related to?

No, it was the same programme. It seems to me that skeptics have a very poor understanding of probability. That is if they are alleging cold reading rather than hot reading.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No, I'm not satisfied by your use of incorrect terms, your insults, your non apology for it, and your other amusing tactics.

Use of incorrect terms? I corrected myself. It wasn't an experiment, it was a study. What more do you want?

It isn't an insult if it is true.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
WTF does HenDralux have to do with it??

My fault. It was UnTrickaBLe. (See? Again, I admit errors! Try it sometime...)

Are you going to provide UnTrickaBLe with the transcripts you have?

[Clancie]

I saw Ian Rowland cold read at Cal Tech and wasn't impressed. Apparently, even his own assessment of his cold reading demo at TAM2 wasn't very positive.

Personally, I'm still waiting to see an admitted cold reader make a convincing unedited "mediumship" demonstration, something comparable to some of the readings that I've had personally.

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, it was the same programme. It seems to me that skeptics have a very poor understanding of probability. That is if they are alleging cold reading rather than hot reading.

I'm not alleging anything or speaking about probability factors.

I was a viewer of the show..and that medium stank. Simple as that. Whether he was fake or not.

Randi may have 'hot-read', but he got the info correct.

The medium didn't. Completely failed.

[Clancie]

Posted by HenDralux

May I ask you though Clancie, how likely is it that you may see a snake in a road-trip in California? How often do you see them?

I don't know, I'm English, never been there.
Well, come visit some time! Its a nice state. :)

To be honest, I've lived in Ca. all my life and I've never seen a snake on a road trip. And seeing one while driving to SLO would, in my opinion, be highly unlikely and unusual.
Posted by HenDralux

Randi may have 'hot-read', but he got the info correct.
Well, he'd be really bad to miss it when hot reading! :) (Which, btw, he admitted doing).

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Clancie

seeing one while driving to SLO would, in my opinion, be highly unlikely and unusual.


edited to add: Of course Randi got the information right by hot reading. :)

ookey dokes. Fair enough.

[HenDralux]

erm..apologies again. Why can't I seem to get this quoting malarkey right...

My earlier post was meant for Clancie and her snake answer. :)

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Clancie


Well, he'd be really bad to miss it when hot reading! :) (Which, btw, he admitted doing).

lol, yes, but that wasn't quite my point.

The total failure of the alleged cold reading medium followed seemingly usual protocol.

A screen was adopted, and upon total failure, he blamed it on the possibility of another spirit connected to the rest of the audience.

My question is, why couldn't the spirit say 'hey, pal....btw, the bloke behind the screen? Never seen him in m life'

But what 'seems' to happen is..they wave some kinda mystic symbol around which is supposed to mean 'see that bloke behind the screen? Well I may or may not know him..I may or may not have a name that begins with T...and I *think* I died of a heart attack'.

It just seems a shame that spirits lose all their faculties in the afterlife.

Like your snake for example...who was showing her a snake?

[HenDralux]

Is the afterlife one eternal, infinite game of charades?

Man, I hope not, I hate that game. :(

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, yes, but there was no way to hot read this that I can see (i.e. no "researchable connection" between me and the son...much less the nickname, which was one that only he and his father used).

I figure people will attribute it to "lucky guess" or me just "making it fit". However, neither of those explanations work for me (nor is the city of SLO known for its indigenous snake population :) ).

Yes, I agree that the snake connection is pretty unlikely. Of course I don't know how many incorrect connections the medium got. :) But from reading transcripts of readings, although some of them certainly some seem cold reading, with a fair few of them this is just too implausible. Actually, from reading your comments in other threads I'm pretty much in precise agreement with you.

Edit to add: Although I agree that it is likely that some anomalous cognition is going on here, this doesn't mean to say that people are actually contacting the dead. Maybe they are, really difficult to say. But even if it's just plain old esp, it is my opinion that the very existence of ESP is highly suggestive of the survival hypothesis. I won't bother arguing that point at the moment though :)

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


He actually played 11 opponents, I think. The trick was he simply remembered each player's moves, and duplicated them on other tables. In effect, the grandmasters were playing each other.

They revealed the solution on the show.
OK, I did consider that possibility since I heard of it before, but Ian said that he managed to win most of the games, and you can't really be sure to win more than half your games that way. Incidentially if he played against 11 opponents, wouldn't he have to play against one of them himself?

[Clancie]

Posted by HenDralux

A screen was adopted, and upon total failure, he blamed it on the possibility of another spirit connected to the rest of the audience.
Yes, that's one reason I don't find group readings usually as "evidential" when information -does- seemingly come through, (unless. it is clearly well-focused on a particular person to begin with).
It just seems a shame that spirits lose all their faculties in the afterlife.
Well, if its true, I don't find it that incredible that a medium could get "information" from feeling things, seeing things, and hearing things (though, imo, complete sentences seems a bit much to expect--I know we disagree.)

Like your snake for example...who was showing her a snake.
Supposedly, the deceased. (And she -did- get his name, first try, no hot reading. But, again, non-believers would say, "Its a common name"--which it is. Still...there's just so much one can chalk up to "lucky guess" and "coincidence" before thinking, "There might be something to it.").

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I saw Ian Rowland cold read at Cal Tech and wasn't impressed. Apparently, even his own assessment of his cold reading demo at TAM2 wasn't very positive.

Yes, and the reason? Both audiences knew he was cold reading. And, as you know, sitters have to believe the medium/cold reader is able to talk to the dead.

Originally posted by Clancie
Personally, I'm still waiting to see an admitted cold reader make a convincing unedited "mediumship" demonstration, something comparable to some of the readings that I've had personally.

First, you have seen several impressive cold reading examples.

Second, you have not been able to tell the difference.

Third, you are now moving the goal posts. Before, you wanted to see a cold reader comparable to John Edward. Now, it has to be one of the many mediums you have had readings with - thereby making it impossible for us to compare as well, since you won't share your readings with us.

Originally posted by Clancie
To be honest, I've lived in Ca. all my life and I've never seen a snake on a road trip. And seeing one while driving to SLO would, in my opinion, be highly unlikely and unusual.

Really? I find that rather odd:

There are 33 species of snakes in California. Species commonly found in the wild lands of northern California include gopher snakes, racers, California kingsnakes, garter snakes, and the northern Pacific rattlesnake.
Source (http://www.openspace.org/resource_management/Wildlife/Snakes.pdf)

Of the 33 snake species in California, 6 are poisonous--all of them rattlesnakes. 10 to 15 deaths are reported each year from venomous snake bites.
Source (http://www.envtox.ucdavis.edu/cehs/TOXINS/venomsnakes.htm)

Lampropeltis getula californiae - California Kingsnake, from San Obispo (http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/l.g.californiae.html)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by HenDralux


Hmmm . .extremely interesting Clancie! Clearly it is highly unreasonable that the medium just got this by chance. The only "normal" possibility here would be hot reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ian, I don't know you, so I don't know if you're being sarcastic.



Huh?? No why should I be? I'm the resident "woo" anyway :)





I didn't want to comment on Clancie's example because she stated she didn't wish to debate it.

But, are you serious about the quoted statement?



Well yes. I haven't discounted hot reading, so what are you disagreeing with me about? You must be saying it is possible it was just a lucky guess. Certainly it is possible, but just very unlikely.



I could give you some incredibly simple explanations for that particular one.


Well, I doubt that, but you can try me :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by HenDralux


May I ask you though Clancie, how likely is it that you may see a snake in a road-trip in California? How often do you see them?

I don't know, I'm English, never been there.

Ummmm . . .pretty desperate stuff!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by HenDralux


I'm not alleging anything or speaking about probability factors.

I was a viewer of the show..and that medium stank. Simple as that. Whether he was fake or not.

Randi may have 'hot-read', but he got the info correct.

The medium didn't. Completely failed.

Well, I can't remember enough details now. I remember that on the whole there were some readings which I did not believe could be produced by cold reading. But can't remember the details, so I guess there's little point in discussing it. We need a transcript in front of us so we can both comment on it :)

[Clancie]

The Boy Paj

The guy on Penn & Teller also got great reactions from his audience.
If you mean Mark Edward...he's a skeptic in general, but a believer that there's something unexplainable at work in his psychic readings. :) He describes himself as "skeptic and believer". :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
For example I was just watching Derren Brown last night. Even though he's not very good at chess, he simultaneously played 5 good chess players at once, a couple of grandmasters amongst them, and he managed to beat most of them. They all seemed to be extremely impressed. But I twigged on how he did it.

My sheer raw intelligence you see :p

Interesting how wrong you can remember, even though it happened last night:

This is highlighted by another stunt filmed for the new series, where Derren invites a group of nine world-class chess professionals, comprised of Grandmasters and International Masters to a studio, decorated as a massive chess board. Derren then plays them all simultaneously, with the objective of beating or drawing with the majority of them - which he achieves. Derren can play chess, but by his own admission, he's not much good at it. Yet there he is, beating nine top-notch players. But there is an explanation and Derren reveals to camera how he did it'.
Source (http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/blueyonder/getContent.jspx?page=157856&group=tv_page)

Derren Brown set up a simul involving 9 matches against some quality opposition made up of IMs and GMs (some rather handy UK players like Chris Ward, Julian Hodgson, Graham Lee). He ended up with 4 wins, 3 losses and 2 draws by essentially playing 4 of them off against another 4 without them realising and then beating the weakest player there (President of the Chess Society at King's College, London or some such blokey, am not sure how he beat him to be honest).
Source (http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=10278)

4 wins, 3 losses and 2 draws.

Not "most of them". And he told how it was done. So much for your "sheer raw intelligence", Ian....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, come visit some time! Its a nice state. :)

To be honest, I've lived in Ca. all my life and I've never seen a snake on a road trip. And seeing one while driving to SLO would, in my opinion, be highly unlikely and unusual.



I've never seen a snake in my life. Nor even a cockroach as far as I'm aware! Thank God!! LOL

Plenty of spiders though :mad: although only titchy ones in the north east of England. Southerners get much bigger spiders :eek: (southern England that is LOL)

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Kerberos
OK, I did consider that possibility since I heard of it before, but Ian said that he managed to win most of the games, and you can't really be sure to win more than half your games that way. Incidentially if he played against 11 opponents, wouldn't he have to play against one of them himself?

He did indeed. He arranged that the last guy would be the poorest player, and he did beat him. The others were wins, draws and losses, as you would expect. It wasn't actually just a demonstration of his playing prowess, though.

At the start of the performance he gave one of the players an envelope with a long series of digits in it. When the games were completed the number was revealed and it turned out to be a prediction of the number of pieces remaining on each of the boards (10,6,5,9 etc)

It wasn't perfect (one error as I recall), but it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur.

I don't know if it was a trick. He is a magician, after all.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by HenDralux


lol, yes, but that wasn't quite my point.

The total failure of the alleged cold reading medium followed seemingly usual protocol.

A screen was adopted, and upon total failure, he blamed it on the possibility of another spirit connected to the rest of the audience.

My question is, why couldn't the spirit say 'hey, pal....btw, the bloke behind the screen? Never seen him in m life'

But what 'seems' to happen is..they wave some kinda mystic symbol around which is supposed to mean 'see that bloke behind the screen? Well I may or may not know him..I may or may not have a name that begins with T...and I *think* I died of a heart attack'.

It just seems a shame that spirits lose all their faculties in the afterlife.

Like your snake for example...who was showing her a snake?

That wasn't the only reading.

BTW I certainly disagree that spirits lose all their faculties in the afterlife. Why do you imagine that communication must be perfect?

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Clancie

If you mean Mark Edward...he's a skeptic in general, but a believer that there's something unexplainable at work in his psychic readings. :) He describes himself as "skeptic and believer". :)

Really? I just watched back that segment of the show. Mark Edwards (for it is he) says:

"It's all showbiz. It's all carnival knowledge. What made me turn around was when I saw how easy it was to manipulate and control people's whole life and the structure of the way they think and react by doing the simplest magic trick. "

Doesn't sound like much of a believer to me.

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


BTW I certainly disagree that spirits lose all their faculties in the afterlife. Why do you imagine that communication must be perfect?

Not perfect communication with respect to the 'connection'...communication with respect to what they actually are saying.

I could go along with the possibility that you may not get a great 'connection' along the lines of tuning into a crackly radio...but from what mediums state, that just doesn't seem to be the case.

What the actual supposed deceased seem to say is basically bizarre. They get many things wrong, they don't seem to always know their own name...they give you really naff information - and not forgetting, many spirits are totally aware of the whole 'skeptic/believer' issue and whether the afterlife really exists or not.

So WHY do they tell you 'I know you wanted to be there at the end but couldn't...'

Why is it never .. 'Wow!!...I still exist!..Dave...man..you wanna see this...right...it's all red, and I'm floating around here....you get to play badminton all day and the chicks are so hot. You're gonna love it.'

I'm pretty sure I'd try and get some better info across than all the usual stuff they come out with...

[Clancie]

Posted by The Boy Paj

Really? I just watched back that segment of the show. Mark Edwards (for it is he) says:

"It's all showbiz. It's all carnival knowledge. What made me turn around was when I saw how easy it was to manipulate and control people's whole life and the structure of the way they think and react by doing the simplest magic trick. "

Doesn't sound like much of a believer to me.
Well, I don't know if P&T edited him, or if it was originally qualified in some way.

But the videotape of his lecture/demonstration at Cal Tech (for Shermer's Skeptic Society) makes clear he describes himself as "a skeptic and a believer" and does -not- think everything he does can be explained away as showbiz or carnival knowledge (or even psychologixal manipulation).

If anyone has the tape, you can check for yourselves. (It's called, "The Psychology of the Psychic and the Believer").

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Interesting how wrong you can remember, even though it happened last night:





4 wins, 3 losses and 2 draws.

Not "most of them". And he told how it was done. So much for your "sheer raw intelligence", Ian....

Huh? Well yeah, so there was 2 draws. I meant the score he got beat his opponents scores. Let's not be boringly pedantic. I was simply putting the point across that I worked out how he did it. The fact he said how he did it is neither her nor there since I worked it out before he said.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, I don't know if P&T edited him, or if it was originally qualified in some way.


Well, he personally debunks a medium on the show so I think he knew the agenda. He says "these techniques have been around for hundreds of years. All they've done is get rid of the velvet drapes and darkness of the seance room, and the goofy rubber hands, and they're doing it on stage".

But maybe he was tricked into saying these things. Can you find a quote of him retracting these comments?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Clancie

To be honest, I've lived in Ca. all my life and I've never seen a snake on a road trip. And seeing one while driving to SLO would, in my opinion, be highly unlikely and unusual.



But someone else have certainly seen snakes in CA though, here is a list of snakes in California:

http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/snakes.html

Am I wrong in saying that rattlesnakes and gartersnakes are quite common in the San Luis Obispo area?


/thomas

[Clancie]

Posted by The Boy Paj

But maybe he was tricked into saying these things. Can you find a quote of him retracting these comments?
He doesn't have to retract them. I'm sure he thinks -some- people use tricks. But if you look at him speaking about it, unedited, on this video, he makes his feelings about his own ability quite clear (i.e. he doesn't understand it, anc considers himself, based on what he does, "both a skeptic and a believer").

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I don't know if P&T edited him, or if it was originally qualified in some way.

While we know that John Edward is heavily edited, with the occasional cheat thrown in for good measure...

Originally posted by Clancie
But the videotape of his lecture/demonstration at Cal Tech (for Shermer's Skeptic Society) makes clear he describes himself as "a skeptic and a believer" and does -not- think everything he does can be explained away as showbiz or carnival knowledge (or even psychologixal manipulation).

Really? At TAM2, he was extremely clear about it: He called psychics "scum" in a rather non-stiff upper lip way.

In his book, "The Full Facts of Cold Reading", he is equally direct. Under the headling "Do psychic powers really exist?" (p.11), he writes:

"In the unlikely event that anyone wants my opinion, based on over twenty years dabbling in the subject, I would say that in purely rational terms there is currently no good reason to believe in psychic ability."

He goes on:

"However, the other answer I often give is that 'psychic powers are as real as you want them to be', which I think is true. To a person who wants to believe in psychic power, or any other chimera, the 'evidence' is whatever supports the belief, and anything else is deemed irrelevant."

He described you to a dot.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


He did indeed. He arranged that the last guy would be the poorest player, and he did beat him. The others were wins, draws and losses, as you would expect. It wasn't actually just a demonstration of his playing prowess, though.

At the start of the performance he gave one of the players an envelope with a long series of digits in it. When the games were completed the number was revealed and it turned out to be a prediction of the number of pieces remaining on each of the boards (10,6,5,9 etc)

It wasn't perfect (one error as I recall), but it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur.

I don't know if it was a trick. He is a magician, after all.

I was only paying a little bit of attention to the programme actually cos on Internet as always. So not sure how he did that. But he can engineer the correct results by doing what you suggested and also, if he just apparently randomly asked the various chess players how many pieces they had left on their boards, this completes the explanation (because it won't actually have been random).

[Clancie]

Posted by Thomas

Am I wrong in saying that rattlesnakes and gartersnakes are quite common in the San Luis Obispo area?
Well, there are lots of snakes throughout California (a big state with lots of mountains and deserts). That doesn't mean you normally see them when driving between LA and San Francisco (we weren't on a camping trip)--or while walking around a city.

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, there are lots of snakes throughout California, Thomas. That doesn't mean you normally see them when driving between LA and San Francisco (we weren't on a camping trip)--or while walking around a city.

There's a higher possibility of seeing a snake on a road trip through Cali than many other states though, right?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh? Well yeah, so there was 2 draws. I meant the score he got beat his opponents scores. Let's not be boringly pedantic. I was simply putting the point across that I worked out how he did it. The fact he said how he did it is neither her nor there since I worked it out before he said.

Riiiiiiiight. You can't remember much from last night, yet you want us to believe that your "raw sheer intelligence" found out.

Riiiiiiiight.

You may think it is "pedantic", I think it is pivotal. You really want to discuss using inaccurate data?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


Really? I just watched back that segment of the show. Mark Edwards (for it is he) says:

"It's all showbiz. It's all carnival knowledge. What made me turn around was when I saw how easy it was to manipulate and control people's whole life and the structure of the way they think and react by doing the simplest magic trick. "

Doesn't sound like much of a believer to me.

I agree. But one needs to see the context of his remark.

[TheBoyPaj]

I used to do the Rubik Cube in less than a minute. If Ian gets a prize I want one too!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Riiiiiiiight. You can't remember much from last night, yet you want us to believe that your "raw sheer intelligence" found out.

Riiiiiiiight.

You may think it is "pedantic", I think it is pivotal. You really want to discuss using inaccurate data?

LOL :) Well, you can believe it or not. But have you ever known me to lie about anything? Anyone ever known me to lie about anything?

I very rarely lie.

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I used to do the Rubik Cube in less than a minute. If Ian gets a prize I want one too!

Did you dismantle it too like I did? :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I used to do the Rubik Cube in less than a minute. If Ian gets a prize I want one too!

I used to be only to do 1 side in 5 mins. Never could get 2 sides though, although I only tried on a handful of occasions with a friends cube.

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I very rarely lie.

Hey Ian, how do we know when that 'rare' occasion occurs? ;)

[Clancie]

Posted by HenDralux

There's a higher possibility of seeing a snake on a road trip through Cali than many other states though, right
Well, let's just say that skeptics can "make anything fit, too." :)

(And, through no fault of your own, HenDralux, I wound up debating this after all, didn't I? lol).

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, let's just say that skeptics can "make anything fit, too." :)


Dunno if that is *completely* fair in this case. If the afterlife does not exist, the snake theory is very plausible in a cold reading sense.


(And, through no fault of your own, HenDralux, I wound up debating this after all, didn't I? lol).

uh huh, you know you wanted to. ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Thomas


But someone else have certainly seen snakes in CA though, here is a list of snakes in California:

http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/snakes.html

Am I wrong in saying that rattlesnakes and gartersnakes are quite common in the San Luis Obispo area?


/thomas

Is this any relevance to anything whatsoever? Would Clancie consider it a hit if she had happened to see a snake on her journey? :rolleyes:

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Is this any relevance to anything whatsoever? Would Clancie consider it a hit if she had happened to see a snake on her journey? :rolleyes:

I think it's a fair assumption. Either the afterlife exists or it does not.

If it does not, the possibility that the 'snake' word was thrown in to a scenario regarding a road trip in California is very plausible.

If the reader gets a 'hit', all is well. I don't think it's that much of a stretch.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I used to do the Rubik Cube in less than a minute. If Ian gets a prize I want one too!

Average 29 secs. Well, during high school... ;)

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Average 29 secs. Well, during high school... ;)

Were you a particularly bullied child at school? ;)

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Clancie

He doesn't have to retract them. I'm sure he thinks -some- people use tricks. But if you look at him speaking about it, unedited, on this video, he makes his feelings about his own ability quite clear (i.e. he doesn't understand it, anc considers himself, based on what he does, "both a skeptic and a believer").

I'll have to reserve judgment until I see the tape, which is likely to be never.

However, even if he does think there might be something in it, I was using him as an example of someone using cold reading techniques which, to the audience, are indistiguishable from what they consider the real thing. Do you dispute this?

[JPK]

Just a question...

After reading this thread, and others like it, do people actually believe that getting a so called "hit" on a guess at a name is less probable then actually comunicating with someone who is dead?

I mean, if I just take the snake reference for an example, I was talking about a rubber snake last night with some friends. This seems like a closer "hit" then learning somebody has a nickname Snake. After all it did seem like the person was refering to the animal. By the way I can think of two people I know with the same nickname.

I'm not saying this person didn't get the info from the someone already dead, it just seems that there are other possiblilities including a guess.

JPK

[CFLarsen]

JPK,

You are absolutely right. The fact that this guess fits a lot of people (and Clancie had to change an animal into a person to make it fit) very strongly suggests that the psychic was merely throwing out a guess.

We have seen from many examples how sitters, desperate to seek connection with their dead relatives, make the most incredible stretches to make it fit.

It is strange that believers argue that if it fits them, then the reading is for them - what is referred to as "validation". That it can be validated by others are completely ignored.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Is this any relevance to anything whatsoever? Would Clancie consider it a hit if she had happened to see a snake on her journey? :rolleyes:

Yes, she would indeed have considered it a hit if she had seen a snake on that roadtrip.
If you can't understand that, you're too selective, hence, will fail to ever realize what cold reading is all about.


/thomas

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
JPK,

You are absolutely right. The fact that this guess fits a lot of people (and Clancie had to change an animal into a person to make it fit) very strongly suggests that the psychic was merely throwing out a guess.

We have seen from many examples how sitters, desperate to seek connection with their dead relatives, make the most incredible stretches to make it fit.

It is strange that believers argue that if it fits them, then the reading is for them - what is referred to as "validation". That it can be validated by others are completely ignored.

"An incredible stretch". Yeah, a really incredible stretch :rolleyes: Get a grip.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Thomas


Yes, she would indeed have considered it a hit if she had seen a snake on that roadtrip.
If you can't understand that, you're too selective, hence, will fail to ever realize what cold reading is all about.


/thomas

You know Clancie personally? :eek:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
"An incredible stretch". Yeah, a really incredible stretch :rolleyes: Get a grip.

Ian, please. Clancie lives in Snake Country. To get a hit, she has to change an animal into a human being - and then, only a nickname.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You know Clancie personally? :eek:

Is it impossible, Ian? Is it in fact not very likely, given that Clancie can change a snake to someone called Snake?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You know Clancie personally? :eek:

You don't need to know anyone personally to understand the basics of cold reading.

Did I ever tell you about this time when I refused to teach algebra to a chimpanzee? Oh, never mind, that's quite irrelevant :)


/thomas

[JPK]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


"An incredible stretch". Yeah, a really incredible stretch :rolleyes: Get a grip.

First off, I am very new to this board and have spent a great deal of time reading it. I find it very entertaining.
Ian, I have never typed to you before but certainly enjoy reading your posts, and I'm glad to see you back. My question to you is, do you consider communication with the dead, or gaining the info by esp, or precognition, or some other form of paranormal abilities, less of a "stretch" then say "fitting" a guess into "hit" ?

JPK

[UnTrickaBLe]

Originally posted by Clancie
I saw Ian Rowland cold read at Cal Tech and wasn't impressed. Apparently, even his own assessment of his cold reading demo at TAM2 wasn't very positive.


Who was he trying to cold read??

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
Who was he trying to cold read??

And, not to forget, did the person know Ian was a cold reader?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Use of incorrect terms? I corrected myself.


Which means you used an incorrect term. It is also not the first time you referred to it as an experiment. I guess you forgot what the term meant.


It isn't an insult if it is true.


But you see, its not true. It is only your small belief.


My fault. It was UnTrickaBLe.


You made 2 errors in that post alone. Good job.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Which means you used an incorrect term. It is also not the first time you referred to it as an experiment. I guess you forgot what the term meant.

But I acknowledged that I was wrong. Do you agree?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
But you see, its not true. It is only your small belief.

You may think so. However, anyone with a brain will recognize that a statement is not an insult if it is true.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You made 2 errors in that post alone. Good job.

Yes, indeed. And I acknowledged them. Now, could you please address my question, instead of continuing to harp on the many personal issues you have?

Are you going to provide UnTrickaBLe with the transcripts you have?

Just yes or no. Please.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

In his book, "The Full Facts of Cold Reading", he is equally direct. Under the headling "Do psychic powers really exist?" (p.11), he writes:


Dude, Clancie was talking about Marc Edwards (or Edward?) here. You are talking about Ian Rowland here.

[Clancie]

Posted by Untrickable

Who was he trying to cold read??
At Cal Tech, various members of an audience of about 250 people who'd come to hear him (Some say, "It was an audience of skeptics! What would you expect?" But, imo, they were quite receptive to participating, IF the readings would have fit).

At TAM2, he did another demo for an audience--there's a thread here (something like, "How was the Cold Reading Demo at TAM2?") that (briefly) stayed on topic about it--but apparently, nothing exciting, demo-wise.

[Clancie]

Posted by T'ai Chi

Dude, Clancie was talking about Mark Edwards (or Edward?) here.
Yes, thanks for clarifying that. Mark Edward is the one on the Skeptic Society video I mentioned and he also did the cold reading demo for P&T. He describes himself on the video as "skeptic and believer".

Ian Rowland wrote the book, "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading", did a lecture/demo at TAM2, and appeared last year at Cal Tech, but no one's ever mentioned seeing a video of it. (I was there in person, as were some others from this board).

Unlike Mark Edward, as far as I know, Ian does not characterize himself as a "believer" in anything paranormal at all.

[UnTrickaBLe]

Originally posted by Clancie

At Cal Tech, various members of an audience of about 250 people who'd come to hear him (Some say, "It was an audience of skeptics! What would you expect?" But, imo, they were quite receptive to participating, IF the readings would have fit).

At TAM2, he did another demo for an audience--there's a thread here (something like, "How was the Cold Reading Demo at TAM2?") that (briefly) stayed on topic about it--but apparently, nothing exciting, demo-wise.

You've got to be kidding me if you are saying this guy's cold reading was a "flop" while he was demonstrating the technique to a room full of paying, intelligent, educated skeptics at Cal Tech!! :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
At Cal Tech, various members of an audience of about 250 people who'd come to hear him (Some say, "It was an audience of skeptics! What would you expect?" But, imo, they were quite receptive to participating, IF the readings would have fit).

No, no, no. You are again ignoring what you know perfectly well: If a person, who poses as someone who can communicate with dead people, wants to perpetrate that notion, people have to believe that he can.

Originally posted by Clancie
At TAM2, he did another demo for an audience--there's a thread here (something like, "How was the Cold Reading Demo at TAM2?") that (briefly) stayed on topic about it--but apparently, nothing exciting, demo-wise.

You know what? It was an audience of skeptics, which is why he failed. We knew - I was there - that he was trying to fool us. You know that nobody can succeed under those circumstances. Why do you ignore this?

You are not saying that someone, whom the audience know is a fake, can pose as a real medium. Are you?!?

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, thanks for clarifying that.

How would you know what I write? Don't you have me on ignore?

Originally posted by Clancie
Unlike Mark Edward, as far as I know, Ian does not characterize himself as a "believer" in anything paranormal at all.

Then, I stand corrected. I withdraw my comments.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But I acknowledged that I was wrong. Do you agree?


I agree, you were wrong. I'd have hoped someone like you would know what "experiment" means though.


You may think so. However, anyone with a brain will recognize that a statement is not an insult if it is true.


It is only your belief that you are correct, however.


Are you going to provide UnTrickaBLe with the transcripts you have?


You aren't really interested in this Claus. Heck, you couldn't even get the user name right. Why don't you provide Untrickable with transcripts? From your first post in this tread you dragged me into this with your personal vendettas. Get bent.

[Clancie]

Posted by Untrickable

You've got to be kidding me if you are saying this guy's cold reading was a "flop" while he was demonstrating the technique to a room full of paying skeptics at Cal Tech!!
The thing that people seem to minimize or overlook about a skeptic performing for an audience of skeptics, is that "playing along" simply reinforces everyone's confirmation bias.

In other words, unlike a JE performance, the better Ian looks in a demo, the better the case for cold reading looks. (Of course, whether believer or skeptic, imo, most people won't lie just to help out a demo by "making it fit". It was an unsuccessful demo not because the audience was uncooperative (they weren't), but because, imo, Ian's guesses weren't working well that day).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I agree, you were wrong. I'd have hoped someone like you would know what "experiment" means though.

Please don't make up answers for me. Respond to what I ask you, don't make up things. You do that a lot.

Do you acknowledge that I acknowledged that I was wrong, yes or no?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It is only your belief that you are correct, however.

I refer to logic, common sense and brains.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You aren't really interested in this Claus. Heck, you couldn't even get the user name right. Why don't you provide Untrickable with transcripts? From your first post in this tread you dragged me into this with your personal vendettas. Get bent.

I already acknowledged that I was wrong. Please accept that, instead of implying that I did not.

You have the transcripts, don't you? Why do you try to shift the onus on me? You have the transcripts, but you refuse anyone to see them.

Why? Are they secret? Why this secrecy? Why this cloak-and-dagger? Why imagine you are guarding a secret? Does it make you feel important? You tried to do an "analysis" of them, but realized you were not capable of doing so.

Why don't you just make those 20-odd transcripts available? You asked for people to find them for you, and submit them to you. Yet, we have never seen any of them. You don't own those transcripts, T'ai Chi. Why do you cling on to them, as if they were your closely guarded property?

It is far easier to just make them public. Email them to me at webmaster@skepticreport.com, and I will put them up for everyone to see. I will give you full credit for accumulating them.

Will you?


Originally posted by Clancie
The thing that people seem to minimize or overlook about a skeptic performing for an audience of skeptics, is that "playing along" simply reinforces everyone's confirmation bias.

In other words, unlike a JE performance, the better Ian looks in a demo, the better the case for cold reading looks. (Of course, whether believer or skeptic, imo, most people won't lie just to help out a demo by "making it fit". It was an unsuccessful demo not because the audience was uncooperative (they weren't), but because, imo, Ian's guesses weren't working well that day).

No, the thing that you "overlook" - and I say this deliberately, because we both know that you are perfectly aware of this - is that anybody whom the audience knows is a fake will never be able to pull it off. If we know the guy up there is a fake, we will never believe he is a true, real medium.

It's very simple, but you ignore this.

[UnTrickaBLe]

Originally posted by Clancie

The thing that people seem to minimize or overlook about a skeptic performing for an audience of skeptics, is that "playing along" simply reinforces everyone's confirmation bias.

In other words, unlike a JE performance, the better Ian looks in a demo, the better the case for cold reading looks. (Of course, whether believer or skeptic, imo, most people won't lie just to help out a demo by "making it fit". It was an unsuccessful demo not because the audience was uncooperative (they weren't), but because, imo, Ian's guesses weren't working well that day).

This is absurd.

This is like saying that a guy showed up at a magicians convention, to demonstrate sawing a girl in half, but he was a "flop" because no one actually believed that the girl was cut in half! :rolleyes:

The fools who believe in "psychic mediums" are, on average, probably about 20-30 IQ points below the scientists and skeptics who came to see Ian demonsrate the well-known techniques behind the fraudulent and shameful business of "talking to the dead."

The only real test would be to let someone like Ian or Randi attempt to fake out an audience of "believers" who did not know who they (Randi or Ian) were.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe


You've got to be kidding me if you are saying this guy's cold reading was a "flop" while he was demonstrating the technique to a room full of paying, intelligent, educated skeptics at Cal Tech!! :rolleyes:

Well, it's skeptics who seem to think that cold reading can produce miraculously accurate statements.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Clancie
At TAM2, he did another demo for an audience--there's a thread here (something like, "How was the Cold Reading Demo at TAM2?") that (briefly) stayed on topic about it--but apparently, nothing exciting, demo-wise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You know what? It was an audience of skeptics, which is why he failed. We knew - I was there - that he was trying to fool us. You know that nobody can succeed under those circumstances. Why do you ignore this?

You are not saying that someone, whom the audience know is a fake, can pose as a real medium. Are you?!?
[/B]

But you're ignoring the fact that skeptics want cold readers to be successful. They will be anxious to confirm any hits or anything that can be construed to be a hit, because this will seem to lend credence to their contention that all such readings are cold reading.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

The thing that people seem to minimize or overlook about a skeptic performing for an audience of skeptics, is that "playing along" simply reinforces everyone's confirmation bias.

In other words, unlike a JE performance, the better Ian looks in a demo, the better the case for cold reading looks. (Of course, whether believer or skeptic, imo, most people won't lie just to help out a demo by "making it fit". It was an unsuccessful demo not because the audience was uncooperative (they weren't), but because, imo, Ian's guesses weren't working well that day).

Yes indeed :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No, the thing that you "overlook" - and I say this deliberately, because we both know that you are perfectly aware of this - is that anybody whom the audience knows is a fake will never be able to pull it off. If we know the guy up there is a fake, we will never believe he is a true, real medium.

It's very simple, but you ignore this. [/B]

You and they don't need to believe it. You will still want the reader to appear to be correct and to try and fit his statements.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe


This is absurd.

This is like saying that a guy showed up at a magicians convention, to demonstrate sawing a girl in half, but he was a "flop" because no actually believed that the girl was cut in half! :rolleyes:



Huh?? I don't understand how this is analogous to Clancie's point :confused:



The fools who believe in "psychic mediums"



Ooooooo!! LOL It always astonishes me the skeptics antagonism over anyone who disputes their world view. What are they all frightened of? :confused: Amazing.




are, on average, probably about 20-30 IQ points below the scientists and skeptics who came to see Ian demonsrate the well-known techniques behind the fraudulent and shameful business of "talking to the dead."



Yea, it's shameful to believe in anything remotely tainted with the paranormal! :mad:

Are you sure you're not !XXRationalXX!'s sock puppet?? LOL




The only real test would be to let someone like Ian or Randi attempt to fake out an audience of "believers" who did not know who they (Randi or Ian) were.

Yeah!! Believers like me! Ummm . . .no . . .no-ones like me are they? Ha Ha Ha!

That's cos I'm so special! :D

[UnTrickaBLe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Huh?? I don't understand how this is analogous to Clancie's point :confused:



Because in both cases, it would be someone on stage showing how "magic tricks" or "frauds" or "illusions" are performed. In both cases, not even one single person in the audience is likely to believe that a) the girl was sawn in half or b) "mediums" can talk to the dead.

They certainly won't believe that the person up there showing them the secrets behind the trick is actually *doing* the trick. :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe


Because in both cases, it would be someone on stage showing how "magic tricks" or "frauds" or "illusions" are performed. In both cases, not even one single person in the audience is likely to believe that a) the girl was sawn in half or b) "mediums" can talk to the dead.


As I've already explained, this is irrelevant.

[Clancie]

Posted by Untrickable

...in both cases, it would be someone on stage showing how "magic tricks" or "frauds" or "illusions" are performedIn both cases, not even one single person in the audience is likely to believe that a) the girl was sawn in half or b) "mediums" can talk to the dead.
Exactly. If you're impressing people with your "trick", the trick should work.

A cold reading demo isn't a flop because people don't believe its real mediumship. Of course they won't believe its real mediumship, whatever info is stated. As Ian says, that's not the point.

A cold reading demo is a flop if there's little information, no interesting "hits", little that can show how cold reading really does produce accurate, identifiable information for the sitter.

In your scenario, the comparison would be a magician who is there to saw a girl in half and...he pulls apart the cabinet...but she still appears the "same as ever". He should show the trick first..."wow!"...then expose it.

If you first can't show that cold reading works--that a cold reader really -can- bring some good information out for people whom he doesn't know--then it's not very convincing just to say, "Well, I can't show it to you, but, trust me. This is the way they do it."

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe

The fools who believe in "psychic mediums" are, on average, probably about 20-30 IQ points below the scientists and skeptics who came to see Ian demonsrate the well-known techniques behind the fraudulent and shameful business of "talking to the dead."


Do you have any actual studies that show the lower IQ's, or is it just your belief?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Please don't make up answers for me.


You said what I did was an "experiment". That is wrong. You have said that I did an experiment in other posts too. You were wrong there too, but somehow didn't correct yourself on your own then, as I doubt you'd have corrected yourself here if I didn't expose your mistake. The fact that you'd even call what I proposed an experiment shows you don't even grasp what it is I proposed. The fact that you didn't correct yourself until I said something is revealing.


I refer to logic, common sense and brains.


Yeah, which apparently you believe allows you to critique statistical arguments, call me a "lousy statistician", and say some analyses are "flawed", for examples, while at the same time admitting that you know next to nothing about statistics.

You contradict yourself with your statements.


You have the transcripts, don't you? Why do you try to shift the onus on me?


You shifted the onus on me in your first post in this thread, dude. Why did you even go there? Why not provide whoever asked some examples of transcripts? I'm not going to do your work for you. You said there is "plenty". I didn't. YOU provide the poster with them.


Why? Are they secret?


I'm not going to show my analysis, etc. until I am done with the analysis. That is SOP. If you can find one, just one, study were data was made available to anyone who asked at any time of the study, please, let me know. Just don't hold me to higher standards.

You can't and you know it.


It is far easier to just make them public. Email them to me at webmaster@skepticreport.com, and I will put them up for everyone to see. I will give you full credit for accumulating them. Will you?


Yahweh, in another thread, already pointed out that your webpage has nothing to do with me, despite your attempts to use it in that manner. It is simply your red herring.

I will put things on my webpage sometime as I said. I will also put my critiques of some of the content on skepticrepork on my webpage (this will be sure to be in an extremely tiny footnote). I will put your and Clancie's ongoing post counts for all to see and evaluate. I only evaluate things in an objective statistical manner, so I will not have any emotional or humor articles as your page often does. I also will not engage in monthly self promotion of my webpage.

You'll like it..

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by Clancie

A cold reading demo isn't a flop because people don't believe its real mediumship. Of course they won't believe its real mediumship, whatever info is stated. As Ian says, that's not the point

Hey Clancie,

I think you may be ignoring the huge power of suggestion a little with regards to this. It plays a major part in showperson demonstrations such as mediumship. The fact the medium 'holds' a certain position in the short relationship he/she has with his/her reader. Almost an authoritative stance over the occasion.

Most mediums have a certain 'way' about them. It often involves a kind of over-familiarity with the subject, making the client feel quite special and that something special is indeed occurring. Lots of touchy feely comments, use of words like 'darling', 'bless you'.
That would be completely negated if the subject knew it was a false and deliberate act.

It is very important for a subject to be of the opinion that the reader believes in what he is doing - it really does play a big role in the illusion of what is apparently taking place.

I strongly disagree that cold reading does not need 'belief' from the people being read - it changes the whole ball game. You lose many aspects of the body language and verbal feedback cold reading techniques needs to feed on.

Basically, it's just not the same.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by HenDralux


Hey Clancie,

I think you may be ignoring the huge power of suggestion a little with regards to this. It plays a major part in showperson demonstrations such as mediumship. The fact the medium 'holds' a certain position in the short relationship he/she has with his/her reader. Almost an authoritative stance over the occasion.

Most mediums have a certain 'way' about them. It often involves a kind of over-familiarity with the subject, making the client feel quite special and that something special is indeed occurring. Lots of touchy feely comments, use of words like 'darling', 'bless you'.
That would be completely negated if the subject knew it was a false and deliberate act.

It is very important for a subject to be of the opinion that the reader believes in what he is doing - it really does play a big role in the illusion of what is apparently taking place.

I strongly disagree that cold reading does not need 'belief' from the people being read - it changes the whole ball game. You lose many aspects of the body language and verbal feedback cold reading techniques needs to feed on.

Basically, it's just not the same.

I would tend to agree with you that "believers", erroneously believing a cold reader is genuine, would on average be more impressed than skeptics confronted with a cold reader who states upfront to them he is a cold reader (of course if he pretended to be a real medium I can guarantee they wouldn't be impressed at all! ;) ). But don't forget that skeptics wish very much for cold readers to sound convincing. So if skeptics are not impressed at all with a given cold reader who admits to them he is a cold reader, then although believers might be disposed to feel slightly more impressed (if they do not get informed he is a cold reader), even they would not likely to suppose that the reader is genuinely in contact with their loved ones.

It seems to me that skeptics are desperate to think of any "normal" explanation no matter how wildly implausible, rather than just acknowledge that a reader has obtained information by anomalous means.

Let's be honest, do you really believe you're going to convince any intelligent believer with these wildly implausible hypotheses?? Let's be honest, you're not are you??

What you need to do is produce a cold reader who can do as well as the best allegedly genuine mediums. If they can't, and in fact are nowhere near as accurate, then you cannot expect someone like me, or Clancie, or any other intelligent open-minded person to think to themselves:

"Ah yes! Even though no cold reader is anywhere near as good as the best alleged real mediums, I think I've changed my mind and now think it is definitely all cold reading!"

It just ain't going to happen is it ;) (and indeed it is to our credit that we would not change our minds as that would not say much for our intelligence!)

[Thomas]

To explain this cold reading concept I have chosen the Clancie-and-Snake example:

I will give 10 examples of possible outcomes of this snake association:

Medium: "Did a snake come out on that trip?"

Clancie: A snake? No, no snake.

Medium: "You didn't see a snake on that trip? Because he's showing me a snake."

Answer 1:

Clancie: Oh. Yes we saw a snake on the trip, lying on the road.

Answer 2:

Clancie: Oh. We talked to this guy on the trip who was very much into snakes.

Answer 3:

Clancie: Oh. This friend of mine actually died from poisoning.

Answer 4:

Clancie: Oh. This friend of mine was betrayed by a common friend of ours, he always called him a 'a snake'.

Answer 5:

Clancie: Oh. We went to a zoo during that trip and saw some snakes, among other animals.

Answer 6:

Clancie: Oh. This friend of mine actually had a snake once.

Answer 7:

Clancie: Oh. My friend once tried to taste snake on a trip to a foreign country.

Answer 8:

Clancie: Oh. My friend had a rubber snake who he used to try to scare people with.

Answer 9:

Clancie: Oh. My friend hated snakes.

Answer 10:

Clancie: Oh. We went to visit his son. He goes by the nickname of 'Snake'.

Conclusion:

Clancie: Wow, how could you know that?


Clancie, I'm not at all doing this to offend you, but I don't see any reason that anybody should walk around and support cheaters and frauds who is laughing behind their back.

This is just 10 examples of relations a person could have to a snake, the list is almost endless. I can't think of anyone I know who don't have a relation to the term 'snake' in one way or the other. If I lived in California the number of relations would even be more significant.

Ian, don't give me that: 'that's irrelevant', because everything that is devastating to your case is irrelevant.


/thomas

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Thomas
I will give 10 examples of possible outcomes of this snake association:


I know you'd probably rather have a psychic say: "You'll see a C. t. roseofusca (Coastal Rosy Boa) at latitude 35.2455 and longitude -120.6406, at 4:34 PM on Sunday".

Unfortunately, that is not how they work. They seem to get 'impressions' instead. Unfortunately this makes accusations of cold reading seem more plausible then they might be.

[Jeff Corey]

"Was it a one tailed snake or a two tailed snake?"

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
"Was it a one tailed snake or a two tailed snake?"

Will you address the updated analysis?

You haven't responded to my PM yet.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I know you'd probably rather have a psychic say: "You'll see a C. t. roseofusca (Coastal Rosy Boa) at latitude 35.2455 and longitude -120.6406, at 4:34 PM on Sunday".

Unfortunately, that is not how they work. They seem to get 'impressions' instead. Unfortunately this makes accusations of cold reading seem more plausible then they might be. [/B]

It's also rather inconvenient that these 'impressions' are quite easy to mistake for a simple association game when intelligent people are observing the process, wouldn't you say?


/thomas

[JPK]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian




It seems to me that skeptics are desperate to think of any "normal" explanation no matter how wildly implausible, rather than just acknowledge that a reader has obtained information by anomalous means.

Let's be honest, do you really believe you're going to convince any intelligent believer with these wildly implausible hypotheses?? Let's be honest, you're not are you??


Ian, I tend to agree with you. I'm not sure I would be as dramatic as to say "that skeptics are desperate". I can't speak for anyone else but I would say I am more likely to search for a "normal" explanation even if it is wildly implausible, simply because a "paranormal" explanation would even be more implausible to me. Why would someone choose to discount a "normal" explanation, even if it is a "stretch", if one exists? For that matter why do some people feel the need to accept a "paranormal" explanation? What's wrong with I don't know?

I also agree that I doubt any intelligent believer would all of the sudden read a post from a skeptic and instantly change the way they feel. Take for example the Clancie snake thing. (It's a good thing she didn't want this to turn into a debate :) ) For reasons known only to Clancie, this hit home, and there is no way anyone is going to unring that bell. Sort of the KO punch of that reading. I'm sure that if a medium told me something that I could not figure out how they would know, it would have an impact on me. I guess the only thing that seperates a believer for a skeptic is where they draw the line for acceptable evidence to them. That line, no doubt, moves depending on the situation a person is in at the time.
JPK

[Clancie]

Posted by Thomas
This is just 10 examples of relations a person could have to a snake, the list is almost endless. I can't think of anyone I know who don't have a relation to the term 'snake' in one way or the other. If I lived in California the number of relations would even be more significant.
Well, maybe so. You know best.

I've lived here all my life and have never seen one, not even in the mountains.

Clancie, I'm not at all doing this to offend you, but I don't see any reason that anybody should walk around and support cheaters and frauds who is laughing behind their back.
Well, first, let's remember that my purpose in posting wasn't to persuade anyone of anything. And, yes, I'm perfectly aware that people here will see in (just about anything that doesn't conform to their idea of what should be said)...fraud and trickery. That's fine and...expected.

So...why would -I- hear this and think, "Hmm...maybe there is something to this?" (I mean, other than the obvious-to-some low-IQ reason....).

Here it is, Part I. She first established the deceased, by name (not initial, or a string of names). She mentioned this quite important trip he and I took, and mentioned a specific destination. Third, she asked, "Did a snake come out on the trip?" and, in fact, the "Snake" was an important name (and--you'll love this, but he even did "come out" in a sense, because he had to come out to look for us :) ). And, yes, that's how mediums say they work, with symbols (which, yes, I'm aware most here feel is just a way to expand cold reading possibilities).

So...not just a "snake", but a string of interrelated statements...person's name...our trip and destination...the "Snake", his son's name. Having never seen a cold reader say anything -close- to this, yes, it makes me think..."This is consistent with how mediums say they get information and...makes me think there might be something to this."

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, maybe so. You know best.

I've lived here all my life and have never seen one, not even in the mountains.

Well, first, let's remember that my purpose in posting wasn't to persuade anyone of anything. And, yes, I'm perfectly aware that people here will see in (just about anything that doesn't conform to their idea of what should be said)...fraud and trickery. That's fine and...expected.

So...why would -I- hear this and think, "Hmm...maybe there is something to this?" (I mean, other than the obvious-to-some low-IQ reason....).

Here it is, Part I. She first established the deceased, by name (not initial, or a string of names). She mentioned this quite important trip he and I took, and mentioned the specific destination. Third, she asked, "Did a snake come out on the trip?" and, in fact, the "Snake" did come out, to look for us. And, yes, that's how mediums say they work, with symbols (which, yes, I'm aware most here feel is just a way to expand cold reading possibilities).

So...not just a "snake", but a string of interrelated statements...person's name...our trip and destination...the "Snake", his son's name. Having never seen a cold reader say anything -close- to this, yes, it makes me think..."This is consistent with how mediums say they get information and...makes me think there might be something to this." [/B]

But . . but . . .Clancie . . .Thomas knows best!

:D

Anyway, knackered, gotta crash out.

[Clancie]

Oh, and I wanted to add, re: the "Clancie and the Snake" possibilities. Let's look at them, just for fun. :)


Medium: "You didn't see a snake on that trip? Because he's showing me a snake."

Answer 1:

Clancie: Oh. Yes we saw a snake on the trip, lying on the road.

Well, we didn't.

Answer 2:

Clancie: Oh. We talked to this guy on the trip who was very much into snakes.
Again....no.


Answer 3:

Clancie: Oh. This friend of mine actually died from poisoning.

Well, if it was a snake bite he got on that trip, yes, I'd have considered that a hit.

But, again, no and...no.

Answer 4:

Clancie: Oh. This friend of mine was betrayed by a common friend of ours, he always called him a 'a snake'.

No and...nothing to do with this trip.

Answer 5:

Clancie: Oh. We went to a zoo during that trip and saw some snakes, among other animals.
No.

Answer 6:

Clancie: Oh. This friend of mine actually had a snake once.

What does that have to do with the trip?

And...no.

Answer 7:

Clancie: Oh. My friend once tried to taste snake on a trip to a foreign country.
San Luis Obispo?

No. And...I wouldn't have stretched that hard to make something fit. Sorry.

Answer 8:

Clancie: Oh. My friend had a rubber snake who he used to try to scare people with.
....trip....?

And....just...no.

Answer 9:

Clancie: Oh. My friend hated snakes.
You really think someone would find that evidential in this reading?
[b]
Answer 10:

Clancie: Oh. We went to visit his son. He goes by the nickname of 'Snake'.
Hmm...She gets the name of deceased...the place we took a trip to...the special name he called his son whom we went to see.. yes...interesting!

(Ahhhh...the mind of the believer! :p )

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Clancie
Oh, and I wanted to add, re: the "Clancie and the Snake" possibilities. Let's look at them, just for fun. :)


You're making a straw man now, as in 'missing the point', I know you didn't relate to any of those possibilities, otherwise you wouldn't have been forced to change an animal to a common nickname.


Hmm...She gets the name of deceased...the place we took a trip to...the special name he called his son whom we went to see.. yes...interesting!


It's interesting indeed, but I would first be convinced if I have had a chance to follow the entire conversation.
This is merely a suggestion: Wouldn't you think this medium to be able to guess several things about you after the first couple of minutes from factors like these: your accent perhaps? Your name perhaps? your phonenumber perhaps? Any information you might have stated about yourself - directly and/or indirectly?

What do you think about 'the blue book'? (112: http://jref.sawco.com/FMPro?-db=ency.fm&-format=list.htm&l=b&-skip=25&-find= )


/thomas

[Clancie]

Posted by Thomas

Wouldn't you think this medium to be able to guess several things about you after the first couple of minutes from factors like these: your accent perhaps?
She knew I was from California. That's my "accent".


Your name perhaps?
She had the first name. Probably would assume I was Caucasian...if she guessed ethnic background based on my name, she could easily be wrong.


your phonenumber perhaps?
I called. And, even if she saw the number,...like what?


Any information you might have stated about yourself - directly and/or indirectly?
Sure, always a possibility. You try to say very little, obviously. And, fortunately, there is a tape to listen to later to see if it sounds like building on the clues.

Ever had a reading, Thomas?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Clancie

Ever had a reading, Thomas?

I've had two yes, which both failed dramatically. I've also had a healer telling me that I had health conditions that I don't. You see I've had my own radio show concerning these matter some years ago. I've had aura readings that were dramatically wrong, some fella even belived that I was Jesus resurrected :)

You never told me what you think of the blue book?


/thomas

[Clancie]

Posted by Thomas

You never told me what you think of the Blue Book?
Meaning....?

I've read "The Psychic Mafia". I don't see how the Blue Book (or that concept) would apply to my experience in which the medium didn't have my name or personal information ahead of time--much less the chance to somehow get "hits" about me from someone else.

(Here's the relevant part from your link, in case anyone reading this isn't familiar with it:
The Blue Book

A privately-published, regularly updated directory of names and pertinent information about potential sitters, secretly subscribed to by spiritualist mediums who wish to have personal data with which to impress clients. Regional versions exist, and the source is carefully guarded. The data is submitted free or sold to the publishers by practicing mediums who obtain it from each other and from important and wealthy clients.

Individual "spirit camps'' or similar communities will often keep their own private lists, formerly on index cards, but now in computer form, of persons who have visited there. Former spirit medium and author Lamar Keene describes the process in his book, The Psychic Mafia.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Clancie

Meaning....?


I just wan't your opinion on the concept of 'the blue book'.


I've read "The Psychic Mafia". I don't see how the Blue Book (or that concept) would apply to my experience in which the medium didn't have my name or personal information ahead of time--much less the chance to somehow get "hits" about me from someone else.


Remember that the information about you easily could have been stored together with your telephone number, name, location and such, in a database. I don't say this is the case, again, it's just a suggestion. Warm reading is also an option that shouldn't be excluded when the informations are extremely close to the reality.

You never had sittings or any information exchange at all with any branches that could have any sort of contact with the spiritualistic comminities before this episode?


/thomas

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Unfortunately, that is not how they work. They seem to get 'impressions' instead. Unfortunately this makes accusations of cold reading seem more plausible then they might be. [/B]

Dang right it makes it look plausible. Very plausible indeed.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by JPK
Ian, I tend to agree with you. I'm not sure I would be as dramatic as to say "that skeptics are desperate". I can't speak for anyone else but I would say I am more likely to search for a "normal" explanation even if it is wildly implausible, simply because a "paranormal" explanation would even be more implausible to me. Why would someone choose to discount a "normal" explanation, even if it is a "stretch", if one exists? For that matter why do some people feel the need to accept a "paranormal" explanation? What's wrong with I don't know?


Some of the magic tricks which I know require extensive preparation, and the performer must go through the most convoluted movements for what appears to be a very simple trick. If asked what the cause of the effect is, no one would imagine that anyone would jump through those all hoops to make it happen. That's what makes it so powerful.

Even if a seemingly paranormal event requires a string of coincidences for it to occur, it's going to happen eventually and when it does.. wow!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You said what I did was an "experiment". That is wrong. You have said that I did an experiment in other posts too. You were wrong there too, but somehow didn't correct yourself on your own then, as I doubt you'd have corrected yourself here if I didn't expose your mistake. The fact that you'd even call what I proposed an experiment shows you don't even grasp what it is I proposed. The fact that you didn't correct yourself until I said something is revealing.

Do you agree that I admitted I was wrong, yes or no?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah, which apparently you believe allows you to critique statistical arguments, call me a "lousy statistician", and say some analyses are "flawed", for examples, while at the same time admitting that you know next to nothing about statistics.

You contradict yourself with your statements.

Not at all. I explained that even an amateur such as myself can see through your charade.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You shifted the onus on me in your first post in this thread, dude. Why did you even go there? Why not provide whoever asked some examples of transcripts? I'm not going to do your work for you. You said there is "plenty". I didn't. YOU provide the poster with them.

I merely pointed out that you had a collection of transcripts. Why not go to the very person who already has about 20 transcripts?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm not going to show my analysis, etc. until I am done with the analysis. That is SOP. If you can find one, just one, study were data was made available to anyone who asked at any time of the study, please, let me know. Just don't hold me to higher standards.

I didn't ask for your analysis, I asked for the transcripts. You do have them, don't you?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yahweh, in another thread, already pointed out that your webpage has nothing to do with me, despite your attempts to use it in that manner. It is simply your red herring.

No, it was an attempt to see this analysis on some webpage. We don't have to wait for you to build a website. To me, it most certainly sounds as if you don't have the transcripts at all.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I will put things on my webpage sometime as I said. I will also put my critiques of some of the content on skepticrepork on my webpage (this will be sure to be in an extremely tiny footnote). I will put your and Clancie's ongoing post counts for all to see and evaluate. I only evaluate things in an objective statistical manner, so I will not have any emotional or humor articles as your page often does. I also will not engage in monthly self promotion of my webpage.

You'll like it..

I'm sure I will. It looks as if it will be a webpage dedicated to me and my doings. Kinda like a stalker's webpage. A cool, calculated, premeditated, bereft-of-emotion stalker's webpage.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I know you'd probably rather have a psychic say: "You'll see a C. t. roseofusca (Coastal Rosy Boa) at latitude 35.2455 and longitude -120.6406, at 4:34 PM on Sunday".

Unfortunately, that is not how they work. They seem to get 'impressions' instead. Unfortunately this makes accusations of cold reading seem more plausible then they might be.

How do you distinguish between those who get "impressions" and those who throw out guesses?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Will you address the updated analysis?

You haven't responded to my PM yet.

Excuse me? Are you still working on your analysis?




Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But you're ignoring the fact that skeptics want cold readers to be successful. They will be anxious to confirm any hits or anything that can be construed to be a hit, because this will seem to lend credence to their contention that all such readings are cold reading.

As Ian Rowland writes, when you know how it is done, you can block it so it won't work.



Originally posted by Clancie
Exactly. If you're impressing people with your "trick", the trick should work.

A cold reading demo isn't a flop because people don't believe its real mediumship. Of course they won't believe its real mediumship, whatever info is stated. As Ian Rowland says, that's not the point.

A cold reading demo is a flop if there's little information, no interesting "hits", little that can show how cold reading really does produce accurate, identifiable information for the sitter.

But Ian Rowland did produce accurate, identifiable information for the sitters, when he did the TV show around Halloween. He had them in tears, remember?

Originally posted by Clancie
In your scenario, the comparison would be a magician who is there to saw a girl in half and...he pulls apart the cabinet...but she still appears the "same as ever". He should show the trick first..."wow!"...then expose it.

The interesting thing about Ian Rowland's cold reading example on TV was, that even though he exposed it afterwards, some people still believed he was a real medium.

Originally posted by Clancie
If you first can't show that cold reading works--that a cold reader really -can- bring some good information out for people whom he doesn't know--then it's not very convincing just to say, "Well, I can't show it to you, but, trust me. This is the way they do it."

Ian Rowland did it. Why do you deny this?

Originally posted by Clancie
I've lived here all my life and have never seen one, not even in the mountains.

That's not the point. The point is that the medium told you something that a lot of Californians would relate to. That you had to make such a stretch to make it fit only shows how desperate you are.

Originally posted by Clancie
Here it is, Part I. She first established the deceased, by name (not initial, or a string of names). She mentioned this quite important trip he and I took, and mentioned a specific destination. Third, she asked, "Did a snake come out on the trip?" and, in fact, the "Snake" was an important name (and--you'll love this, but he even did "come out" in a sense, because he had to come out to look for us :) ). And, yes, that's how mediums say they work, with symbols (which, yes, I'm aware most here feel is just a way to expand cold reading possibilities).

So...not just a "snake", but a string of interrelated statements...person's name...our trip and destination...the "Snake", his son's name. Having never seen a cold reader say anything -close- to this, yes, it makes me think..."This is consistent with how mediums say they get information and...makes me think there might be something to this."

This is not correct. You are not being truthful, when you say that you have never seen a cold reader say anything close to this. You saw Ian Rowland get several hits like these on TV.

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, if it was a snake bite he got on that trip, yes, I'd have considered that a hit.

Clancie, don't you realize what you just did there? You just admitted that you are willing to fit information!

Originally posted by Clancie
And...I wouldn't have stretched that hard to make something fit. Sorry.

How do you know that for sure? You, who are so desperate to get in touch with your dead husband, and walk from medium to medium, most of them a great disappointment to you?

Originally posted by Clancie
You really think someone would find that evidential in this reading?

We have seen that there are sitters who will stretch even further than that.

Originally posted by Clancie
Hmm...She gets the name of deceased...the place we took a trip to...the special name he called his son whom we went to see.. yes...interesting!

(Ahhhh...the mind of the believer! :p )

Yes, indeed. We have heard a heavily edited version of the reading, edited by a fervent believer. Do you really expect us to just take your word for all this?

Originally posted by Clancie
I called. And, even if she saw the number,...like what?

That's all she needs, Clancie! You know how effective even a cursory Internet search can be in digging up information about people.

Originally posted by Clancie
Sure, always a possibility. You try to say very little, obviously. And, fortunately, there is a tape to listen to later to see if it sounds like building on the clues.

Can we listen to it?



Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Even if a seemingly paranormal event requires a string of coincidences for it to occur, it's going to happen eventually and when it does.. wow!

Let's not forget that magicians also have to be prepared that unexpected things happen, and grab the opportunity to make the trick seem even more spectacular. Only Tommy Cooper can build a career from botched tricks only! :)

[UnTrickaBLe]

What a waste of time to actually have to explain to Clancie why a cold reading demo to a room full of (anti-cold-reading) skeptics would not be as successful as a cold reading to a bunch of believers. :rolleyes:

Shame on you, Clancie. Judging by your post count here, you should know better.

As for Ian, I would be interested to learn more about the TV show CFLarson mentioned, which apparently was more successful (big surprise).

Hasn't Randi gone on some radio shows and successfully hoodwinked audiences into believing he was a "psychic"?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
What a waste of time to actually have to explain to Clancie why a cold reading demo to a room full of (anti-cold-reading) skeptics would not be as successful as a cold reading to a bunch of believers. :rolleyes:

It's not a waste of time at all. It is a very good example of how a fanatic believer argues.

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
Shame on you, Clancie. Judging by your post count here, you should know better.

She does know better. She just chooses to ignore anything that might force her to admit that her beliefs are wrong. Not even the sad fact that she has been conned again and again by fake mediums...

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
As for Ian, I would be interested to learn more about the TV show CFLarson mentioned, which apparently was more successful (big surprise).

Ian Rowland talks about his appearance (page 3 and 4) (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36726&perpage=40&pagenumber=3)

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
Hasn't Randi gone on some radio shows and successfully hoodwinked audiences into believing he was a "psychic"?

Right here. (http://host.randi.org/library/coldreading/)

[UnTrickaBLe]

Originally posted by CFLarsen



Ian Rowland talks about his appearance (page 3 and 4) (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36726&perpage=40&pagenumber=3)

Right here. (http://host.randi.org/library/coldreading/)


Thanks. :D

Of course, it's a well-known psychological phenomenon that many people who have been tricked and swindled by mediums and other frauds will refuse to admit to themselves that they have been played for fools.

The "Carlos" hoax in Australia is a perfect example of that. Even once the hoax was revealed, many of "Carlos's" devotees came up to him and swore that he was "the real thing" -- even though he was a complete and utter fraud!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
Of course, it's a well-known psychological phenonmenon that many people who have been tricked and swindled by mediums and other frauds will refuse to admit to themselves that they have been played for fools.

Indeed. What is interesting with Clancie's example is that, although she admits that she has been conned again and again and again, she keeps seeking the next medium, and the next, and the next.

I think that her belief runs much deeper than most of the poor sods that are swindled by the mediums. What I find very interesting is her need to find as many mediums as possible that she can claim are "real". She's not like another poster here, neofight, who clings on to just one medium. No, Clancie collects "real" mediums like a hunter collects trophies from the African savannah.

This fanatic drive to get as many mediums under her belt might have something to do with the way she thinks. Note how she constantly refers to the many anecdotes - she truly believes that the greater number of anecdotes, the better a claim is supported. If she can point to a number of self-experienced mediums that she can claim are real (without providing real evidence, of course), she thinks her belief is validated.

Her habit of ignoring contradictory evidence is nothing more than standard procedure for believers.

I know she pretends to ignore me, but try to ask Clancie just how many mediums she has seen. You will not get a straight answer - mostly because I honestly think that she has lost count herself.

Originally posted by UnTrickaBLe
The "Carlos" hoax in Australia is a perfect example of that. Even once the hoax was revealed, many of "Carlos's" devotees came up to him and swore that he was "the real thing" -- even though he was a complete and utter fraud!

Yep. Scary.

[glee]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't agree. For example I was just watching Derren Brown last night. Even though he's not very good at chess, he simultaneously played 5 good chess players at once, a couple of grandmasters amongst them, and he managed to beat most of them. They all seemed to be extremely impressed. But I twigged on how he did it.

My sheer raw intelligence you see :p

I think this is an excellent example of how our memory is not perfect, and helps explain why people think psychics have done well - because sitters don't 'remember' things from a psychic session precisely.

Derren played 9 chessplayers, not 5.
There were 4 grandmasters, not a couple.
Derren won 4 games out of 9, not most.

None of the players were impressed with the chess result, because they all knew once they saw the studio layout exactly how Derren would do it. (There are only 3 ways to beat a bunch of international chess players: bribery / use Kasparov / play 'mirror' chess.) Indeed one strong player turned down his invite, saying he already knew how it would be done.

I should add that Derren is an extremely clever illusionist and mentalist, as well as a jolly pleasant person. It's just that the remarkable chess trick is only possible by the 3 ways stated above.

[glee]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
He actually played 11 opponents, I think. The trick was he simply remembered each player's moves, and duplicated them on other tables. In effect, the grandmasters were playing each other.

They revealed the solution on the show.

9 opponents, not 11. (Shows how difficult it is to remember details accurately.)

There were 4 grandmasters, who played each other. Another 4 international players were also paired together. The weakest player did not have a 'mirror' opponent, so Derren must have been fed moves by a strong player in the studio (or used a computer).

I understand this trick perfectly (and Derren did well to carry it off). But if Derren had not been a well-known magician, and had not helpfully explained the trick afterwards, how many of the public would have been fooled?
Isn't this a useful example of gullibility and wanting to believe?

[glee]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
He did indeed. He arranged that the last guy would be the poorest player, and he did beat him. The others were wins, draws and losses, as you would expect. It wasn't actually just a demonstration of his playing prowess, though.

At the start of the performance he gave one of the players an envelope with a long series of digits in it. When the games were completed the number was revealed and it turned out to be a prediction of the number of pieces remaining on each of the boards (10,6,5,9 etc)

It wasn't perfect (one error as I recall), but it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur.

I don't know if it was a trick. He is a magician, after all.

(First, sorry if I'm repeating myself - I'm reading thru the thread and answering as I go.)

Good grief! How gullible are you, TheBoyPaj?

1. Derren didn't beat anybody. He doesn't have any 'playing prowess'. He didn't play any moves of his own. 8 of the games were 'mirror chess', and the last was played by a strong player (or a computer) feeding Derren the moves.

2. I have no idea what you mean by 'wins, draws and losses, as you would expect'. These are the only possible results of a chess game. Obviously mirror chess results in symmetrical results, so from the 8 mirror games there will be an even number of draws (or none), and as many wins as losses.

3. 'it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur'. :rolleyes:
No, it was an example of switching an envelope (which Derren did very well).
After the games finished, the players had post-match interviews. This gave time for Derren to prepare a duplicate envelope with the numbers in. then he just used misdirection to switch it.

YES, IT WAS A TRICK!
NO, HE DOESN'T HAVE MENTAL POWERS!

Can I sell you a bridge?!

[glee]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian (bolding mine)

I was only paying a little bit of attention to the programme actually cos on Internet as always. So not sure how he did that. But he can engineer the correct results by doing what you suggested and also, if he just apparently randomly asked the various chess players how many pieces they had left on their boards, this completes the explanation (because it won't actually have been random).

Strewth!
Derren has no mental powers.
Why on earth do you think he does?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by glee


I think this is an excellent example of how our memory is not perfect, and helps explain why people think psychics have done well - because sitters don't 'remember' things from a psychic session precisely.

Derren played 9 chessplayers, not 5.
There were 4 grandmasters, not a couple.
Derren won 4 games out of 9, not most.

None of the players were impressed with the chess result, because they all knew once they saw the studio layout exactly how Derren would do it. (There are only 3 ways to beat a bunch of international chess players: bribery / use Kasparov / play 'mirror' chess.) Indeed one strong player turned down his invite, saying he already knew how it would be done.

I should add that Derren is an extremely clever illusionist and mentalist, as well as a jolly pleasant person. It's just that the remarkable chess trick is only possible by the 3 ways stated above.

If you want to be pedantic he only played 1 chessplayer. OK, there were 5 games played but he played against 9 players :rolleyes: By beat most of them I meant his combined score was greater than theirs. And some of the chess players looked pretty impressed to me. Of course they could have been putting on an act and lying. I can't really discuss this programme in detail though because I only was paying a little bit of attention to it whilst on the Internet (as in the vast majority of TV I "watch"). Didn't think I'd be quizzed about it the next day. Didn't think anyone else would have seen it! It wasn't on one of the 5 normal channels! :eek:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by glee


9 opponents, not 11. (Shows how difficult it is to remember details accurately.)

There were 4 grandmasters, who played each other. Another 4 international players were also paired together. The weakest player did not have a 'mirror' opponent, so Derren must have been fed moves by a strong player in the studio (or used a computer).

I understand this trick perfectly (and Derren did well to carry it off). But if Derren had not been a well-known magician, and had not helpfully explained the trick afterwards, how many of the public would have been fooled?
Isn't this a useful example of gullibility and wanting to believe?

Well, certainly not a useful example of that, no. For a kick off I see no reason why people would want Derren to win.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by glee


(First, sorry if I'm repeating myself - I'm reading thru the thread and answering as I go.)

Good grief! How gullible are you, TheBoyPaj?

1. Derren [b]didn't beat anybody. He doesn't have any 'playing prowess'. He didn't play any moves of his own. 8 of the games were 'mirror chess', and the last was played by a strong player (or a computer) feeding Derren the moves.



He specifically denied he was being fed the moves. This was the weakest player he was playing against.



2. I have no idea what you mean by 'wins, draws and losses, as you would expect'. These are the only possible results of a chess game. Obviously mirror chess results in symmetrical results, so from the 8 mirror games there will be an even number of draws (or none), and as many wins as losses.



I'm not sure who doesn't understand this.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by glee


Strewth!
Derren has no mental powers.
Why on earth do you think he does?

"Mental powers"?? I don't understand what you mean by "mental powers".

How does resigning at a particular point, or suggesting a draw constitute mental powers?

Of course if it simply a blatant cheat of switching envelopes, then this wouldn't be necessary.

[Marian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


He actually played 11 opponents, I think. The trick was he simply remembered each player's moves, and duplicated them on other tables. In effect, the grandmasters were playing each other.

They revealed the solution on the show.

I remember first reading about this trick in the book "If Tomorrow Comes", by Sidney Sheldon. The trick is used as part of a con game on a cruise ship, the game is played with 2 grandmasters, each in another room. The con artist (in the book a woman, Tracy Whitney) remembers the moves, and in essense they're playing each other. They also had stipulated that no one could switch rooms (other than the woman playing both) once the games had started, and that the ship docked almost immediately after the game ended, so they were able to get away before they were caught. And in the book it was obvious early on to both grandmasters that she was employing the moves of the other master, but each assumed the other had tutored her in order to publically embarass them by losing to an unknown player.

I couldn't find the original publication date, but it seems to be early to mid 1980s.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

She knew I was from California. That's my "accent".

She had the first name. Probably would assume I was Caucasian...if she guessed ethnic background based on my name, she could easily be wrong.

I called. And, even if she saw the number,...like what?

Sure, always a possibility. You try to say very little, obviously. And, fortunately, there is a tape to listen to later to see if it sounds like building on the clues.

Ever had a reading, Thomas?

Clancie, did you just telephone her up out of the blue? Or did you arrange somehow or other to telephone her at a particular time? You say she knew your name and that you were from California, but it is unclear to me if she knew these things before you telephoned for the reading? Even if you had telephoned earlier, and said basically nothing at all, they might have been able to get your number then find out details? (although of course the "snake" connection seems unlikely etc)

Basically we can confidently reject the cold reading hypothesis. Given the detailed reading this is utterly implausible. But I'm just wondering about the hot reading angle :)

[glee]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you want to be pedantic he only played 1 chessplayer. OK, there were 5 games played but he played against 9 players :rolleyes: By beat most of them I meant his combined score was greater than theirs. And some of the chess players looked pretty impressed to me. Of course they could have been putting on an act and lying. I can't really discuss this programme in detail though because I only was paying a little bit of attention to it whilst on the Internet (as in the vast majority of TV I "watch"). Didn't think I'd be quizzed about it the next day. Didn't think anyone else would have seen it! It wasn't on one of the 5 normal channels! :eek:

I'm not getting at you, merely showing how memory is not 100% reliable.
I think this program is a fascinating example of how some posters read something paranormal into what is just a trick.

I think it it important to be pedantic (here meaning 'completely accurate'), so we can differentiate between e.g. cold reading and mediums. If a sitter comes out of a reading and says 'those 'hits' were inexplicable!', it helps if we can see exactly what was said.

So to be accurate:

Derren played no games at all. Eight were mirror chess, and he is simply not strong enough to have won the last game by himself.

He won 4 out of 9. Your description of this as 'beating most of them' is not mathematically correcte.
(Please note that if this was just chatting about a TV program, I wouldn't be bothered. But since we are talking about extraordinary claims, we must be very accurate in our record of what took place.)

I can assure you the players were not impressed by the chess, since they knew once they saw the set exactly what Derren was going to do.

Finally the program was on Channel 4.

[glee]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He specifically denied he was being fed the moves. This was the weakest player he was playing against.


I haven't seen a quote of him denying this.
The weakest player was about 160 BCF rating, and the way he was defeated (K-side breakthrough / use of opposite coloured bishops) had all the hall marks of a 200+ player.
There are only about 120 players in England of that strength, and, even if you have the talent, it takes at least 5 years regular practice to be that good.
Derren moves the pieces like a beginner (and there is no record of him ever having played for a club or in a tournament).

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
"Mental powers"?? I don't understand what you mean by "mental powers"


Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
but it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur.


TheBoyPaj evidently thinks Derren has mental powers. Presumably he assumed Derren waited till the right number of pieces were on the board, then 'influenced' the game to end immediately.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by glee


I'm not getting at you, merely showing how memory is not 100% reliable.
I think this program is a fascinating example of how some posters read something paranormal into what is just a trick.

I think it it important to be pedantic (here meaning 'completely accurate'), so we can differentiate between e.g. cold reading and mediums. If a sitter comes out of a reading and says 'those 'hits' were inexplicable!', it helps if we can see exactly what was said.

So to be accurate:

Derren played no games at all. Eight were mirror chess, and he is simply not strong enough to have won the last game by himself.

He won 4 out of 9. Your description of this as 'beating most of them' is not mathematically correcte.
(Please note that if this was just chatting about a TV program, I wouldn't be bothered. But since we are talking about extraordinary claims, we must be very accurate in our record of what took place.)

I can assure you the players were not impressed by the chess, since they knew once they saw the set exactly what Derren was going to do.

Finally the program was on Channel 4.

But no-one is reading anything paranormal at all in this chess stunt :eek: At least not on this thread. I certainly haven't. TheBoyPaj certainly didn't. No-one has! As I said (and TheBoyPaj said originally), he could engineer the number of pieces left on the board by resigning at a certain point or suggesting a draw. Nothing paranormal about that!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
By beat most of them I meant his combined score was greater than theirs.

What are you talking about? How do you calculate his score?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


What are you talking about? How do you calculate his score?
A win gives one point and a draw gives half a point.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by glee

II
He specifically denied he was being fed the moves. This was the weakest player he was playing against.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I haven't seen a quote of him denying this.



He said he hasn't got any ear piece in his ear feeding him the moves. Maybe he just blatantly cheated and someone played the game for him. But this was not the impression he gave. So if what you say is correct then he is a flat out liar. (which of course we know to be true anyway eg that gun stunt last year).




The weakest player was about 160 BCF rating, and the way he was defeated (K-side breakthrough / use of opposite coloured bishops) had all the hall marks of a 200+ player.



I never saw that information being given out. Nor did I see any of the games. Didn't think it showed any of the games actually being played! :eek: Of course he wouldn't be able to beat a player of such a ranking. So if you are correct, he's lied yet again. OK, so what? We all know he does.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
"Mental powers"?? I don't understand what you mean by "mental powers"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
but it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Glee
TheBoyPaj evidently thinks Derren has mental powers. Presumably he assumed Derren waited till the right number of pieces were on the board, then 'influenced' the game to end immediately.


Of couse people can psychologically influence other people, and this is not regarded as having anything to do with the paranormal! :eek: Anyway, him simply resigning at a particular point doesn't involve influencing his opponent at all.

[Clancie]

Posted by Interesting Ian

Clancie, did you just telephone her up out of the blue? Or did you arrange somehow or other to telephone her at a particular time?
It was planned ahead. She had (part) of my first name and I emailed her (not my computer or email account).

You say she knew your name and that you were from California, but it is unclear to me if she knew these things before you telephoned for the reading?
Part of my first name before and I told her that I was in California when I called (no, Untrickable, I did not consider this a major revelation).

Even if you had telephoned earlier, and said basically nothing at all, they might have been able to get your number then find out details? (although of course the "snake" connection seems unlikely etc)
Well, I'm open for someone to explain how. As I say, she had part of my first name and I scheduled the reading via someone else's computer and email account.

Oh, and just a couple of minutes into it she said, "You're the Gemini" and "You teach, he's showing me that." I'm sure people don't take my word for how close mouthed I am in readings, but the advantage of having "several" is that you learn to be more disciplined that way (she thought I was a skeptic--as did Robert Brown, lol).

Anyway, I think the normal explanations are "lucky guess", "hot reading" or "remembering the hits and forgetting the misses". But, with the latter, the hits are still hits. If they're lucky guesses...well,we've seen that's rather difficult even to get a book title right with Boy Paj's book test (which was much like correctly guessing the zodiac sign).

And as for hot reading...well...I'm open to the idea, but...."How?" (Oh, and the phone I called her on wasn't registered in my name).

[Clancie]

Oh, and just to add...in the link above, Randi described hot reading (again) for his key "validations"...not cold reading.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

II

Clancie, did you just telephone her up out of the blue? Or did you arrange somehow or other to telephone her at a particular time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

email
It was planned ahead. She had (part) of my first name and I emailed her (not my computer or email account).



I was thinking about it being planned ahead using your own telephone. If that were so, then knowing your number then there might have been some way of finding out about you. Not by email though.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say she knew your name and that you were from California, but it is unclear to me if she knew these things before you telephoned for the reading?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Part of my first name before and I told her that I was in California when I called (no, Untrickable, I did not consider this a major revelation).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if you had telephoned earlier, and said basically nothing at all, they might have been able to get your number then find out details? (although of course the "snake" connection seems unlikely etc)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, I'm open for someone to explain how. As I say, she had part of my first name and I scheduled the reading via someone else's computer and email account.



So did you only make the one telephone call, the time when you actually obtained the reading?



Oh, and just a couple of minutes into it she said, "You're the Gemini" and "You teach, he's showing me that." I'm sure people don't take my word for how close mouthed I am in readings, but the advantage of having "several" is that you learn to be more disciplined that way (she thought I was a skeptic--as did Robert Brown, lol).



Gemini? Is that your star sign?



Anyway, I think the normal explanations are "lucky guess", "hot reading" or "remembering the hits and forgetting the misses". But, with the latter, the hits are still hits. If they're lucky guesses...well,we've seen that's rather difficult even to get a book title right with Boy Paj's book test (which was much like correctly guessing the zodiac sign).

And as for hot reading...well...I'm open to the idea, but...."How?" (Oh, and the phone I called her on wasn't registered in my name).



Hot reading is the only "normal" possibility certainly.

[Clancie]

Posted by InterestingIan

So did you only make the one telephone call, the time when you actually obtained the reading?
Right.

Yes, Gemini is my "sun sign". (Get the birthday presents ready! :) )

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

Right.

Yes, Gemini is my "sun sign". (Get the birthday presents ready! :) )

Did you mention your telephone number in the email? Or any other information that she might use to find out who you are?

What precise date is your birthday if you don't mind me asking? Not to get you birthday presents though. I can't because I don't know your address :)

[glee]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But no-one is reading anything paranormal at all in this chess stunt :eek: At least not on this thread. I certainly haven't. TheBoyPaj certainly didn't. No-one has! As I said (and TheBoyPaj said originally), he could engineer the number of pieces left on the board by resigning at a certain point or suggesting a draw. Nothing paranormal about that!

This makes no sense at all.

Derren is not playing any moves in these mirror games.
He has stated he will win the contest, so cannot afford to 'resign at a certain point'.
He dare not risk offering a draw - what happens if one player accepts but the other refuses? Derren will promptly lose the remaining game!

So he has absolutely no control over the games, including when they finish.
Therefore the only 'engineering' he can do must be 'paranormal', and both you and TheBoyPaj said he was engineering the end of the games.

Are you sure you understand how the trick was done?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

He said he hasn't got any ear piece in his ear feeding him the moves. Maybe he just blatantly cheated and someone played the game for him. But this was not the impression he gave. So if what you say is correct then he is a flat out liar.

No -- assuming this summary is accurate -- he would only be a liar if he cheated by having an "ear piece feeding him the moves."

If he cheated in any other manner, inlcuding having the moves fed to him through any other means at all, he is a cheat, but not a liar.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by glee

There are only 3 ways to beat a bunch of international chess players: bribery / use Kasparov / play 'mirror' chess.

I myself is not much of a chess player, but I have won against the danish champion (at that time) of speedchess, in 1999. It's funny you should mention Kasparov. because this is how I did it:

We went to the same school, so there I asked him for a challenge at zone.com. By then I had already planned how to do it:

In Chessmaster, a pc chess program, you can play against the strategies of grandmasters, atleast thats what they claim, so I choose Kasparov. I encouraged Jesper, this champion, to play white in a 20 minutte game, he would then have to take the first move. I then played Jesper's move against 'Kasparovs', and used the move the computer would reply with, against Jesper - he resigned in both games we played. I actually had no idea what was going on in those games, although I'm do know my way around chess when I play against non-masters.

The next day he came to school and looked like he had been run over by a train, I of course had to tell him that he had been playing a computer when I saw how he looked.

I don't know if this trick was especially smart, but it surely worked.


/thomas

[voidx]

First off I refuse to make much of any judgement on Clancie's experience because I do not have a transcript. Its too hard to base it on snippets here and there provided by Clancie. Seeing the flow of hits and misses is important as well. Whether hits were dispersed across the reading, or if they snowballed from an intial hit.

Now, for the Snake hit. The mistake people are making is to keep relaying the Snake hit as it applies to Clancie and how she validates it. In my opinion you should concentrate on the medium. Now, in case A) medium is getting a snake impression from the "he" spirit. This impression is related only to an animal, there is no apparent impression that it is a person. Even the words of the medium seem to want to apply in the sense of, "are you sure you didn't see a snake on the trip?" This is obviously in relation to an animal from the mediums point of view. Calling it the difficulty of mediumship's process to clarify at times doesn't change the fact that its just as easily a vague semantic out of the cold reading process. So far as the medium can tell it applies to an animal. However "oh its a persons nickname? Ok I'll take that", seems fine. Both are just as likely a scenario, however one forces you to posit life after death, and also a currently undetectable, unknown form of communication. The other does not.

In case B) we have a medium that knows you and "he" took a trip and are in california, and so thinks, well lets take a calculated risk here. Something a little less common, but certainly not unheard of, lets see if they saw a snake during their trip. And lets be clear on this, all she's asking is if you saw a snake during the trip. That's basically the same as me asking Clancie, "how was the trip, heh see any snakes?". Thomas correctly pointed out how many potential scenarios could fit into this seeing the snake on the trip, now yes some of them were not related to the trip which I'll give you credit for. However, it wouldn't be hard to come up with several, that only one of them applied to you is irrelevant, the medium has no idea which apply to you, but it provides them with many potentials, and we've clearly seen from many examples of transcripts how misses are just sort of brushed aside or chalked up to communication difficulties.

The snake hit in itself is wholly unimpressive, its just pure guesswork, hinging on the hope that one of the potential snake scenario's would fit you. If it had missed, it would have been dismissed. It only seems relevant in your opinion because of a string of hits of which it was part. Since I have not seen these, and cannot see them in transcript format as to how the actual verbal exchange went, I refuse to give it much credence. Clancie has no obligation to do so, and I know she's not apparently trying to convince me of anything, but without doing either of those things, this being an example of evidential information is a complete failure in my opinion.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Marian


I remember first reading about this trick in the book "If Tomorrow Comes", by Sidney Sheldon. The trick is used as part of a con game on a cruise ship, the game is played with 2 grandmasters, each in another room.

This was actually done with two grandmasters through correspodence chess, though I am forgetting the names of the people challenged and am not at home to check my books -- I am sure it was mentioned is a Andy Soltis book that collected his chess articles over the years.

Another pair of players tried it against . . .Alekhine (I think). He recognized what was going on (via mail again) and made an intentional "blunder" in one of the games. the two player got together and decided to try and win both games, and were of course crushed.

N/A

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Thomas


I myself is not much of a chess player, but I have won against the danish champion (at that time) of speedchess, in 1999. It's funny you should mention Kasparov. because this is how I did it:

We went to the same school, so there I asked him for a challenge at zone.com. By then I had already planned how to do it:

In Chessmaster, a pc chess program, you can play against the strategies of grandmasters, atleast thats what they claim, so I choose Kasparov. I encouraged Jesper, this champion, to play white in a 20 minutte game, he would then have to take the first move. I then played Jesper's move against 'Kasparovs', and used the move the computer would reply with, against Jesper - he resigned in both games we played. I actually had no idea what was going on in those games, although I'm do know my way around chess when I play against non-masters.

The next day he came to school and looked like he had been run over by a train, I of course had to tell him that he had been playing a computer when I saw how he looked.

I don't know if this trick was especially smart, but it surely worked.


/thomas

Oups, a mistake.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by glee


This makes no sense at all.

Derren is not playing any moves in these mirror games.
He has stated he will win the contest, so cannot afford to 'resign at a certain point'.



Why not? He simply has to recognise when the game has definitely been lost and then resign. He can resign one move before checkmate, 2 moves, 5 moves or whatever, providing he recognises that his defeat is a foregone conclusion. Nothing compels him to resign at the precise same juncture that his opponent does in the mirror game. It ain't gonna effect his overall score.



He dare not risk offering a draw - what happens if one player accepts but the other refuses? Derren will promptly lose the remaining game!



A position could very obviously clearly be seen that it will end up in a draw. On one board his opponent could offer a draw. He might accept. On the other board he could play on a move, or 2 moves before agreeing to the draw.




So he has absolutely no control over the games, including when they finish.



And as I have explained, you're wrong.



Therefore the only 'engineering' he can do must be 'paranormal', and both you and TheBoyPaj said he was engineering the end of the games.



Glee, your reasoning skills might be very good at chess, but certainly they don't appear to be in any general sense. Now I advise you not to embarrass yourself any further on here.



Are you sure you understand how the trick was done?

I never said I worked out how Derren got the number of pieces at the end on every board correct. I scarcely glanced at that bit when the programme was on. I simply thought about the issue when TheBoyPaj raised it.

[glee]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He said he hasn't got any ear piece in his ear feeding him the moves. Maybe he just blatantly cheated and someone played the game for him. But this was not the impression he gave. So if what you say is correct then he is a flat out liar. (which of course we know to be true anyway eg that gun stunt last year).


As Nozed Avenger says, he's not a liar. He's using skilful tricks (as all magicians do). Do you think sawing a woman in half is lying, or cheating?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I never saw that information being given out. Nor did I see any of the games. Didn't think it showed any of the games actually being played! :eek: Of course he wouldn't be able to beat a player of such a ranking. So if you are correct, he's lied yet again. OK, so what? We all know he does.


My sources of information are extremely good on this matter.
It makes an interesting comparison with reports of sittings, where we often struggle to get an accurate transcript.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of couse people can psychologically influence other people, and this is not regarded as having anything to do with the paranormal! :eek: Anyway, him simply resigning at a particular point doesn't involve influencing his opponent at all.

As I said previously, Derren has no control over the moves of the game, nor when it finishes.
If he could 'psychologically influence' a chessplayer to resign, why not do that instead of spending over 3 hours patiently copying moves?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


No -- assuming this summary is accurate -- he would only be a liar if he cheated by having an "ear piece feeding him the moves."

If he cheated in any other manner, inlcuding having the moves fed to him through any other means at all, he is a cheat, but not a liar.

The deliberate intent to convey a certain message by the use of appropriate language, which does not accurately depict a particular state of affairs, is a lie. That is to say there is no substantive or moral difference between this and a spoken falsehood.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I'm open for someone to explain how.

It is difficult, if you insist on giving us information about the reading in small bits. E.g. you show us the "Snake" part, but don't show us what was leading up to it.

After we point out that snakes are plenty in California, you then claim that you have never seen a snake at all.

It's like you are playing a game:

Clancie: "Hey, skeptics, explain this!"

Skeptics: "Well, here are some suggestions..."

Clancie: "No, not possible, because you see, there is also this piece of information..."

Skeptics: "Well, here are some suggestions..."

Clancie: "No, not possible, because you see, there is also this piece of information."

On and on it goes, until you can declare:

Clancie: "So, skeptics have not been able to explain this."

You move the goalposts, and it is a very intellectual dishonest approach.

I still maintain that you are not open to natural explanations at all. You are deliberately missing the point about the snake: The medium bases a guess on the many snakes around, together with the information about the "trip". It could be a camping trip, or at least somewhere in the wild.

It's far from the first time you have tried to ignore/explain away the natural explanations we have provided you with. Whatever explanation skeptics come up with, you counter by moving the goal posts, point to hidden/secret information, or simply ignore it. You even pretend that you acknowledge that skeptics could be right - you then boil everything down to opinion, so you can have your opinion in peace.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by glee
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He said he hasn't got any ear piece in his ear feeding him the moves. Maybe he just blatantly cheated and someone played the game for him. But this was not the impression he gave. So if what you say is correct then he is a flat out liar. (which of course we know to be true anyway eg that gun stunt last year).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As Nozed Avenger says, he's not a liar. He's using skilful tricks (as all magicians do). Do you think sawing a woman in half is lying, or cheating?



Yes he is a liar, see my above post.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I never saw that information being given out. Nor did I see any of the games. Didn't think it showed any of the games actually being played! Of course he wouldn't be able to beat a player of such a ranking. So if you are correct, he's lied yet again. OK, so what? We all know he does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My sources of information are extremely good on this matter.
It makes an interesting comparison with reports of sittings, where we often struggle to get an accurate transcript.



We're not talking about your sources, we're talking about what was shown on the TV programme. This alleged information you're spouting forth we do not know. Derren said he is the weakest player and that he beat him fairly. Of course I acknowledge he may have been lying, and indeed he must have been if one assumes your information is correct.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of couse people can psychologically influence other people, and this is not regarded as having anything to do with the paranormal! Anyway, him simply resigning at a particular point doesn't involve influencing his opponent at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As I said previously, Derren has no control over the moves of the game, nor when it finishes.



And as I have said previously, you're wrong.




If he could 'psychologically influence' a chessplayer to resign, why not do that instead of spending over 3 hours patiently copying moves?



I see no purpose in this conversation if you comprehensively fail to understand anything. You've come barging in here, accusing myself and TheBoyPaj of supposing that Derren Brown employed psychic powers, and then you proceed to write a load of other drivel. Why don't you read and comprehend the posts before contributing to this thread? And this whole subject has nothing to do with the topic of this thread anyway.

You've may a mistake and erroneously supposed that myself and TheBoyPaj believed that Derren employed psychic powers. This is the only reason why you started to contribute to this thread., Just admit your mistake and move on.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]

It is difficult, if you insist on giving us information about the reading in small bits. E.g. you show us the "Snake" part, but don't show us what was leading up to it.

After we point out that snakes are plenty in California, you then claim that you have never seen a snake at all.

It's like you are playing a game:

Clancie: "Hey, skeptics, explain this!"

Skeptics: "Well, here are some suggestions..."

Clancie: "No, not possible, because you see, there is also this piece of information..."

Skeptics: "Well, here are some suggestions..."

Clancie: "No, not possible, because you see, there is also this piece of information."

On and on it goes, until you can declare:

Clancie: "So, skeptics have not been able to explain this."

You move the goalposts, and it is a very intellectual dishonest approach.



I don't agree at all. Nothing obliged her to give all details on the initial posting. I would have done the same as Clancie.



I still maintain that you are not open to natural explanations at all.



We are very open to natural explanations. Please provide one. A sensible one not a wildly implausible one. Thanks.





You are deliberately missing the point about the snake: The medium bases a guess on the many snakes around, together with the information about the "trip". It could be a camping trip, or at least somewhere in the wild.

It's far from the first time you have tried to ignore/explain away the natural explanations we have provided you with. Whatever explanation skeptics come up with, you counter by moving the goal posts, point to hidden/secret information, or simply ignore it. You even pretend that you acknowledge that skeptics could be right - you then boil everything down to opinion, so you can have your opinion in peace.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Nothing obliged her to give all details on the initial posting.I dunno, maybe intellectual honesty?
I would have done the same as Clancie.Well, there ya go.

[glee]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why not? He simply has to recognise when the game has definitely been lost and then resign. He can resign one move before checkmate, 2 moves, 5 moves or whatever, providing he recognises that his defeat is a foregone conclusion. Nothing compels him to resign at the precise same juncture that his opponent does in the mirror game. It ain't gonna effect his overall score.


Ian, Derren is practically a beginner at chess.
How on earth would he recognise that it's checkmate in 5 moves?!

And he's playing international players. These players are capable of giving beginners a queen start and still winning.
If Derren resigns early, he would risk losing the other mirror game where he's winning.
Grandmaster Emms resigned against Grandmaster Levitt when a bishop down. Between grandmasters, this is overwhelming. Against a beginner, it's just a minor inconvenience.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A position could very obviously clearly be seen that it will end up in a draw. On one board his opponent could offer a draw. He might accept. On the other board he could play on a move, or 2 moves before agreeing to the draw.


Look Ian, all the players knew it was 'mirror' chess as soon they saw the set. They saw how clumsily Derren moved the pieces during the display.
Grandmaster Ward's game started (Ward Black) 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 ...
Since Grandmaster Hodgson is the leading English exponent of this opening, Ward now knew who he was really playing... at move 2!
If Derren offers a draw, the players are going to want to see a few more moves. If Derren plays on by himself, he's going to blunder and get beaten.
That destroys any chance he has of winning overall.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And as I have explained, you're wrong.


Read the above, then just explain again how Derren can 'control when the games finish'.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Glee, your reasoning skills might be very good at chess, but certainly they don't appear to be in any general sense. Now I advise you not to embarrass yourself any further on here.


I'm not the one who got the number of players wrong.
I'm not the one who got the number of Grandmasters wrong.
I'm not the one who said it wasn't on terrestrial TV.
I'm not the one who agreed with TheBoyPaj who said "it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur".

I am the one who knows about the international player who refused to be on the program because he knew it would be mirror chess.
I am the one who knows how several of the games went, and who was playing who.
I am the one who knows about how there was a break after the games finished, which gave Derren a chance to make up the second envelope.

Perhaps you are the one looking ill-informed?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I never said I worked out how Derren got the number of pieces at the end on every board correct. I scarcely glanced at that bit when the programme was on. I simply thought about the issue when TheBoyPaj raised it.

And got it wrong.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't agree at all. Nothing obliged her to give all details on the initial posting. I would have done the same as Clancie.

You don't see it as a problem. OK.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We are very open to natural explanations. Please provide one. A sensible one not a wildly implausible one. Thanks.

Ian, you have to understand that the paranormal explanation is the wildly implausible one.

[Nigel]

Has anyone else noticed Ian seems particularly adept at hijacking threads and turning the topic toward himself?

As in this thread, and also here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39391).

[lofgoernost]

The thing I love about the snake and SLO is how they fit me. About ten or eleven years ago I flew out to Cali from Boston and my brother and I drove from San Francisco to San Luis Obispo. Rt. 1 is an amazing road which snakes along the California coast...I put that desription down in my journal. The dashboard of my brother's van was littered with relics collected on his many journeys - weighted down by various remnants of bones, stones, and sea glass was the shedded skin of a corn snake. We were on the road for Easter, our first away from our family. We went to a secluded beach and read passages from the New Testament, and then, feeling ourlseves to be in Paradise (and soon to be self-expelled from it as we made our way to Death Valley and, later, Las Vegas) we read portions of Genesis which included the most famous serpent.


But those stretches aren't necessary. While hiking in Big Sur a snake crossed the trail in front of us - we were double-timing it to reach a camp spot before dark and took the snake as a bad omen (soon after we had to creep thru some bushes and both emerged covered by dozens of ticks - we muttered curses at that snake for a while...)

[CFLarsen]

lofgoernost,

According to Mediumship Rules, the reading was also for you. If someone can "validate" the information, then the spirit is trying to connect to that person.

In this case, you.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by glee
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why not? He simply has to recognise when the game has definitely been lost and then resign. He can resign one move before checkmate, 2 moves, 5 moves or whatever, providing he recognises that his defeat is a foregone conclusion. Nothing compels him to resign at the precise same juncture that his opponent does in the mirror game. It ain't gonna effect his overall score.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ian, Derren is practically a beginner at chess.



We are not given this information. We only know about his declaration that he is not very good at chess. That might mean as good as me for all we know, or it might mean he is a beginner.



How on earth would he recognise that it's checkmate in 5 moves?!



Well easily in some circumstance. Say with a particular postion where there is 2 rooks and the king against just a king. Loads of examples.



And he's playing international players. These players are capable of giving beginners a queen start and still winning.
If Derren resigns early, he would risk losing the other mirror game where he's winning.



I'm maintaining that he has a slight influence over the number of pieces that get left over. Not that he can dictate it at will!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A position could very obviously clearly be seen that it will end up in a draw. On one board his opponent could offer a draw. He might accept. On the other board he could play on a move, or 2 moves before agreeing to the draw.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Look Ian, all the players knew it was 'mirror' chess as soon they saw the set. They saw how clumsily Derren moved the pieces during the display.



Clumsily? Like not a fine delicate touch? :D LOL




Grandmaster Ward's game started (Ward Black) 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 ...
Since Grandmaster Hodgson is the leading English exponent of this opening, Ward now knew who he was really playing... at move 2!



Ummm . . I dunno. Think I play that opening too. Need to get my chessboard out to find out though lol





If Derren offers a draw, the players are going to want to see a few more moves. If Derren plays on by himself, he's going to blunder and get beaten.
That destroys any chance he has of winning overall.



I was talking about an obviously drawn position. Let's say for example knight, bishop (white squares) and king against knight, bishop (black squares) and king.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And as I have explained, you're wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Read the above, then just explain again how Derren can 'control when the games finish'.


He has influence, not control.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Glee, your reasoning skills might be very good at chess, but certainly they don't appear to be in any general sense. Now I advise you not to embarrass yourself any further on here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm not the one who got the number of players wrong.



Number of games was 5 not players. But this is unimportant in the context of the point I made.



I'm not the one who got the number of Grandmasters wrong.



I was nevcer sure of the number of grandmasters. I said couple rather than 2 to connote a certain ambigiuity.




I'm not the one who said it wasn't on terrestrial TV.



The company that supplies my cable TV has altered loads of things over the past few days. I can program the cable box to give a loud buzz when a fav TV programme comes on, but am now less likely to notice what channel a programme was on.




I'm not the one who agreed with TheBoyPaj who said "it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur".



I have not given a definitive answer as to how Derren got the figures correct for the numbers of pieces at the end. I was scarcely paying attention to the programme at that point. I simply note that Derren can influence this number. And he can psychologically influence people maybe to resign at a certain point. But note there is nothing paranormal involved here!



I am the one who knows about the international player who refused to be on the program because he knew it would be mirror chess.
I am the one who knows how several of the games went, and who was playing who.
I am the one who knows about how there was a break after the games finished, which gave Derren a chance to make up the second envelope.

Perhaps you are the one looking ill-informed?



And you are the one who has falsely accused people in this thread of supposing Derren was using paranormal powers. Moreover, this was your only purpose in butting in on this thread. Why don't you admit you were wrong and stop being so obnoxious about this.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I never said I worked out how Derren got the number of pieces at the end on every board correct. I scarcely glanced at that bit when the programme was on. I simply thought about the issue when TheBoyPaj raised it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And got it wrong.



I have no idea whether it is wrong or not. I simply state that given my knowledge, it is a plausible hypothesis. Indeed, it is the only plausible hypothesis given that these chess players have enough sense and not allow him to switch the envelope. You're claiming they didn't. {shrugs}, ok fair enough. As I say my attention was no longer on the programme at that juncture.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by glee


Ian, Derren is practically a beginner at chess.
How on earth would he recognise that it's checkmate in 5 moves?!

And he's playing international players. These players are capable of giving beginners a queen start and still winning.
If Derren resigns early, he would risk losing the other mirror game where he's winning.
Grandmaster Emms resigned against Grandmaster Levitt when a bishop down. Between grandmasters, this is overwhelming. Against a beginner, it's just a minor inconvenience.




Look Ian, all the players knew it was 'mirror' chess as soon they saw the set. They saw how clumsily Derren moved the pieces during the display.
Grandmaster Ward's game started (Ward Black) 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 ...
Since Grandmaster Hodgson is the leading English exponent of this opening, Ward now knew who he was really playing... at move 2!
If Derren offers a draw, the players are going to want to see a few more moves. If Derren plays on by himself, he's going to blunder and get beaten.
That destroys any chance he has of winning overall.



Read the above, then just explain again how Derren can 'control when the games finish'.



I'm not the one who got the number of players wrong.
I'm not the one who got the number of Grandmasters wrong.
I'm not the one who said it wasn't on terrestrial TV.
I'm not the one who agreed with TheBoyPaj who said "it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur".

I am the one who knows about the international player who refused to be on the program because he knew it would be mirror chess.
I am the one who knows how several of the games went, and who was playing who.
I am the one who knows about how there was a break after the games finished, which gave Derren a chance to make up the second envelope.

Perhaps you are the one looking ill-informed?



And got it wrong.
[crash course in Ian logic]
Nonononono!!! Ian is never wrong, he says so himself, and since he's never wrong it must be so. Ian knows nothing about Chess, but that doesn't stop him from realizing that all the people who do know about are all wrong, and since Ian knows nothing about the subject it would be silly for to sound so sure if he wasn't right so therefore he must be, QED.
[/crash course in Ian Logic]

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

[crash course in Ian logic]
Nonononono!!! Ian is never wrong, he says so himself, and since he's never wrong it must be so. Ian knows nothing about Chess, but that doesn't stop him from realizing that all the people who do know about are all wrong, and since Ian knows nothing about the subject it would be silly for to sound so sure if he wasn't right so therefore he must be, QED.
[/crash course in Ian Logic]

My knowledge of chess is wholly irrelevant.

Glee is incorrect in his assertion that anyone on this thread has alleged Derren was using paranormal powers in this chess stunt.

Given ones background knowledge of chess, one would be in a position to know precisely how much influence Derren could wield over the number of pieces remaining. If one did have sufficient knowledge one might realise that Derren could not exert a sufficient influence to account for what he did (plus randomly asking the tables at the end). But for one who doesn't have such sufficient knowledge, than the hypothesis proposed is a reasonable one.

[Clancie]

Posted by Upchurch

I dunno, maybe intellectual honesty?
What was it about the example I gave (in response to HenDralux's question) that you find intellectually dishonest, Upchurch? Seriously, I'd like to know.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
(to glee)

And as I have said previously, you're wrong.

Everyone agrees that you've said it. Indeed, I could agree that you've all but shouted it. But you're wildy off the mark.

Brown had zero control over the ending of the games. Zero. Zilch. None. Nada. Nullo. Nil.

I did not take you or paj's first comments to assert paranormal control over the board, but by asserting that Brown could have done -anything- to influence the end of games against a you are now coming dangerously close to taking that position.

Against an IM, even a Class A player would be stupid -- criminally, unbelievably stupid -- to either draw a game or resign without assuring a victory on the 'mirrored' board. Against a GM, triply so. These players could beat Brown -- even assuming he is a decently strong player -- blindfolded. Quite literally blindfolded.

He simply cannot afford to deviate from repeating moves from one board to the next -- otherwise he would be absolutely trounced, no matter how "good" his position is on the related board.

That is glee's point -- his very correct point -- and you're being too indignant to even listen to it.



I see no purpose in this conversation if you comprehensively fail to understand anything. You've come barging in here, accusing myself and TheBoyPaj of supposing that Derren Brown employed psychic powers, and then you proceed to write a load of other drivel. Why don't you read and comprehend the posts before contributing to this thread? And this whole subject has nothing to do with the topic of this thread anyway.

1 point of irony for the "failing to understand" point, and an extra 5 points awarded because of who brought up this experiment in the first place.

Just admit your mistake and move on.

And an extra 10 points of irony just for good measure. A high-scoring round, indeed.

N/A

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The deliberate intent to convey a certain message by the use of appropriate language, which does not accurately depict a particular state of affairs, is a lie. That is to say there is no substantive or moral difference between this and a spoken falsehood.

That depends entirely upon context. You'll find that there is also a "substantive" difference, for example, with the question of perjury. In the context of a performance such as this one, accepting a performer's limited statement about how something is not done as an affirmation that no "tricks" are used is sloppy, at best.

If I worked out a way to levitate using extremely powerful magnets, for example, and then billed by act as "using no wires," you would say -- using your catch-all definition -- that I have lied, as I obviously meant to imply I was flying through thought power alone. I would say that you did not pay close enough attention to what I actually said.

In this context, the audience is required to listen closely -- it's a trick.

N/A

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Everyone agrees that you've said it. Indeed, I could agree that you've all but shouted it. But you're wildy off the mark.

Brown had zero control over the ending of the games. Zero. Zilch. None. Nada. Nullo. Nil.

I did not take you or paj's first comments to assert paranormal control over the board, but by asserting that Brown could have done -anything- to influence the end of games against a you are now coming dangerously close to taking that position.

Against an IM, even a Class A player would be stupid -- criminally, unbelievably stupid -- to either draw a game or resign without assuring a victory on the 'mirrored' board. Against a GM, triply so. These players could beat Brown -- even assuming he is a decently strong player -- blindfolded. Quite literally blindfolded.

He simply cannot afford to deviate from repeating moves from one board to the next -- otherwise he would be absolutely trounced, no matter how "good" his position is on the related board.

That is glee's point -- his very correct point -- and you're being too indignant to even listen to it.




1 point of irony for the "failing to understand" point, and an extra 5 points awarded because of who brought up this experiment in the first place.



And an extra 10 points of irony just for good measure. A high-scoring round, indeed.

N/A

I have said all that I intend to say. Your accusation that I am invoking the paranormal in this chess stunt is utterly preposterous. Read my arguments more carefully and try to understand. Let's see a grandmaster manage to win or draw against Derren if the grandmaster only has his King and a knight where as Derren has both rooks and his queen. Or if it makes any difference when Derren resigns if the position were reversed.

And ones body language can influence other peoples decisions in all sorts of ways. Just witness Derrens ability to influence people, say, to arbitrarily choose a particular suit rather than another from a pack of cards. But there ain't nuthin paranormal about it.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have said all that I intend to say.

I wish that just once you could just disagree on a topic without telling the other person to "[r]ead [your] arguments more carefully and try to understand." It isn't that I don't read or understand your writings, Ian, its that - having read them and managed, despite my limitations, to understand them - I think you are wildly off base on your conclusions.

You failure (or refusal) to even consider the possibility that the above could happen -- that someone is quite clear on what you mean, but that you just happen to be wrong -- is what leads to more arguments than enything else.

These are IMs and GMs playing chess. They've played countless tournament games against players of strength. Most, if not all, would recognize precisely what Brown was doing within a few moves. As I stated earlier, it is a well-known trick that was used against several GMs back around the turn of the century.

As he was playing one GM off against another, how do you propose that he get to the point where "the grandmaster only has his King and a knight where as Derren has both rooks and his queen"? Do you think even an IM is going to allow that position playing a GM?

You are building a very flimsy house of cards ever higher in a frantic effort to avoid looking at the simplest, most direct solution to the problem: he could easily prepare and switch envelopes under any of a dozen different ways. Not only is this simpler and easier, but it avoids all the unnecesary uncertainty regarding whether you can 'influence' someone, or not -- especially if you have no control over the choice of openings because two other people are playing the entire game for you.

You already know that Brown cheats. You expressly call him a liar. Why do you seem to believe his inferred claims regarding "influencing" the end of a chess game that you -know- he is not actually playing in the first place?

Clinging to this idea makes no sense to me.

N/A

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


I wish that just once you could just disagree on a topic without telling the other person to "[r]ead [your] arguments more carefully and try to understand." It isn't that I don't read or understand your writings, Ian, its that - having read them and managed, despite my limitations, to understand them - I think you are wildly off base on your conclusions.

You failure (or refusal) to even consider the possibility that the above could happen -- that someone is quite clear on what you mean, but that you just happen to be wrong -- is what leads to more arguments than enything else.

These are IMs and GMs playing chess. They've played countless tournament games against players of strength. Most, if not all, would recognize precisely what Brown was doing within a few moves. As I stated earlier, it is a well-known trick that was used against several GMs back around the turn of the century.

As he was playing one GM off against another, how do you propose that he get to the point where "the grandmaster only has his King and a knight where as Derren has both rooks and his queen"? Do you think even an IM is going to allow that position playing a GM?

You are building a very flimsy house of cards ever higher in a frantic effort to avoid looking at the simplest, most direct solution to the problem: he could easily prepare and switch envelopes under any of a dozen different ways. Not only is this simpler and easier, but it avoids all the unnecesary uncertainty regarding whether you can 'influence' someone, or not -- especially if you have no control over the choice of openings because two other people are playing the entire game for you.

You already know that Brown cheats. You expressly call him a liar. Why do you seem to believe his inferred claims regarding "influencing" the end of a chess game that you -know- he is not actually playing in the first place?

Clinging to this idea makes no sense to me.

N/A [/B]

I do not understand what your problem is. I gave a possible exploratory hypothesis for how Derren achieved what he did. I have absolutely no idea whether that is the correct hypothesis or not since I wasn't watching the TV at that stage. I have absolutely no idea whether the envelope was switched since I was not watching; but if the guy who was handed the envelope had any remotest sense, he would not have handed it over to Derren. Moreover, even if he had have handed it over, then these chess players should have watched Derren like a hawk to make sure he didn't switch.

I was assuming basic competency amongst these world class chess players and proposing a possible hypothesis how Derren could have achieved what he did. If they allowed Derren to switch the envelope under their very noses, or let him stroll out of sight to another room to switch the envelope, then obviously the hypothesis that I mentioned is not needed. But this doesn't alter the fact that one could in principle influence to a marginal degree the number of pieces left over in the games. This, plus asking the chess players in a certain order about the number of pieces left over on their boards, might well be sufficient for the results to very nearly coincide with that in the envelope. Or it might not be. I simply don't know. Nor am I interested.

Moreover, I have no idea why people are arguing about it. This topic has absolutely nothing to do with the paranormal, no-one has remotely suggested that Derren was employing anomalous abilities despite yours and you and Glee's assertions to the contrary. And I only mentioned the programme to point out that I had seen through it in contrast to the chess players. OK, you and Glee are maintaining the chess players were lying. In which case I do not see the point in screening this stunt in the first place since it is a lie from beginning to end.

Oh yeah, and try to understand what the word "lie" means.

I'd say a lot more at this stage were it not for the fact that I've been threatened today to be banned should I express my feelings more appropriately. So consider yourself very lucky.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


That depends entirely upon context. You'll find that there is also a "substantive" difference, for example, with the question of perjury. In the context of a performance such as this one, accepting a performer's limited statement about how something is not done as an affirmation that no "tricks" are used is sloppy, at best.



Try to understand how English is used and stop wasting my time with your asinine posts.

Clear enough???

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


That depends entirely upon context. You'll find that there is also a "substantive" difference, for example, with the question of perjury. In the context of a performance such as this one, accepting a performer's limited statement about how something is not done as an affirmation that no "tricks" are used is sloppy, at best.

If I worked out a way to levitate using extremely powerful magnets, for example, and then billed by act as "using no wires," you would say -- using your catch-all definition -- that I have lied, as I obviously meant to imply I was flying through thought power alone. I would say that you did not pay close enough attention to what I actually said.

In this context, the audience is required to listen closely -- it's a trick.

N/A

If you are attempting to convey the impression you are achieving the effect by anomalous means, then in my book you are a liar.

Don't analyse language. It is a tool for communicating, and ought not to be abused by you, and Derren et al.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Try to understand how English is used and stop wasting my time with your asinine posts.

Clear enough???

Only you can waste your time, Ian. Just fight off the urge to read anything further and stop replying -- as you said you were going to do several messages back.

You are a very unpleasant person with no power to prevent anyone from posting their thoughts.

Clear enough?

N/A

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Only you can waste your time, Ian. Just fight off the urge to read anything further and stop replying -- as you said you were going to do several messages back.

You are a very unpleasant person with no power to prevent anyone from posting their thoughts.

Clear enough?

N/A

You have absolutely no idea what sort of person I am.

One thing's for sure, at least I do not lie, and no, I'm not referring to your perverted definition of lying :rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Clancie

What was it about the example I gave (in response to HenDralux's question) that you find intellectually dishonest, Upchurch? Seriously, I'd like to know. I didn't read it actually. I was just replying to the statement "Nothing obliged her to give all details on the initial posting" in a general way. That is, if conditions of a question are with held for the purpose of discrediting a person's answer after it is given (as was described by CFLarsen), I would consider that to be dishonest.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Moreover, even if he had have handed it over, then these chess players should have watched Derren like a hawk to make sure he didn't switch.

I was assuming basic competency amongst these world class chess players and proposing a possible hypothesis how Derren could have achieved what he did.

I love it -- you assume basic competency in preventing Brown from carrying out a magic trick, but -not- that same level of competency in playing chess. I love the contortions you have to make in order to cling to the "Brown influenced the game" theory.

[snip]

Oh yeah, and try to understand what the word "lie" means.

Well, since we're being snippy, how about:

Lie. Is that like where you say "I have said all that I intend to say" on a topic, then leave another 3-4 or a dozen more messages that same day?

I'd say a lot more at this stage were it not for the fact that I've been threatened today to be banned should I express my feelings more appropriately. So consider yourself very lucky.

Oh, for heaven's sake, Ian -- curse away and "win" the argument. Show that intellect by coming up with new and novel uses of the word "ars*hole" -- that will show me.

N/A

[TLN]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Oh, for heaven's sake, Ian -- curse away and "win" the argument. Show that intellect by coming up with new and novel uses of the word "ars*hole" -- that will show me.

Frankly, it’s what you deserve for engaging an @sshole with unequivocally nothing else to offer. What did you expect?

[Clancie]

Posted by Upchurch

I didn't read it actually. I was just replying to the statement "Nothing obliged her to give all details on the initial posting" in a general way.
Well, since your post specifically was referring to me, actually, and indicated that -I- had been intellectually dishonest, it might have been nice if you were actually familiar with my post and the request that it had been in response to.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Do you agree that I admitted I was wrong, yes or no?


Let's see, you were wrong about it being an experiment (remember, you said it was an experiment in other posts too), wrong about the number of transcripts I had (you somehow originally said 25), wrong about the % agreement (due to underestimation of it and mistaken inference), and wrong about other things too. So yes, I certainly agree that you were wrong.


Not at all. I explained that even an amateur such as myself can see through your charade.


And as stated, with this you contradict yourself. You believe you can critique statistical arguments, call me a "lousy statistician", and say some analyses are "flawed", while at the same time admitting that you know next to nothing about statistics. Can you explain just what out of the discipline of statistics you DO know? Can you show my analyses are flawed?

Don't blow hot air Clauz, just DO IT. Use symbols and numbers, not words. Use your amazingly advanced amateur knowledge that you claim to have.


I merely pointed out that you had a collection of transcripts. Why not go to the very person who already has about 20 transcripts?


You attempt to drag me into this from your first post in this thread. It is irrelevant how many I have considering the poster didn't ask me for them. Moreover, the vast, vast majority of transcripts I have are not from professional cold readers (such transcripts don't really seem to exist as far as I can tell). Moreover, unless you've my permission, you shouldn't go around offering the transcripts I've collected to other people. I found them on the net doing basic searches, others can too.


I'm sure I will. It looks as if it will be a webpage dedicated to me and my doings. Kinda like a stalker's webpage. A cool, calculated, premeditated, bereft-of-emotion stalker's webpage.


Was your attempt at looking into the future supposed to impress anyone? It didn't.

FYI, I take accusations of stalking very seriously, but not coming from someone with your track record. Someone such as yourself who is going around saying people are stalking and are obsessed, yet posts more to or about those people, is hard to take seriously.

It will be a personal webpage, with articles here and there on things I find interesting, skeptical and otherwise. I'll certainly be linking to several skepticrepork articles as examples of how not to write skeptical articles (ie % agreement article). I have already copied many in case of their removal.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


Frankly, it’s what you deserve for engaging an @sshole with unequivocally nothing else to offer. What did you expect?

Yup, once again TLN demonstrates his mind numbing stupidity. No attempt to engage with the issues and arguments.

Hey TLN! You agree with Glee do you? Do you agree with him that I am saying Derren Brown employed paranormal abilities?? Could you point to anywhere in my posts where it can even remotely be supposed I hinted at this??

Is your mind numbingly stupidity truly beyond all limits?? Does it even rival Glees??

I might as well be talking to robots the amount of sense I get out of my communications on here. Peculiarly apt as the vast majority of people on here believe they are robots :rolleyes:

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

Waste of space.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yup, once again TLN demonstrates his mind numbing stupidity.

You going to schedule that PalTalk session some time?

No, I didn't think so...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


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]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
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]

Originally posted by TLN


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 :rolleyes:

[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]

Originally posted by Loki
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]

Originally posted by Loki
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]

Originally posted by 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?

yeah . .

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You had company??? Didn't stop you gabbing away all the time in the mic :rolleyes:

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]

Originally posted by 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.



What *I* am trying to do?? :eek: 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" :rolleyes:

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






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?? :rolleyes:

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Loki
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]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Do you have any notion of how much loathing I have for your kind?? Unable to argue with me so resorting to insults?? :rolleyes:

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]

Originally posted by HenDralux


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. :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
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.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, since your post specifically was referring to me, actually, and indicated that -I- had been intellectually dishonest, it might have been nice if you were actually familiar with my post and the request that it had been in response to.

Oh, I-Ro-Ny.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Let's see, you were wrong about it being an experiment (remember, you said it was an experiment in other posts too), wrong about the number of transcripts I had (you somehow originally said 25), wrong about the % agreement (due to underestimation of it and mistaken inference), and wrong about other things too. So yes, I certainly agree that you were wrong.

Do you have some kind of mental block that prohibits you from conceding that your opponent has admitted a mistake? Do you need to keep people in a certain situation, no matter how much the situation has changed?

I didn't ask you if I made a mistake. I asked you if you agree that I admitted to it. You obviously don't want to answer this. For some reason.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
And as stated, with this you contradict yourself. You believe you can critique statistical arguments, call me a "lousy statistician", and say some analyses are "flawed", while at the same time admitting that you know next to nothing about statistics. Can you explain just what out of the discipline of statistics you DO know? Can you show my analyses are flawed?

Don't blow hot air Clauz, just DO IT. Use symbols and numbers, not words. Use your amazingly advanced amateur knowledge that you claim to have.

Again, you simply cannot stick to the truth. I have never claimed my amateur knowledge was advanced.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You attempt to drag me into this from your first post in this thread. It is irrelevant how many I have considering the poster didn't ask me for them. Moreover, the vast, vast majority of transcripts I have are not from professional cold readers (such transcripts don't really seem to exist as far as I can tell). Moreover, unless you've my permission, you shouldn't go around offering the transcripts I've collected to other people. I found them on the net doing basic searches, others can too.

I simply don't understand why you won't share the data that was provided by other people. You don't own the transcripts, and I find your attitude rather distasteful: You want other people to do you favors, but you won't do favors for them. It is a very selfish, childish way of behaving.

Just share the transcripts. Your precious little "study" will not be harmed.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Was your attempt at looking into the future supposed to impress anyone? It didn't.

It wasn't. I was merely reflecting on your plans to build a shrine dedicated to me and my doings.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It will be a personal webpage, with articles here and there on things I find interesting, skeptical and otherwise. I'll certainly be linking to several skepticrepork articles as examples of how not to write skeptical articles (ie % agreement article). I have already copied many in case of their removal.

You needen't worry, you needen't imply that I would remove them. Every article stays. Each article is more important than your stalker-site.

Now, you are apparently still working on your study and you are informing other participants, but not me. Why not?

[glee]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No it wouldn't. I don't want to feel superior, I want a sensible mature intelligent debate.

Well if you really do, let's continue.

I have provided lots of accurate information about Derren Brown's chess trick.
You reply:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And this whole subject has nothing to do with the topic of this thread anyway.


Well that's a strange thing to say, seeing as you introduced it:

Originally posted by HenDralux
Humans are so easy to fool. One of the main reasons being, that people believe they're too intelligent to be fooled, thus, it must be true.

Raw intelligence has no bearing on how people can be conned.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't agree. For example I was just watching Derren Brown last night. Even though he's not very good at chess, he simultaneously played 5 good chess players at once, a couple of grandmasters amongst them, and he managed to beat most of them. They all seemed to be extremely impressed. But I twigged on how he did it.

My sheer raw intelligence you see


I pointed out that memory is not usually reliable enough to give a precise account of what happened, which matters a lot when a sitter claims a psychic got 'hits'.
When I point out that there were 9 players, not 5 as you stated, you reply:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Number of games was 5 not players. But this is unimportant in the context of the point I made.


So you won't admit you were wrong on a basic piece of information, then say it's not important.
It does matter. How can we if cold reading was used, unless we have accuracy in reporting.
Saying there were a couple of grandmasters, when there were 4 is not good enough in this context (the psychic had 'a couple' of hits!).
Your claim that he beat most of them is also inaccurate. He beat 4 out of 9.
Also none of them were 'extremely impressed'. One international turned down his invitation, saying he knew how the trick would be done. All the players present knew 'mirror chess' would be used as soon as they saw the studio set.

Later you said the program was not on terrestrial TV. When I state it was, you replied:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The company that supplies my cable TV has altered loads of things over the past few days. I can program the cable box to give a loud buzz when a fav TV programme comes on, but am now less likely to notice what channel a programme was on.


Again, you won't admit to an error of reporting. This level of accuracy matters when seeing how a psychic session actually went.

You then back as a 'plausible hypothesis' TheBoyPaj saying that Derren could engineer the timing of when the games end.
Let's analyse this closely.
If one player is winning the game and the predicted number of pieces is on the board, you say that Derren can resign early. But now he's on his own against an international player.
Given that Grandmaster Emms resigned when a bishop down, you seriously think a beginner can beat a grandmaster just a bishop ahead?
And I look forward to your explanation of how Derren can get a draw agreed once the number of pieces is correct on both sides. As you should know, a draw in chess is offered immediately after one player makes a move. the other player can either accept, or play on.
So here is Derren playing player A v player B. He sees player A's move, trundles round the circle and makes it against player B. According to you, he now offers a draw. Player B accepts - but no more moves are made in this game. When Derren returns to player A, how does he offer a draw?!
Do let us know how you think the draw in the program actually happened.
(Then I'll tell you what did happen. You see how valuable my sources are!)

[Ersby]

The American comedian, Steven Wright, once had a joke that went:

“I like to reminisce with people I don’t know.”

Which, when you think about it, is what cold reading is all about. The process is geared towards giving the impression that one person knows more about another than they actually do and that this information is coming from sources unseen.

As with any trick, the idea is to make it look like one thing is happening, while actually something quite different is going on. If the medium repeats the same thing, is it because the spirit is insistent, or because the medium is trying to stretch the guess into something else?

A guess like “Was father called Anthony?” may look specific, and if it is correct it has a big Wow factor. But if it is wrong, which it usually will be, the cold reader always has the option to open out the guess to include anybody, or to include all A-n names, or both. Pretty much every guess has a safety net in this way: a specific guess about anything can be opened up using imagery.

Another example, “Are you a Gemini?” (didn’t NoZed Avenger use this guess too? I can’t recall), could mean what it says. Or it could, on later reasking of the question, become “Who’s a Gemini?” “Who’s a twin?” or “What’s the anniversary in (whenever Gemini falls)?” The odds shorten dramatically with each option.

A brief note about Clancie’s reading.

First, Clancie, I’d like to know if this is the same reading you mentioned before on tvtalkshows. You mentioned a successful reading that started with the medium talking about a father figure, a husband or brother figure and a connection to the name John. Is this the same one?

Second, I personally think the SLO hit is better than the snake one, since (if my impressons are correct) it required no stretching at all to fit.

This part, however, bothers me:


Part I. She first established the deceased, by name (not initial, or a string of names). She mentioned this quite important trip he and I took, and mentioned a specific destination. Third, she asked, "Did a snake come out on the trip?" and, in fact, the "Snake" was an important name


It gives a strong impression (certainly this was what I perceived) that the guesses were consecutive. But later Clancie talks about a guesses about Gemini and teaching. If these came amongst the string of guesses re. The trip to SLO then the narrative flow is broken somewhat. The idea of information about a specific topic coming from the dead is damaged if the topics are disparate and disjointed. For example, I could describe one of my readings thus:

“First I identified the deceased by describing his illness and by naming his brother by name, then I described where he lived (which had significance for the sitter, for that’s where they went on holiday) and then I named the deceased’s only living sibling.”

Now, this is accurate, but it is incomplete. And the impression it gives is quite different to what actually happened. Which is why, although I respect Clancie and don’t think she’s being deliberately dishonest, I can’t take this too seriously.

Lastly, I can’t imagine the Blue Book having much of a role in today’s psychic circles. If so, then Rupert Brown’s seems to contain only suggestions about guessing page numbers on the books besides peoples’ beds, John Edward’s focuses entirely on people who’ve lost their leg, and Suzanne Northrup’s must be just a collection of random nouns that she can yell at entire audiences!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by glee


Well if you really do, let's continue.

I have provided lots of accurate information about Derren Brown's chess trick.
You reply:



Well that's a strange thing to say, seeing as you introduced it:





I pointed out that memory is not usually reliable enough to give a precise account of what happened, which matters a lot when a sitter claims a psychic got 'hits'.
When I point out that there were 9 players, not 5 as you stated, you reply:



So you won't admit you were wrong on a basic piece of information, then say it's not important.
It does matter. How can we if cold reading was used, unless we have accuracy in reporting.
Saying there were a couple of grandmasters, when there were 4 is not good enough in this context (the psychic had 'a couple' of hits!).
Your claim that he beat most of them is also inaccurate. He beat 4 out of 9.
Also none of them were 'extremely impressed'. One international turned down his invitation, saying he knew how the trick would be done. All the players present knew 'mirror chess' would be used as soon as they saw the studio set.

Later you said the program was not on terrestrial TV. When I state it was, you replied:



Again, you won't admit to an error of reporting. This level of accuracy matters when seeing how a psychic session actually went.

You then back as a 'plausible hypothesis' TheBoyPaj saying that Derren could engineer the timing of when the games end.
Let's analyse this closely.
If one player is winning the game and the predicted number of pieces is on the board, you say that Derren can resign early. But now he's on his own against an international player.
Given that Grandmaster Emms resigned when a bishop down, you seriously think a beginner can beat a grandmaster just a bishop ahead?



{sighs}

Derren doesn't have to beat a Grandmaster with just a bishop ahead! You've just said the Grandmaster resigned! In the mirror game Derren is losing. So he can resign at that point like Grandmaster Emms does in the original game. Or he can play for a few moves and thus have some influence over the number of pieces left on the board. Of course he will definitely lose, but that doesn't matter since he would lose that game anyway.





And I look forward to your explanation of how Derren can get a draw agreed once the number of pieces is correct on both sides. As you should know, a draw in chess is offered immediately after one player makes a move. the other player can either accept, or play on.

So here is Derren playing player A v player B. He sees player A's move, trundles round the circle and makes it against player B. According to you, he now offers a draw. Player B accepts - but no more moves are made in this game. When Derren returns to player A, how does he offer a draw?!
Do let us know how you think the draw in the program actually happened.
(Then I'll tell you what did happen. You see how valuable my sources are!) [/B]

The draw option is only of very limited use. If the situation has any complexity whatsoever then obviously this option would not be available to him. As I keep reiterating, Derren can have a degree of *influence* over the number of pieces remaining in some of the games. And certainly TheBoyPaj hypothesis by itself was never a runner, but had to be supplemented by the additional supposition that the players get asked in a particular given order how many pieces are left on their boards, at the end of the game. Whether this actually took place or not, I have no idea since I wasn't watching the programme at that stage.




Glee, you are a concrete block. You are too thick to understand my arguments. We have been through this before. Your basic philosophical reasoning ability is zero.

Your 2 contentions, namely:

[list=a]
TheBoyPaj and I are advocating that Derren is using paranormal powers to achieve what he did.
That he actually employed the speculative hypothesis we suggested.
[/list=a]

Are both utterly ludicrous. As for the first, you don't seem to be mentioning it now, so maybe you've realised you were in error. Will you admit it though? Will you hell!

A for the 2nd, you first of all need to try and grasp this fact. I was not paying attention to the TV programme at this point!. Therefore peoples allegation that I am saying that particular events took place is mind numbingly preposterous. How the flipping heck would I know what had taken place if I wasn't even watching the damn programme at that point??

If you allege that these chess players were mind numbingly incompetent enough to allow Derren to switch envelopes, then I believe you. If you allege the hypothesis advanced by TheBoyPaj and myself is incommensurate with certain obtaining facts about the world, then I believe you. No-one has ever denied this. (although, having said that, some doubt is created by your evident confusion as I point out further up!)

But try to get it through your skull. None of this has any relevance about the hypothesis advanced It really is utterly irrelevant whether the hypothesis is false or not. Given the background knowledge I and TheBoyPaj had, the hypothesis advanced was a perfectly valid one. Talking about Derren's ability as a chess player, how good all these chess players are etc etc , is an absolute irrelevancy.

There, I've put it in bold red. Is it getting through to you yet??

[Clancie]

Posted by ersby

It gives a strong impression (certainly this was what I perceived) that the guesses were consecutive.
Yes, that's correct.
But later Clancie talks about a guesses about Gemini and teaching. If these came amongst the string of guesses re. The trip to SLO then the narrative flow is broken somewhat.
No, she had the whole SLO thing together. "Gemini" and "Teacher" were not interspersed with that.
Another example, “Are you a Gemini?” Or it could, on later reasking of the question, become “Who’s a Gemini?” “Who’s a twin?” or “What’s the anniversary in (whenever Gemini falls)?” The odds shorten dramatically with each option.
Well, I'm pretty sensitive to the phrasing of these things, too. She did do some like that (i.e. "Someone's birthday or anniversary is in the month of August...I think it's really an anniversary..." which was ambiguous the way you're suggesting). For "Gemini" she said it straight out as being applied to me, just as I said. And, yes, she could have broadened it later, if needed--but it wasn't needed (I know, I know, "Remembering the hits"...:) ). (And, just for interest, Brian also got the teacher-thing, and the subject).
First, Clancie, I’d like to know if this is the same reading you mentioned before on tvtalkshows. You mentioned a successful reading that started with the medium talking about a father figure, a husband or brother figure and a connection to the name John. Is this the same one?
I'm not sure which one you're talking about. I'm not remembering anyone starting with "a husband or brother figure" (this is the good part of keeping tapes--if I knew who the medium was I could check. The name "John" has come up several times--of course, as we know, a common name). This reading began with the "gymnastics" thing--I don't remember if I wrote about it at TVT or not.
Now, this is accurate, but it is incomplete. And the impression it gives is quite different to what actually happened. Which is why, although I respect Clancie and don’t think she’s being deliberately dishonest, I can’t take this too seriously.

No problem, ersby. If you remember, I just posted this in response to HenDralux's question of what keeps me, personally, thinking "There might be something to it." Not intended to convince anyone else of anything. :)

Oh, and in keeping with the idea, "There might be something to it," no, it wasn't all hits. And, yes, the "misses" are part of what keeps you wondering, too....Imo, I've had several really good readings, but none were so good that they removed all doubt (and, personally, I don't think that's ever going to happen). Nevertheless, I'm sincere in saying that the several good ones I've had -do- keep me feeling, "There might be something to it."

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you allege that these chess players were mind numbingly incompetent enough to allow Derren to switch envelopes, then I believe you.
SIght! And of course Derren would never have been able to do something like that if you hed been wathing him? It really is no wonder that you believe all the nonsense you do.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
No, she had the whole SLO thing together. "Gemini" and "Teacher" were not interspersed with that.

This is what I mean. Drip, drip, drip....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

SIght! And of course Derren would never have been able to do something like that if you hed been wathing him? It really is no wonder that you believe all the nonsense you do.

Simple precautions.

[list=1]
You do not let go of the envelope.
Failing this you watch the envelope like a hawk and not let it out of your sight.
[/list=1]

If you fail both of these then clearly he has the opportunity to switch envelopes.

Now! Be so good as to name a single piece of "nonsense" that I believe in. Also be so good as to show that in fact it is indeed "nonsense".

If you fail then I know where you're talking from.

If you provide an answer then I'll respond, then I'll be leaving this board. If you don't I'm leaving this board now.

I've had it up to here with it.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you provide an answer then I'll respond, then I'll be leaving this board. If you don't I'm leaving this board now.

I've had it up to here with it.

Sweet juciy Jesus, YES! Just do it. Go.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No it wouldn't. I don't want to feel superior, I want a sensible mature intelligent debate.
Ah yes, sensible and mature, sort of like this...

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
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.

[Nigel]

Gotta love Ian. I put him right up there with diaper rash, jock itch, and athlete's foot.
(I saw he was back from suspension, so I took him off ignore to see if he'd learned anything. I have my answer.)

What did the whole chess thing have to do with cold reading, anyway? Or was Ian simply hijacking another thread? Can we get back on topic of the cold reading?

Another question - I've read in various threads that several posters here have had readings (cold or otherwise). I've not. I suppose those who have spent money to get the readings. Would you do it again? Part of the reason I haven't is I don't want to spend my hard earned money on rubbish. Thoughts? If you thought they were cold readings, why? Why not? (Not really necessary to answer, unless you want to. Just trying to get back OT)

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Simple precautions.

[list=1]
You do not let go of the envelope.
Failing this you watch the envelope like a hawk and not let it out of your sight.
[/list=1]

If you fail both of these then clearly he has the opportunity to switch envelopes.
Indeed but it is in no way mind numbingly incompetent for chess players to be tricked by a magician to look away for a moment ot something like that.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now! Be so good as to name a single piece of "nonsense" that I believe in. Also be so good as to show that in fact it is indeed "nonsense".
The belief that anecdotes are conclusive evidence that out of body experiences are "real", spring to mind. It's nonsense because you totally forget that the human memory is imperfect, stories grow with the telling and that all the cases where a person wakes up, and tells a lot of nonsense about what happened while she was unconscious/in coma aren't retold.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you provide an answer then I'll respond, then I'll be leaving this board. If you don't I'm leaving this board now.
I've had it up to here with it.
Gee, was I rude to poor little you who is always so polite to others? Ohh, well. :w2:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

II
Simple precautions.

You do not let go of the envelope.

Failing this you watch the envelope like a hawk and not let it out of your sight.



If you fail both of these then clearly he has the opportunity to switch envelopes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Indeed but it is in no way mind numbingly incompetent for chess players to be tricked by a magician to look away for a moment ot something like that.



Well, if all these chess players simultaneously look away for a moment, there's your answer. But these are extremely good chess players, some of them being grandmasters. They should realise that Derren might very well attempt to switch envelopes. Derren absolutely should not be allowed this opportunity. But if they do allow him this opportunity then they shouldn't be surprised about the results in the envelope matching up.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now! Be so good as to name a single piece of "nonsense" that I believe in. Also be so good as to show that in fact it is indeed "nonsense".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The belief that anecdotes are conclusive evidence



"Conclusive evidence" :confused: Do you mean proof? Even then I do not understand what the word proof means outside of formal logic.




that out of body experiences are "real", spring to mind.



Well of course they occur. I do not know what you mean by ""real"" though. People most certainly have these experiences, but what the nature of these experiences might be is a hugely complex subject. People literally leaving their bodies perhaps?? But what exactly does that mean?? My own belief is that we are never actually literally in our bodies in the first place, so how can we leave them??




It's nonsense because you totally forget that the human memory is imperfect, stories grow with the telling and that all the cases where a person wakes up, and tells a lot of nonsense about what happened while she was unconscious/in coma aren't retold.



Well it's utterly absurd to deny they actually occur! :eek: This is the problem you see. One cannot have a sensible discussion with skeptics regarding any controversial phenomena. One cannot discuss what the explanation of some phenomenon might be because they often deny it occurs in the first place! :eek: Utterly preposterous! It happens all the time though apparently.

Just to mention a few examples, skeptics have emphatically denied that lucid dreams occur (dreams where you realise in the dream you are dreaming), that NDEs occur (until the early 1980's) that stones fall from the sky ("it is impossible for stones to fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky) that heavier than air flight is possible (despite many thousands of eyewitnesses who thought they were hallucinating etc). I could go on and on and on. And yet skeptics were going on about how ludicrous !XXrationalXX! was for claiming that no-one ever dreams. What he was claiming was scarcely any more ludicrous than what you lot claim!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you provide an answer then I'll respond, then I'll be leaving this board. If you don't I'm leaving this board now.

I've had it up to here with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gee, was I rude to poor little you who is always so polite to others?


Nothing to do with rudeness. It's many things, but primarily it is completely pointless trying to discuss anything with skeptics for precisely the reasons mentioned just in this post. How can one discuss with skeptics what OBE's might be if they simply scream in your ear that no-one has ever had such an experience??

What can one say? How does one respond to such an outrageous suggestion?? If you point to the huge colossal amount of evidence of personal stories of people who have undergone these experiences, they scream 'anecdotes which constitute no evidence or reasons whatsoever that they have ever happened!'

At this point you know when to call it a day. There is truly nothing I can do.

Well, it's certainly been a jaw dropper communicating on these forums. I now realise that for many people absolutely nothing will alter their beliefs or non-beliefs. People are too firmly entrenched in their own belief systems and scream and shout hysterically when you plead for them to open their eyes.

But still, I plead for you and others to open their eyes anyway.

Farewell.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
At this point you know when to call it a day. There is truly nothing I can do.

Good.

Bye, bye!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Farewell.

You'll be back.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You'll be back.
Can there be any doubt?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Farewell.
:w2:

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by glee
Good grief! How gullible are you, TheBoyPaj?


I have been a bit busy today, so I haven't been able to witness the glee (geddit?) with which you have leapt all over my post about Derren Browns chess playing antics.

Shame you didn't see the bit where I said:

I don't know if it was a trick. He is a magician, after all.

You might be good at board games, but observant you ain't.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Nigel
Can there be any doubt?

No. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870452363#post1870452363)

[Nigel]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870452363#post1870452363)
Yep, just got finished reading it. Hehehehe.....

I've railed about being civil on these boards, so I will be. Publicly, at least and not say what I'm thinking. It wouldn't be constructive. So I'll just let it rest and wait to see if he shows up again.

[TheBoyPaj]

Mind you, now that I see my words have indirectly prompted Ian's departure, I really don't mind a little confusion!

(Shall we open a sweepstake on how long it lasts?)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Mind you, now that I see my words have indirectly prompted Ian's departure, I really don't mind a little confusion!

(Shall we open a sweepstake on how long it lasts?)
I vote for "half an hour after the pubs close".;)

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Tricky

I vote for "half an hour after the pubs close".;)
You think it'd take him that long to get home?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Nigel
You think it'd take him that long to get home?

With the help of the police. I'm sure they know where he lives by now.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You'll be back.
Still, don't I get a prize for earning us a temporary respite?:p

[Nigel]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


With the help of the police. I'm sure they know where he lives by now.
I was thinking he'd make it easier on himself. Say....renting a room upstairs from a pub.

[UnTrickaBLe]

Ha, this thread is turning into an epic. :roll:

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Still, don't I get a prize for earning us a temporary respite?:p
Sure. Name it. But if he comes back, you lose the prize. So be careful. You know how wishes turn out.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


With the help of the police. I'm sure they know where he lives by now. This post has been reported.

Personal attacks are not against forum rules anywhere other than on the CT board. It isn't the moderators' job to make sure posters play nice with one another*. If anyone has a problem with what CFLarsen is saying, they are more than welcome to ignore what he says.

No action will be taken at this time.


* yet. After the proposed forum split, who knows?

[Clancie]

Posted by Upchurch

Personal attacks are not against forum rules anywhere other than on the CT board
Yes, and that's the reason why the claimed desire for "civility" is just lip service and will never be the reality here.

When personal attacks are allowed and even encouraged by some people, you will -never- have a board with civility.

If the new board really decides to enforce civility--i.e. no personal insults, just discussion of the topic-- imo, it will be all for the better.