The "Process" of John Edward

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Finally, you might begin to answer your own question about Houston if you turn this gaffe around.

When I look back at my college career I can only think of two teachers that I truly thought were bad teachers. Both of them had the same problem - they refused to answer questions.

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

First, what insults? Where in my post did I insult anyone?
Gee, I wonder.
Do you disagree that small sample sizes can produce strange and unreliable results?
Never said that I disagree with that.
If my numbers are wrong, what are the right numbers for Lurker's office and the letter A?
You need to use the cumulative probability density, and to be sure you are accumulating over the tail of interest.
I have already admitted that my knowledge of stats is limited. But even with my limited understanding of stats, I can see that Lurker's office representation of the letter "A" is further away from the norm than JE's guesses of the letter "J". Or are you saying that this is incorrect as well?
I didn't say that. I said, in fact, that this can happen and not be significant. I chose the next letter in the alphabet and had the opposite result. Now what does that mean?

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker


When I look back at my college career I can only think of two teachers that I truly thought were bad teachers. Both of them had the same problem - they refused to answer questions.

Lurker

The root of "educate" comes from the Latin, educere. Most skeptics I know decidedly do not want to be spoon-fed information. Now I know everybody's different, of course.

BTW, Randi does NOT write for Skeptical Inquirer. Just thought you'd like to know that.

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Gee, I wonder.
I'm serious. I am not aware that I insulted anyone.

Never said that I disagree with that.
Good. Nice to know I am not completely off target.

You need to use the cumulative probability density, and to be sure you are accumulating over the tail of interest.
You bet. As should be painfully obvious, I don't know how to do that. Can you post the numbers please?

I didn't say that. I said, in fact, that this can happen and not be significant. I chose the next letter in the alphabet and had the opposite result. Now what does that mean?
Ah, but I am only concerned with the A-hole in Lurker's office. It is not a B-hole, so I don't need to look at B.

If it can happen in Lurker's office and not be significant, why would it be significant for JE?

[Lurker]

Bill:

>BTW, Randi does NOT write for Skeptical Inquirer. Just thought >you'd like to know that.

And this nonsequitor was included because...?

It is funny that other people use the same comaprisons I use. And even the same math I use. To wit:


http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003306.html

"A study of the city's murder rate shows an unlikely factor at the heart of the violence. Chicago's rate is three times that of New York not because of policing, but because of a lack of good, affordable housing."

I don't care about the argument presented here but the math. Clearly they used the same method of comparison that I used. Are they wrong too?

Lurker

[Thanz]

Just wanted to say that I found a different Poisson calculator, and I think that it will give me the numbers that BillHoyt uses.

Calculator here (http://home.clara.net/sisa/poisson.htm)

For Lurker's office, the probablity of 6 names with A in 231 is .007559, or less than 1%.

Must be a huge A-hole.

Or, I have screwed something up again.

[Lurker]

Oopsy, here is someone else using the same comparison methodology I am using.

"The third group, with a total of 55 cities, contains 8,316,455 people, with 1,741 murders, for an average rate of 20.93 per 100,000 -- roughly twice the California average."

What's that Bill? I can't compare subpopulations to a a census? Isn't that what they are doing here? And they are using what measure of comparison? Percentages? Oh no. they can't do that, can they?

Lurker

[Lurker]

Source for previous: http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/CramerMurder.html

Now Bill, if you want to argue that the confidence interval for a 5% level of significance would be too broad to make inferences on the specific frequencies for each letter I will agree with you. But if you had increased the sample size tremendously my guess is that confidence interval would tighten up considerably and eventually you would get confidence intervals that would not have the possiblity of all letters being practically the same.

And amazingly, I am back to where I first interrupeted this sorry thread. I am totally with Thanz on the opinion that a sample size of 78 would be far too small to have any idea on what the true means are for each letter. If Bill Hoyt would like to differ in opinion, he is welcome but I ouwld then ask him what he thinks a good size would be (and provide the significance too.)

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker
Oopsy, here is someone else using the same comparison methodology I am using.

"The third group, with a total of 55 cities, contains 8,316,455 people, with 1,741 murders, for an average rate of 20.93 per 100,000 -- roughly twice the California average."

What's that Bill? I can't compare subpopulations to a a census? Isn't that what they are doing here? And they are using what measure of comparison? Percentages? Oh no. they can't do that, can they?

Lurker

Don't strawman me. I never said that. I have made the point six ways from Sunday. Here, for example: "You simply can't compare percentages unless you know the denominators are truly the same."

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
Just wanted to say that I found a different Poisson calculator, and I think that it will give me the numbers that BillHoyt uses.

Calculator here (http://home.clara.net/sisa/poisson.htm)

For Lurker's office, the probablity of 6 names with A in 231 is .007559, or less than 1%.

Must be a huge A-hole.

Or, I have screwed something up again.

Yes, you have. I said we need the cumulative probability function here.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker
Bill:

>BTW, Randi does NOT write for Skeptical Inquirer. Just thought >you'd like to know that.

And this nonsequitor was included because...?

It is funny that other people use the same comaprisons I use. And even the same math I use. To wit:


http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003306.html

"A study of the city's murder rate shows an unlikely factor at the heart of the violence. Chicago's rate is three times that of New York not because of policing, but because of a lack of good, affordable housing."

I don't care about the argument presented here but the math. Clearly they used the same method of comparison that I used. Are they wrong too?

Lurker

No, they are not wrong.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Don't strawman me. I never said that. I have made the point six ways from Sunday. Here, for example: "You simply can't compare percentages unless you know the denominators are truly the same."

But Bill, the denominator is NOT the same in the examples provided. Why in the very one you responded to they are comparing the murder rate of a specific city (Population A) to the murder rate of California (Population B). And the devils, they even use percentages to make the comaparison ("roughly twice")!

You had better write a letter to them showing them the error of their ways. Yes, I know it will be a lot of work as it will take you 6-7 letters to try and get across why you are right and they are wrong but certainly they will rewrite their studies in light of your information.

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker


But Bill, the denominator is NOT the same in the examples provided. Why in the very one you responded to they are comparing the murder rate of a specific city (Population A) to the murder rate of California (Population B). And the devils, they even use percentages to make the comaparison ("roughly twice")!

You had better write a letter to them showing them the error of their ways. Yes, I know it will be a lot of work as it will take you 6-7 letters to try and get across why you are right and they are wrong but certainly they will rewrite their studies in light of your information.

Lurker

As I see it, you have three choices here, Lurker:

o Try not to understand
o Try to understand and agree
o Try to understand and disagree

But until you understand what I am saying, we can't discuss the issue. Now you can use the Aussie web page to give you more clues.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Yes, you have. I said we need the cumulative probability function here.
Well, when I did the calculation, it spat out columns for single and cumulative. Then it had probabilities listed. For your J numbers, it shows a probability of >=18 at 0.033393, with an expected number of 11.05.

For your B numbers, it shows a prob. of <=9 at 0.382435.

Using the same thing for A, with an expected average of 15.015, and a count of 6, it shows a probability of <=6 at 0.007559.

Where did I go wrong? Why are my results consistent for your posted J and B results, but my A results are wrong?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, when I did the calculation, it spat out columns for single and cumulative. Then it had probabilities listed. For your J numbers, it shows a probability of >=18 at 0.033393, with an expected number of 11.05.

For your B numbers, it shows a prob. of <=9 at 0.382435.

Using the same thing for A, with an expected average of 15.015, and a count of 6, it shows a probability of <=6 at 0.007559.

Where did I go wrong? Why are my results consistent for your posted J and B results, but my A results are wrong?

My mistake. I took your sentence here literally: "For Lurker's office, the probablity of 6 names with A in 231 is .007559, or less than 1%."

Yes, .007... is the tail area for <=6.

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


My mistake. I took your sentence here literally: "For Lurker's office, the probablity of 6 names with A in 231 is .007559, or less than 1%."

Yes, .007... is the tail area for <=6.

Cheers,
Now, for the million dollar question:

Isn't the statistical support for the A-hole just as strong as your statistical support for JE's cold reading? In fact, isn't the support for the A-hole stronger than support for cold reading?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


As I see it, you have three choices here, Lurker:

o Try not to understand
o Try to understand and agree
o Try to understand and disagree

But until you understand what I am saying, we can't discuss the issue. Now you can use the Aussie web page to give you more clues.

I have read the Aussie site and I guess I will fall into category three above. Let me see what the Aussie site says again:

1. Non-demographic differences between the census and sample. Yep, I addressed that already. And since Bill claims my method is wrong mathematically, this does not apply.

2. Use percentages. Yep, I did use percentages, not absolute numbers. Can't see any conflict with this one. Clearly this is where a looming math error would exist but since I DID use % I don't see it.

3. Use specific geography. Again, not a problem with the math itself but how the sample was obtained. Also addressed by me previously.

and so on...

I am unaware of where my MATH is in error. Please be specific here, Bill. We have gone back nad forth quite a bit and you always refrain from being explicit.

thanks!

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

Now, for the million dollar question:

Isn't the statistical support for the A-hole just as strong as your statistical support for JE's cold reading? In fact, isn't the support for the A-hole stronger than support for cold reading?

Fascinating display, Thanz.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker


I have read the Aussie site and I guess I will fall into category three above. Let me see what the Aussie site says again:...
Lurker,

Which part of "You can't simply look at 2.6% and 6.5% and say they are 60% different without knowing you are really comparing apples with apples" don't you understand? Do you think you can compare 2.6% of an inch an hour and 6.5% of a foot per hour and say they are 60% different? Do you honestly not see the relevance of that example?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Lurker,

Which part of "You can't simply look at 2.6% and 6.5% and say they are 60% different without knowing you are really comparing apples with apples" don't you understand? Do you think you can compare 2.6% of an inch an hour and 6.5% of a foot per hour and say they are 60% different? Do you honestly not see the relevance of that example?

Again you try to obfuscate with the same poor analogy. My units are PEOPLE, not inches and feet. Not black people and white people.

So NO, I do not see the relevence of your example. If anything, I am starting to think you are being purposely lazy in your generalizations.

Funny how when I quote a study that used the same methodolgy as mine you backed off and said they were correct. Yet you refuse to define the difference. They used POPULATION A as a subset of POPULATION B and used % to show the difference. Why is MY math in error and not theirs? It is a simple question, Bill. I am starting to think you have no answer and will insist on your inch/hour example or apples/oranges example til the cows come home.

Perhaps you are not as strong in math as you think you are...


Lurker

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

We can define the test any way we want, given that the null hypothesis, the data set, the distribution and the level of significance all work together. I choose "J" because it is the highest frequency initial in the population.

Cheers,

I understand that you can define the test any way you want. Of course. :)

If you are only interested in the letter J, then OK, that works. If you are interested in testing more letters, say k number of letters, doing your test k times isn't wise statistically, so you'd need some other statistical tool.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I understand that you can define the test any way you want. Of course. :)

If you are only interested in the letter J, then OK, that works. If you are interested in testing more letters, say k number of letters, doing your test k times isn't wise statistically, so you'd need some other statistical tool.

Quite right, T'ai. Especially if we're using a significance level cut-off of .05. I think I already addressed this in a post way back when.

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker
Again you try to obfuscate with the same poor analogy. My units are PEOPLE, not inches and feet. Not black people and white people.


Interesting that you bring up "black" and "white" people. Are aborigines not people, Lurker?

Cheers,

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Interesting that you bring up "black" and "white" people. Are aborigines not people, Lurker?

Cheers,

Ah, ye olde divert with strawman tactic. Sorry, Bill. I've seen it done much better by others.

As expected, you did not answer a single one of my questions. Where did you learn that non-skill from?

Sorry to say, it is people like you who give us skeptics a bad name.

Lurker

[neofight]

Originally posted by Lurker


Ah, ye olde divert with strawman tactic. Sorry, Bill. I've seen it done much better by others.

As expected, you did not answer a single one of my questions. Where did you learn that non-skill from?

Sorry to say, it is people like you who give us skeptics a bad name.

Lurker

Well, I know next to nothing about statistics, but I read this exchange anyhow, and I have to agree with Lurker here. Bill's responses are all very "lawyer-like", and I found them frustrating to read, and I wasn't even involved in the conversation.

Just my unsolicited two cents worth of observation. ;) .......neo

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Fascinating display, Thanz.
That's it? "Fascinating display"? Not even an attempt at a substantive comment?

I see that, as you have with Lurker, you avoid any questions that you don't want to answer. I'll try asking them again:

Do you agree or disagree that there is just as much statistical support for the A-hole in Lurker's office as there is for John Edward cold reading, as presented in this thread? Why or why not?

Are you even able to answer a direct question? I notice that your buddy CFLarsen has pretty much dropped out here. Maybe he can do a LarsenList (tm) of the questions you are avoiding. Of course he won't, because you are not a "believer", but one can dream....

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker


Ah, ye olde divert with strawman tactic. Sorry, Bill. I've seen it done much better by others.

As expected, you did not answer a single one of my questions. Where did you learn that non-skill from?

Sorry to say, it is people like you who give us skeptics a bad name.

Lurker

Strawman, Lurker? Diversion? Did you not read the Aussie web page? Are aborigines people, Lurker?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

That's it? "Fascinating display"? Not even an attempt at a substantive comment?

I see that, as you have with Lurker, you avoid any questions that you don't want to answer. I'll try asking them again:

Do you agree or disagree that there is just as much statistical support for the A-hole in Lurker's office as there is for John Edward cold reading, as presented in this thread? Why or why not?

Are you even able to answer a direct question? I notice that your buddy CFLarsen has pretty much dropped out here. Maybe he can do a LarsenList (tm) of the questions you are avoiding. Of course he won't, because you are not a "believer", but one can dream....
Thanz,

No. Sigh. I just can't answer questions anymore! Post after post after post of non-answers. Yep, that's me.

This question is so outlandish that your insistence on an answer is a "fascinating display" of your ignorance of science and statistics. There is no evidentiary basis for the existence of your concocted and insulting construct. None. That means, that Occam's razor must be invoked here and your hypothesis is running uphill.

The cold reading hypothesis presents nothing outlandish. It presents an hypothesis that does not require the multiplication of entities. It has, therefore, more statistical support.

An experiment never stands on its own.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I just can't answer questions anymore! Post after post after post of non-answers. Yep, that's me.
Truer words have never been spoken.

This question is so outlandish that your insistence on an answer is a "fascinating display" of your ignorance of science and statistics. There is no evidentiary basis for the existence of your concocted and insulting construct. None. That means, that Occam's razor must be invoked here and your hypothesis is running uphill.
Actually, I thought it was a rather amusing construct, not insulting. But that is beside the point.

I was not asking about whether my theory has any support or validity outside of the statistics. Based on the statistics alone, the A-hole is just as supported as JE cold reading. There was a hypothesis, and the numbers supported it. We cannot rule out the A-hole based solely on the statistics.

The cold reading hypothesis presents nothing outlandish. It presents an hypothesis that does not require the multiplication of entities. It has, therefore, more statistical support.
No, it does not have more statistical support. It has more logical support, but not more statistical support. Statistics, like logic, are a tool to be used in testing a hypothesis. And in these two cases, the stats themselves lead at least equal support to both hypotheses.

You have admitted in this thread that if you were to look at more than one letter, the stats tool you have used is not appropriate. You have also chided me for not looking at other letters in Lurker's office. Yet, you have only looked at one letter and have seemed to conclude that you have done some sort of meaningful analysis. You haven't.

You know that 78 (or 85) is too small a sample to do the sort of meaningful analysis that this problem requires, but are stubbornly sticking to your pathetic J analysis as if it proves something. Well, it doesn't prove anything more than my A-hole analysis. Which is to say, it is pretty worthless in and of itself.

You have also spectacularly failed to show why luker's comparison of percentages is in any faulty, especially considering that you have accepted the same analysis done by others. You keep saying apples and oranges, but what Lurker has really done is compared one bushel of apples to the entire crop of apples (of which the bushel is a part) to see if the bushel is representative of the crop (which it wasn't). Do understand that, or are you going to avoid the issue some more?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Strawman, Lurker? Diversion? Did you not read the Aussie web page? Are aborigines people, Lurker?

Bill, when are you going to stop beating your wife?

FYI, I was not totally clear but my black/white was an example. A more true example than inches feet.

And you know I did read the website. When are you going to actually respond to my post where I go through it as it relates to my problem? When are you going to show me the differences between the studies I provided that used the same methodology as me?

Oh, that's right. I am posting to Bill Hoyt and he is the consumate avoider of answering questions.

Just my opinion.
Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

Truer words have never been spoken.

[B]
Actually, I thought it was a rather amusing construct, not insulting. But that is beside the point.

I was not asking about whether my theory has any support or validity outside of the statistics. Based on the statistics alone, the A-hole is just as supported as JE cold reading. There was a hypothesis, and the numbers supported it. We cannot rule out the A-hole based solely on the statistics.

[B]
No, it does not have more statistical support. It has more logical support, but not more statistical support. Statistics, like logic, are a tool to be used in testing a hypothesis. And in these two cases, the stats themselves lead at least equal support to both hypotheses.

You have admitted in this thread that if you were to look at more than one letter, the stats tool you have used is not appropriate. You have also chided me for not looking at other letters in Lurker's office. Yet, you have only looked at one letter and have seemed to conclude that you have done some sort of meaningful analysis. You haven't.

You know that 78 (or 85) is too small a sample to do the sort of meaningful analysis that this problem requires, but are stubbornly sticking to your pathetic J analysis as if it proves something. Well, it doesn't prove anything more than my A-hole analysis. Which is to say, it is pretty worthless in and of itself.

You have also spectacularly failed to show why luker's comparison of percentages is in any faulty, especially considering that you have accepted the same analysis done by others. You keep saying apples and oranges, but what Lurker has really done is compared one bushel of apples to the entire crop of apples (of which the bushel is a part) to see if the bushel is representative of the crop (which it wasn't). Do understand that, or are you going to avoid the issue some more?

I am answering the questions. You are simply not understanding. The J analysis is a valid analysis. You stubbornly insist on your sweeping assertion that 78 is inadequate. I answered early on that that statement is wrong. I then elaborated to inform you that the hypothesis, distribution model, significance level and the data themselves all determine whether or not 78i is adequate.

I then demonstrated this by constructing a valid hypothesis, null hypothesis and then proceeded to choose the most appropriate bin for my hypothesis, etc. "J" was not arbitrary. "J" is the most frequently seen initial. And it is spectacularly frequent for JE.

You then analyzed "A"s and showed them to be significant. I objected, whereupon you constructed your laughable hypothesis about "A"s to demonstrate, a posteriorisignificance. I then responded by choosing "B"s and showing them to be non-significant.

You don't get it. You just don't dive into data looking for your predetermined answer. This is what you did. No good grounds.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I am answering the questions. You are simply not understanding. The J analysis is a valid analysis. You stubbornly insist on your sweeping assertion that 78 is inadequate. I answered early on that that statement is wrong. I then elaborated to inform you that the hypothesis, distribution model, significance level and the data themselves all determine whether or not 78i is adequate.

I then demonstrated this by constructing a valid hypothesis, null hypothesis and then proceeded to choose the most appropriate bin for my hypothesis, etc. "J" was not arbitrary. "J" is the most frequently seen initial. And it is spectacularly frequent for JE.
Well, I guess here is where we disagree. I do not think that an analysis of the letter "J" in isolation tells us anything meaningful as to whether JE is cold reading. There are other factors which may help to explain why the distribution of "J" in this sample does not appear to be random. It also tells us nothing about the distribution of other common letters or any rare letters.

I looked at some other tests, in particular the one suggested by T'ai Chi. Here is a short description of that test:

Chi-square goodness-of-fit test. The goodness-of-fit test is simply a different use of Pearsonian chi-square. It is used to test if an observed distribution conforms to any other distribution, such as one based on theory (ex., if the observed distribution is not significantly different from a normal distribution) or one based on some other known distribution (ex., if the observed distribution is not significantly different from a known national distribution based on Census data).
This sounds like it does exactly what I would descibe as a meaningful test of this data - it can compare the entire distribution of letters in JE guesses to the entire population. Do you agree that such an analysis would be much more meaningful, in terms of demonstrating whether JE consistently uses more frequent letters at the expense of less frequent letters (as we would expect a cold reader to do)?

Here is a description of the adequate sample for such a test:
Random sample data are assumed. As with all significance tests, if you have population data, then any table differences are real and therefore significant. If you have non-random sample data, significance cannot be established, though significance tests are nonetheless sometimes utilized as crude "rules of thumb" anyway.

A sufficiently large sample size is assumed, as in all significance tests. Applying chi-square to small samples exposes the researcher to an unacceptable rate of Type II errors. There is no accepted cutoff. Some set the minimum sample size at 50, while others would allow as few as 20. Note chi-square must be calculated on actual count data, not substituting percentages, which would have the effect of pretending the sample size is 100.

Adequate cell sizes are also assumed. Some require 5 or more, some require more than 5, and others require 10 or more. A common rule is 5 or more in all cells of a 2-by-2 table, and 5 or more in 80% of cells in larger tables, but no cells with zero count. When this assumption is not met, Yates' correction is applied.
According to this, each cell should have at least five. Or 80% of the cells should have at least five. Do you agree that 85 is inadequate for this analysis?

You then analyzed "A"s and showed them to be significant. I objected, whereupon you constructed your laughable hypothesis about "A"s to demonstrate, a posteriorisignificance. I then responded by choosing "B"s and showing them to be non-significant.
Hmm.... You looked at other letters to see if they were significant. Why did you not look at any other letters for YOUR hypothesis? J may be the most frequent letter, but that doesn't mean it is the only one of importance.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker
FYI, I was not totally clear but my black/white was an example. A more true example than inches feet.
And aborigines are...?
And you know I did read the website. When are you going to actually respond to my post where I go through it as it relates to my problem? When are you going to show me the differences between the studies I provided that used the same methodology as me?
And aborigines are...? And yet the web page says "Users should present their statistical estimates as percentages where both numerator and denominator are data from the same census" Now why do you suppose they say this. After all, the denominator in any census is "people" right? An aborigines are "people", right?

Yet somehow this mysterious caveat. Somehow, despite the census denominator being the same, they advise users of the data to be sure both the numerator and denominator come from the same census. Maybe it is a side effect of Aussies living upside down and all that?

Oops. Nope. It has nothing to do with living upside down. Here is the NIH giving a similar caveat for dental data!

"The user is cautioned about comparing percentages or means and concluding that differences exist without considering the confidence interval. For example, although two percentages may appear to be different, such as 43.6 % and 47.2%, if their confidence intervals overlap the difference between the two percentages are not actually statistically different. In this case, no statement can be made suggesting that one percentage is significantly different from the other."
NIH Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Data Resource Center (http://drc.nidcr.nih.gov/dqsfeatures.htm)

Oh, no! The confidence interval is yet another consideration when comparing percentages! (Or maybe that's what the Aussies were getting at? Gee, I wonder.) It must be a conspiracy from all these whacky skeptics who give skepticism a bad name and who aren't as strong in math as they think they are.

One last time: you cannot compare percentages the way you did unless the denominator units are the same. This "sameness" includes statistical considerations such as those hinted at by the Aussie site and spelled out more directly at the NIH site. You had a small sample whose representativeness of the population was unknown, and you attempted to compare it with the population at large.

Now re-read the NIH quote and think about it in terms of your n=231 sample, the population and the comparison you tried to make. Are you really willing to make the claim that the confidence intervals for the sample counts you cited do not overlap? If not, then "no statement can be made suggesting that one percentage is significantly different from the other."

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
Well, I guess here is where we disagree. I do not think that an analysis of the letter "J" in isolation tells us anything meaningful as to whether JE is cold reading. There are other factors which may help to explain why the distribution of "J" in this sample does not appear to be random. It also tells us nothing about the distribution of other common letters or any rare letters.
These other factors are other hypotheses that might also be tested. I didn't say it says anything about the rare letters. In order for the frequent ones to be used excessively, other letters must be used less frequently. We can focus on the upper tail of the frequent letters to look for the skew. We do not need to see the full histogram.
I looked at some other tests, in particular the one suggested by T'ai Chi. Here is a short description of that test:
I know the test. I commented on why it would not work for these data. Jeff Corey then suggested Fisher's exact test. Please refer to those posts.
Hmm.... You looked at other letters to see if they were significant. Why did you not look at any other letters for YOUR hypothesis? J may be the most frequent letter, but that doesn't mean it is the only one of importance.
I looked at another letter in a pedagogic response to your selection of "A". I didn't look at other letters for my test because you destroy the validity by dipping back into the same data over and over again. There are 26 letters and a 1 in 20 chance of getting a significant answer. We'd expect to stumble onto one. That is why my a prior selection of "J" is important. There was a rational basis for it, and it absolutely fit the hypothesis. If we speculate there may be skewing in favor of the most frequent initials, we'd expect to see that by looking at the absolutely most frequent initial.

[T'ai Chi]

BillHoyt wrote:

(from several pages back)

Now I'm assuming that J is the most frequent first initial. I would actually choose that from the control data; the names database. I am also assuming I would simply look at one such datum. There are, of course, several initials I could test in this way. The problem of data mining comes into play, though, and I really must set my significance level higher if I want to do this.


You'd actually want to set your significance level, 5%, lower.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
BillHoyt wrote:

(from several pages back)


You'd actually want to set your significance level, 5%, lower. [/B]

Sorry, I was speaking too loosely. By "higher" I meant "more discriminatory".

Cheers,

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Oh, no! The confidence interval is yet another consideration when comparing percentages! (Or maybe that's what the Aussies were getting at? Gee, I wonder.) It must be a conspiracy from all these whacky skeptics who give skepticism a bad name and who aren't as strong in math as they think they are.


Bill, your sarcasm might be more effective had I not mentioned confidence intervals before as sources of error. Please see my quotes below. Now you have commenced selective gathering of evidence.

"And if you want to make the claim that the confidence intervals created by the standard deviations are too high that is your option."

"Now Bill, if you want to argue that the confidence interval for a 5% level of significance would be too broad to make inferences on the specific frequencies for each letter I will agree with you."


One last time: you cannot compare percentages the way you did unless the denominator units are the same. This "sameness" includes statistical considerations such as those hinted at by the Aussie site and spelled out more directly at the NIH site. You had a small sample whose representativeness of the population was unknown, and you attempted to compare it with the population at large.


Again with the selective gathering of evidence. Why show this one? Why do you STILL avoid explaining why the study I cited compared a CA city homicide rate to the CA state rate. Clearly they use POP A and POP B in the denominators. Why is all right for them but not for me? It looks like you gather the evidence that supports your theories and ignore contrary evidence. You must be a WOO-WOO!

Lurker

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lurker


Again with the selective gathering of evidence. Why show this one? Why do you STILL avoid explaining why the study I cited compared a CA city homicide rate to the CA state rate. Clearly they use POP A and POP B in the denominators. Why is all right for them but not for me? It looks like you gather the evidence that supports your theories and ignore contrary evidence. You must be a WOO-WOO!

Lurker

A case of 'Hoyt by his own petard', methinks.

:wink8:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker
Bill, your sarcasm might be more effective had I not mentioned confidence intervals before as sources of error. Please see my quotes below. Now you have commenced selective gathering of evidence.

"And if you want to make the claim that the confidence intervals created by the standard deviations are too high that is your option."

"Now Bill, if you want to argue that the confidence interval for a 5% level of significance would be too broad to make inferences on the specific frequencies for each letter I will agree with you."
I know full well you first raised confidence intervals. That makes the irony of that percentage comparison all the more dramatic. It also befuddles me that you would not be able to glean from either the Aussie site or the NIH site the full import of their caveats on percentage comparisons.
Again with the selective gathering of evidence. Why show this one? Why do you STILL avoid explaining why the study I cited compared a CA city homicide rate to the CA state rate. Clearly they use POP A and POP B in the denominators. Why is all right for them but not for me? It looks like you gather the evidence that supports your theories and ignore contrary evidence. You must be a WOO-WOO!
Lurker, I have addressed the issue so many times, I am tired. The denominators must be the same units. If they are populations, then populatiion descriptive paramters become an issue. That was made clear by the Aussie site when it advised against mixing and matching numerators and denominators from different census data. They went on to speak to the issue of sampling biases and a bit on how to avoid getting tripped up on them. The NIH site spelled it out a bit more when it said the confidence intervals were a huge consideration when one compares percentages and attempts to identify differences as significant.

You compared the raw percentages of a sample of 231 with the population as a whole. Those denominators are not the same. The confidence interval of the 231 sample is far larger than that of the census data. Do the calculations; you will see the 60% signifance wash away.

The homicide rate data does not suffer the same problem. Do you see percentage differences there declared significant even though the error bars overlap? Your harping on the fact I haven't directly addressed this means you have totally overlooked the fact that both the sites I gave you gave descriptions of the conditions under which you can make such percentage comparisons. I cannot say where the disconnect is. Only you can say that.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You compared the raw percentages of a sample of 231 with the population as a whole. Those denominators are not the same. The confidence interval of the 231 sample is far larger than that of the census data. Do the calculations; you will see the 60% signifance wash away.

The homicide rate data does not suffer the same problem. Do you see percentage differences there declared significant even though the error bars overlap?

First off, provide evidence for your assertion that the homicide rate data did not "suffer from the same problem". You made the claim, you provide the evidence.

Second, where did I mention significance of my data? I merely compared means.

Third, you said there was something wrong mathematically with my formula. I have yet to see you provide evidence of this.

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker
First off, provide evidence for your assertion that the homicide rate data did not "suffer from the same problem". You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
That was an assumption on my part based on the Uniform Crime Reporting program first established by the FBI in 1929. It gives uniform definitions to crimes and specifies how they are to be tallied and reported. All cities and states report to this system.

" To ensure these data are uniformly reported, the FBI provides contributing law enforcement agencies with a handbook that explains how to classify and score offenses and provides uniform crime offense definitions. Acknowledging that offense definitions may vary from state to state, the FBI cautions agencies to report offenses not according to local or state statutes but according to those guidelines provided in the handbook. Most agencies make a good faith effort to comply with established guidelines."
UCR (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm)

Now it is possible that the data you referred to was not UCR data or it is possible that something went awry with these data such that the assumption that any random or systematic biases are not the same for all the data. If that is so, then they also erred in the comparisons.
Second, where did I mention significance of my data? I merely compared means.
That would be found in your post:

"While this analysis is anecdotal I think it clearly shows that using only a sample size of 78 people to define a population's first initial to their first name is woefully inadequate. At least if you want to have a reasonable precision to your numbers."

The bolded part translates to "significant".
Third, you said there was something wrong mathematically with my formula. I have yet to see you provide evidence of this.
I did not say something was wrong with the formula! I said you had an arithmetic error and a statistical error. The arithmetic error is using different denominator units, which I have explained ad nauseum. The statistical error overlaps that one in one sense, because you need to analyze the sample and the population statistically to understand whether or not the denominator units are truly the same. It then goes beyond that in not using statistical tools to compare populations. Ask yourself this: if you could really do what you did, why can't we simply set a "differences in percentages" criterion and use this simple test to compare populations. Why on earth do we go through all the fuss of statistics? Chi-square tests, one-tailed, two-tailed, binomial, fisher's exact, student's? Why all these clap-trap terms? Mean, variance, standard deviation, skew, kurtosis, moment-generating functions? Why not just subtract, divide and see if the percentage difference is greater than some pre-set criterion?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

These other factors are other hypotheses that might also be tested. I didn't say it says anything about the rare letters. In order for the frequent ones to be used excessively, other letters must be used less frequently. We can focus on the upper tail of the frequent letters to look for the skew. We do not need to see the full histogram.
Wouldn't the full histogram be more accurate? Wouldn't it make more sense to at least look at more than one letter? I am shocked that you attach any meaningful significance to your simple analysis of one letter.

I know the test. I commented on why it would not work for these data. Jeff Corey then suggested Fisher's exact test. Please refer to those posts.
What you said was:
Chi square won't work with frequencies less than 5. That makes it useless for this case.
In other words, we don't have the data to do the test. The sample size is TOO SMALL. Just like I said.

You have not answered my question in the previous post, which was:Do you agree that such an analysis would be much more meaningful, in terms of demonstrating whether JE consistently uses more frequent letters at the expense of less frequent letters (as we would expect a cold reader to do)?

There are 26 letters and a 1 in 20 chance of getting a significant answer. We'd expect to stumble onto one. That is why my a prior selection of "J" is important. There was a rational basis for it, and it absolutely fit the hypothesis. If we speculate there may be skewing in favor of the most frequent initials, we'd expect to see that by looking at the absolutely most frequent initial. Yes, we would expect to see that. But how can we have any confidence, considering that we have not looked into any other letters, that out of the 26 letters "J" is not just a significant answer we "stumbled onto"? How do we know that "J" isn't just a fluke? Is it simply because it confirms your hypothesis? That is not what I would consider great critical thinking.

Given what you have just said, looking at "J" in isolation of the other letters is a fool's errand. We can not know with any certainty whether the significant result we find is significant due to the cold reading hypothesis or if it is just a fluke.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

That was an assumption on my part based on the Uniform Crime Reporting program first established by the FBI...


That still does not resolve the POP A vs POP B question. How can someone compare a specific city's homicide rate to the states'? Clearly theyare two different populations and the denominators would be different. Do you agree or disagree that the denominators are different? Further, they then compare the percentages and say how different they are. They did not mention significance. They did not mention confidence. They only compared the means. Yet you accept their statements. It strikes me as a bit hypocritical, on your part.



"While this analysis is anecdotal I think it clearly shows that using only a sample size of 78 people to define a population's first initial to their first name is woefully inadequate. At least if you want to have a reasonable precision to your numbers."

The bolded part translates to "significant".



I am going to go over this very slowly, Bill, so you understand. If 78 people fail to adequately define the population due to lack of significance, it only proves my contention that 78 was far too small a sample size. You see, if each letter is +/- 10% then all letters seem pretty much the same. Thus, the sample size is far too small. It seems you are in full agreement with my contention. I am glad to see you are coming around.


I did not say something was wrong with the formula! I said you had an arithmetic error and a statistical error. The arithmetic error is using different denominator units, which I have explained ad nauseum. The statistical error overlaps that one in one sense, because you need to analyze the sample and the population statistically to understand whether or not the denominator units are truly the same. It then goes beyond that in not using statistical tools to compare populations. Ask yourself this: if you could really do what you did, why can't we simply set a "differences in percentages" criterion and use this simple test to compare populations. Why on earth do we go through all the fuss of statistics? Chi-square tests, one-tailed, two-tailed, binomial, fisher's exact, student's? Why all these clap-trap terms? Mean, variance, standard deviation, skew, kurtosis, moment-generating functions? Why not just subtract, divide and see if the percentage difference is greater than some pre-set criterion? [/QUOTE]

Clearly a quick comaprison of means tells can indicate if we have tested enough to arrive at the proper distribution. I never meant it as an absolute test. Once we think we are getting better numbers (subjectively) we can then perform teh exhaustive statistical analysis. At least, that is how I would approach it for a problem like this. Frankly, that is probably how YOU would approach it also since you have for many days now refused to comment on how big a sample is required to create a proper histogram of the US. The real reason you won't supply an answer is you don't know how to figure it out. Welcome to the club.

Lurker

[Thanz]

Bump for BillHoyt. You have some unanswered queries here, sir.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
Bump for BillHoyt. You have some unanswered queries here, sir.

Thanz,

1. I am repeating myself and the points are still not getting across to either you or Lurker. I can't say whether this is deliberate or not, but it is quite tiresome. The specific points you last raised, for instance, I addressed in at least three different posts!

2. I stand by the ooodles of posts I have made on this subject.

3. Did you not notice there is nobody else on this thread anymore?

4. Bye.

[Thanz]

Mr. Hoyt -

Perhaps your points do not get through because you consistently fail to make them in clear and concise language. Instead, you just play some game of socratic method an oblique answers, and complain when we don't make your points for you.

I am simply asking for a clear, direct answer to my clear, direct questions. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Here they are again. They can be dealt with by you in one post, in the same time it took you to type your previous non-answer.

1. Do you agree that such an analysis would be much more meaningful, in terms of demonstrating whether JE consistently uses more frequent letters at the expense of less frequent letters (as we would expect a cold reader to do)?

2. How can we have any confidence, considering that we have not looked into any other letters, that out of the 26 letters "J" is not just a significant answer we "stumbled onto"?

3. How do we know that "J" isn't just a fluke? Is it simply because it confirms your hypothesis?

[Lurker]

Thanz:

It would appear that we can put Mr. Hoyt in with Claus as people that refuse to answer questions when the going gets tough. A shame, really.

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
Mr. Hoyt -

Perhaps your points do not get through because you consistently fail to make them in clear and concise language. Instead, you just play some game of socratic method an oblique answers, and complain when we don't make your points for you.

I am simply asking for a clear, direct answer to my clear, direct questions. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Here they are again. They can be dealt with by you in one post, in the same time it took you to type your previous non-answer.

1. Do you agree that such an analysis would be much more meaningful, in terms of demonstrating whether JE consistently uses more frequent letters at the expense of less frequent letters (as we would expect a cold reader to do)?

2. How can we have any confidence, considering that we have not looked into any other letters, that out of the 26 letters "J" is not just a significant answer we "stumbled onto"?

3. How do we know that "J" isn't just a fluke? Is it simply because it confirms your hypothesis?

1. That is not the question. The question is: what can be learned from the available data. I have made this clear going back pages, in post after post.

2. We would have LESS confidence by dipping into the same data set. The significance level is .05. Twenty six dips in, we would expect to get a "significant" hit by chance alone. You cannot do that. I chose the most frequently seen letter based on the control population. I saw excessively reliance on that letter. I stopped dipping in NOT because I got what I was looking for, but because I had completed the test and because further such testing would be statistically invalid. I addressed this previously and I will not repeat this again.

3. We don't. Your response to this ought to be rich.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Lurker
Thanz:

It would appear that we can put Mr. Hoyt in with Claus as people that refuse to answer questions when the going gets tough. A shame, really.

Lurker
I am afraid that you are correct. It bothers me when I see people who can "dish it" but can't "take it". They are behaving like bullies, nothing more.

BTW, do you ever check your PM's?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
1. That is not the question. The question is: what can be learned from the available data. I have made this clear going back pages, in post after post.
It is MY question, and I note that you have evaded it again. This started when I complained that the data was insufficient to learn anything meaningful. A question about whether a test that would have meaning can be conducted with this data is certainly relevant. Do we have enough data to learn anything? If the only test we can do is on one letter, is it worth anything at all?

Isn't it better to design a test that will best answer our question, and then try to seek data for that test? You are coming at the problem backwards. Or, at least, from a different direction.

I am saying - the data is insufficient for the kind of test we need to do. You say, I can do X test with this data, without regard for whether that test actually tells us anything meaningful.

So, please answer my question.

2. We would have LESS confidence by dipping into the same data set. The significance level is .05. Twenty six dips in, we would expect to get a "significant" hit by chance alone. You cannot do that. I chose the most frequently seen letter based on the control population. I saw excessively reliance on that letter. I stopped dipping in NOT because I got what I was looking for, but because I had completed the test and because further such testing would be statistically invalid. I addressed this previously and I will not repeat this again.

3. We don't. Your response to this ought to be rich.
All that your test has shown is that the number of J guesses out of a sample of 85 are higher than random. We don't know if this is a fluke, if it is related to the way the callers are chosen, if it is related to the demographics of JE's audience, or if it is due to cold reading by JE. So, we really don't know anything. It provides very weak support, at best, to the cold reading hypothesis.

Do you not agree that at least some of these concerns would be addressed by the analysis proposed by Tai Chi? That comparing the entirety of his guesses (all letters) with an adequate sample size will reveal MUCH MUCH more than your simple J comparison?

I do not consider your J comparison to be meaningful or helpful in determining whether JE is a cold reader. If this is the best analysis that you can do with this data, then I stand by my assertion that the sample size is too small for a meaningful analysis and thank you for helping to demonstrate this fact.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
It is MY question, and I note that you have evaded it again. This started when I complained that the data was insufficient to learn anything meaningful.
No, Thanz, it is your question NOW, and it is changed from your original claim. Let me refresh your memory. From 8/11 4:29:
Next, 78 guesses is a woefully small sample size. I don't know if we can really glean anything significant from such a small sample.
Now you've slipped in "meaningful", a weaseled substitution for "significant". I demonstrated a perfectly valid approach is significant. The null hypothesis failed.
A question about whether a test that would have meaning can be conducted with this data is certainly relevant. Do we have enough data to learn anything? If the only test we can do is on one letter, is it worth anything at all?
Yes, we have more than enough data to say JE appears to have over-selected the most frequent forename initial. The number of Js in his readings were significantly higher than would have been expected by chance.
Isn't it better to design a test that will best answer our question, and then try to seek data for that test? You are coming at the problem backwards. Or, at least, from a different direction.[quote]
You are trying to make the data irrelevant. It won't work. Would I like more data? Most certainly. That, however, is a different question. What we have can be analyzed and profitably. What I analyzed is very suggestive. Sorry it doesn't agree with you. But argue it on honest grounds, not this pap that is so insulting to the audience. Not with this weaseling.

[quote]I am saying - the data is insufficient for the kind of test we need to do. You say, I can do X test with this data, without regard for whether that test actually tells us anything meaningful.

So, please answer my question
Please shut up long enough to listen. This has gotten so tiresome, you nitwit, that everybody has disappeared from the thread. Congratulations on yet another attempt to thwart JREF!

THE DATA ARE SUFFICIENT TO DO A TEST. THEY DEMONSTRATE A SKEWING OF FORENAME INITIAL CHOICES. THEY SHOW THAT JE'S CHOICE OF THE MOST COMMON FIRST INITIAL WAS CHOSEN FAR TOO FREQUENTLY.

All that your test has shown is that the number of J guesses out of a sample of 85 are higher than random. We don't know if this is a fluke, if it is related to the way the callers are chosen, if it is related to the demographics of JE's audience, or if it is due to cold reading by JE. So, we really don't know anything. It provides very weak support, at best, to the cold reading hypothesis.
This demonstrates an astound lack of knowledge of science. Yes, it can be a fluke. It would be a fluke 1 time in 20. I have stated that before, several times.
Do you not agree that at least some of these concerns would be addressed by the analysis proposed by Tai Chi? That comparing the entirety of his guesses (all letters) with an adequate sample size will reveal MUCH MUCH more than your simple J comparison?
It might. I would welcome more testing. I would welcome more data. It is you who wish to sweep these data under the rug.

I do not consider your J comparison to be meaningful or helpful in determining whether JE is a cold reader. If this is the best analysis that you can do with this data, then I stand by my assertion that the sample size is too small for a meaningful analysis and thank you for helping to demonstrate this fact.
The test is significant. The hypothesis is valid. It addresses the essential question. And the test rejects the null hypothesis.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Now you've slipped in "meaningful", a weaseled substitution for "significant". I demonstrated a perfectly valid approach is significant. The null hypothesis failed.
I apologize for loose language. I did not mean "significant" in the solely statistical sense. I meant "Significant" as a synonym for "meaningful"

Yes, we have more than enough data to say JE appears to have over-selected the most frequent forename initial. The number of Js in his readings were significantly higher than would have been expected by chance.
There were a grand total of 7 extra J guesses. Again, we have no idea why. One letter does not cold reading make.

Please shut up long enough to listen. This has gotten so tiresome, you nitwit, that everybody has disappeared from the thread. Congratulations on yet another attempt to thwart JREF!
I am not trying to thwart the JREF at all, sir. If you are looking for the reason others have left the thread, I would suggest you look at yourself.

THE DATA ARE SUFFICIENT TO DO A TEST. THEY DEMONSTRATE A SKEWING OF FORENAME INITIAL CHOICES. THEY SHOW THAT JE'S CHOICE OF THE MOST COMMON FIRST INITIAL WAS CHOSEN FAR TOO FREQUENTLY.
Plese be quiet long enough to listen. There is no need to shout. The only test that the data is sufficient to do does not meaningfully illuminate the question as to whether JE is cold reading. The analysis of any one initial, whether it be the most common, least common, or whatever is in the middle, is not sufficient to provide meaningful evidence for the cold reading hypothesis.

This demonstrates an astound lack of knowledge of science. Yes, it can be a fluke. It would be a fluke 1 time in 20. I have stated that before, several times.
It could also be any of the other things I mention. There is nothing inherent in your test to isolate the cold reading effect. An analysis of just one letter is simply insufficient to do this. I don't think that anyone besides you has said this.

Let me turn this around. If the sample showed, for example, 12 J guesses and was therefore not statistically significantly different from random guesses, would you conclude that JE was likely NOT cold reading?

It might. I would welcome more testing. I would welcome more data. It is you who wish to sweep these data under the rug.
I do not wish to sweep the data under the rug. I applaud the idea behind the analysis - that is, a comparison of JE guesses to the general population. I even went and found a possible source for the population name data. I just don't think that we have ENOUGH of the data yet. I am not saying we ignore what we have - I am saying we need more to add to what we have.

The test is significant. The hypothesis is valid. It addresses the essential question. And the test rejects the null hypothesis.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the test is crap. It's results would neither confirm nor deny the essential question of whether JE cold reads. It simply does not provide enough information.

It is like someone walked up to us with a spoon and asked us to build a swimming pool for tomorrow. I say that the tools are insufficient. You say Nonsense, grab the spoon and dig a small hole. You then fill it with water, dip your leg in, and move it around. You then try and convince me you are swimming.

You are not swimming. You are just kicking your leg around in a puddle of muddy water.

[T'ai Chi]

[b]
2. We would have LESS confidence by dipping into the same data set. The significance level is .05. Twenty six dips in, we would expect to get a "significant" hit by chance alone. You cannot do that. I chose the most frequently seen letter based on the control population. I saw excessively reliance on that letter. I stopped dipping in NOT because I got what I was looking for, but because I had completed the test and because further such testing would be statistically invalid. [b]

This is why we need to test all the high frequency letters at the same time in one test, for example.

(I defined high frequency letter as a letter where 78*frequency of that letter > 5)

letter, frequency from Census Bureau combined name list (1990)
a, .064861
c, .072108
d, .074201
j, .133615
m, .100377
r, .08003

And if anyone has the actual observed counts of these letters from JE's readings, we could try another test.

[BillHoyt]

It could also be any of the other things I mention. There is nothing inherent in your test to isolate the cold reading effect.
The test rejects the null hypothesis. If you do not understand either the import or the limits of this statement I can elaborate. Or you can consult some good basic experimental design textbooks or websites.
An analysis of just one letter is simply insufficient to do this.
An analysis of this particular letter IS sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. This is all I have said. This is all I am claiming. You seem to not understand what an experimental result means.
Let me turn this around. If the sample showed, for example, 12 J guesses and was therefore not statistically significantly different from random guesses, would you conclude that JE was likely NOT cold reading?
No, I would conclude that I cannot reject the null hypothesis. If I were writing this as a scientific paper I would say "The results do not support refuting the null hypothesis."

Now, Thanz, let us turn the tables back and look at what I said way back when:

"I used the Poisson function to model the population. With an expected mean of 11.05, a count as high as (or higher than) 18 is expected to happen around 3% of the time. (Now remember we're rejecting the null hypothesis at 5%.) Based on that, I would reject the null hypothesis and say that this analysis refutes the hypothesis that JE's guesses are indistinguishable from purely random."

My language was circumspect in the ways that scientific papers are circumspect. One of the other woos whose understanding of science, like yours, rivals that of a tablespoon of peanut butter, castigated me for using "lawyer-like" language. She was, of course, ignored.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
The results were a revised total guess count of 85. I then tallied the "J"s separately. I picked the "J"s because they are the most frequent initial. According to the US census data presented earlier, "J" surnames are 13.36% of the total population. In this analysis of 85 JE name guesses, I counted 18 "J" names. I calculated the expected number of "J"s (formally, the "expectation function") as 11.05.

I used the Poisson function to model the population. With an expected mean of 11.05, a count as high as (or higher than) 18 is expected to happen around 3% of the time. (Now remember we're rejecting the null hypothesis at 5%.) Based on that, I would reject the null hypothesis and say that this analysis refutes the hypothesis that JE's guesses are indistinguishable from purely random.

I'm double-checking my counts and calculations.


I have double checked them for you Bill and you were pretty close to the actual answer.

First off, your expected mean is off as it should be 11.357. Using Poisson, I found the probability of getting 18 or more to be equal to 1-P(17) = 1-0.958476 = 0.041524 or just over 4%. Still rejected by the null hypothesis of 5%.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Thanz:

Finally got around to my PM. I have looked at your "A" analysis and it is correct (I ran the numbers and came out with the same).

Bill objects to you looking for you predetermined answer. Yet didn't he notice that the "J" seemed overrepresented in the JE sample and then ran the stats on them? Isn't that data mining? Why doesn't Bill recognize that he did it himself?

Funny how he dismissed your "A" analysis even though the significance is the same as his analysis. It appears only Bill's stats are valid (and I caught some minor erros in THAT too!).

Lurker

[Thanz]

BillHoyt -

How can you read my post and not understand that the problem lies in your hypothesis? Your hypothesis, in that it focusses solely on the one letter, is insufficient to tell us anything meaningful about the broader question of JE and cold reading.

The data is insufficient to test a hypothesis that would be meaningful to the broader question of JE and cold reading. Which is what I have been saying.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker


I have double checked them for you Bill and you were pretty close to the actual answer.

First off, your expected mean is off as it should be 11.357. Using Poisson, I found the probability of getting 18 or more to be equal to 1-P(17) = 1-0.958476 = 0.041524 or just over 4%. Still rejected by the null hypothesis of 5%.

Lurker

Thank you for the corrections to my reported results.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker
Thanz:

Finally got around to my PM. I have looked at your "A" analysis and it is correct (I ran the numbers and came out with the same).

Bill objects to you looking for you predetermined answer. Yet didn't he notice that the "J" seemed overrepresented in the JE sample and then ran the stats on them? Isn't that data mining? Why doesn't Bill recognize that he did it himself?

Funny how he dismissed your "A" analysis even though the significance is the same as his analysis. It appears only Bill's stats are valid (and I caught some minor erros in THAT too!).

Lurker

Lurker,

That would be because I did not do what you said. I chose "J" because it was the most frequent letter in the Census data. I have said this several times! I then did the count and the analysis. Please read my posts and report my posts accurately.

Here is my post, once again, with a pertinent section in bold:

"I re-worked the transcripts and came up with different results and a different method. Here it is, in a nutshell:

1. I used the census data figures orginally presented, although these may need tweaking.
2. I excluded the CO show data, and concentrated solely on the available, unedited transcripts from LKL, etc.
3. I looked at JE's style and adjusted the counting procedure as follows:
o I counted all of his name guesses
o Whether he stated them as names or initials, I counted them
o I excluded impossible-to-deal-with things such as "a B softened by a vowel," and chalked that up to a "B" guess.
o I included even bizarre names such as "pepper", "salt", "brooklyn" and other nickname guesses, except that
o I only counted "Liz", "Elizabeth" type guesses as the full given name, and did not also count an "L". but
o When JE recited a littany of names, I counted each one, whether they had the same initial or differing initials (again excluding the "Liz/Elizabeth, Ronny/Ronald, and Bill/William" type guesses, where I only counted the intial of the full given name.

Sound a bit complicated? You should read the transcripts. I could not see another way to approach things fairly given that sometimes he was all over the board. My hypothesis was, that, if there is a JE mediumship process, i should honor as much of it as I could figure in making the counting rules.

The results were a revised total guess count of 85. I then tallied the "J"s separately. I picked the "J"s because they are the most frequent initial. According to the US census data presented earlier, "J" surnames are 13.36% of the total population. In this analysis of 85 JE name guesses, I counted 18 "J" names. I calculated the expected number of "J"s (formally, the "expectation function") as 11.05.

I used the Poisson function to model the population. With an expected mean of 11.05, a count as high as (or higher than) 18 is expected to happen around 3% of the time. (Now remember we're rejecting the null hypothesis at 5%.) Based on that, I would reject the null hypothesis and say that this analysis refutes the hypothesis that JE's guesses are indistinguishable from purely random."

[neofight]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
My language was circumspect in the ways that scientific papers are circumspect. One of the other woos whose understanding of science, like yours, rivals that of a tablespoon of peanut butter, castigated me for using "lawyer-like" language. She was, of course, ignored.

Ah, yes. Ignored at the time, but eventually acknowledged. ;) Oh, was I supposed to be insulted by that comment, Hoyt? LOL Not bloody likely, considering the arrogant boor that delivered the 'insult'. :D

And certainly, by "One of the other woos", you were not implying that Thanz is a *woo*, are you? :rolleyes: Because that's how your statement reads..........neo

P.S. And Bill, Thanz is right. If anyone killed this thread, it was you, and not the two honest and likeable skeptics known as Lurker and Thanz. :p

[T'ai Chi]

Just to clarify for those who could miss it, by P(17), Lurker means
SUM(P(x)|0<=x<=17), not just evaluating the Poisson probability density function at 17.

I know that the Poisson is used often when studying counts, but just because we are studying counts, does that necessarily mean the Poisson is appropriate to use? I dunno. We are assuming that the distribution of J counts is distributed approximately Poisson. Could someone discuss the evidence for that?

If instead the mean was 11.65 instead of 11.356 we'd end up failing to reject the null hypothesis. That seems fairly close. Not sure what that means though.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I know that the Poisson is used often when studying counts, but just because we are studying counts, does that necessarily mean the Poisson is appropriate to use? I dunno. We are assuming that the distribution of J counts is distributed approximately Poisson. Could someone discuss the evidence for that?
I might be able to help more if I understood your question. Poisson is used for events with low probability. Classic uses are events over a geographic region, events over a span of time. Things like cars arriving at an intersection in a five minute interval. Horse deaths per acre. Defects per square foot of sheet metal. In this case, names beginning with "A" or "D" or "J".

An alternative choice might be binomial, but therein lies a catch. The advantage of Poisson is that the moment-generating functions are such that its mean and its variance are the same and therefore, we only need to know the mean, which is about all we have here.

If instead the mean was 11.65 instead of 11.356 we'd end up failing to reject the null hypothesis. That seems fairly close. Not sure what that means though.
Close only counts in horseshoes. It means nothing. The rejection criterion is always binary: you accept or you reject. If you the significance is .049 or .019 or .0499, it still meets the criterion.

Cheers,

[Jeff Corey]

There's something fishy about the Poisson distribution.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
There's something fishy about the Poisson distribution.

Boo, you're base!

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Boo, you're base!
So what are you, acid?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

So what are you, acid?
psst - he was making a bad fish soup pun.......

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

psst - he was making a bad fish soup pun.......

psst - he may have been returning the favor, but shifting to chemistry...

[Jeff Corey]

That still was a base canard, unless it was duck soup.

[Thanz]

BillHoyt -

I see that you have made several replies, but not to my latest post. Do you agree with what I have said?

Are not even going to bother trying to defend your hypothesis?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
BillHoyt -

I see that you have made several replies, but not to my latest post. Do you agree with what I have said?

Are not even going to bother trying to defend your hypothesis?
Thanz,

My hypothesis needs no defense. You have confounded it with the test of the hypothesis. These are separate concepts scientifically. Please refer to my post about the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. They specify no test. They need not specify a test.

[Thanz]

Mr. Hoyt -

I have read your post on the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. You are completely missing the point.

Let's start at the beginning. Let's say that you are a researcher, and you want to see if JE was cold reading. You come up with the idea that if he was cold reading, he would probably guess common initials a lot, and less common initials very rarely.

Now you have to figure out the best way to test this theory. You decide that you need to compare it against the normal population instead of just using raw numbers of guesses.

Without regard for whatever data is currently available, what test do you want to do? Do you want to compare one letter? Or do you want to compare ALL letters?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
Mr. Hoyt -

I have read your post on the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. You are completely missing the point.

Let's start at the beginning. Let's say that you are a researcher, and you want to see if JE was cold reading. You come up with the idea that if he was cold reading, he would probably guess common initials a lot, and less common initials very rarely.

Now you have to figure out the best way to test this theory. You decide that you need to compare it against the normal population instead of just using raw numbers of guesses.

Without regard for whatever data is currently available, what test do you want to do? Do you want to compare one letter? Or do you want to compare ALL letters?

Thanz,

You keep trying to shift the focus away from your assertion about not being able to work with the available data. You keep trying to focus the attention on this question of "wouldn't more data be better?"

I have said, repeatedly, yes. You continue to question me on this. It is irksome.

Now you try an angle of attack based on my hypothesis being wrong. It is not. You are really questioning the test of the hypothesis. Do you understand the distinction? If you have read the hypothesis and null hypothesis, why do you still confuse them with the test?

If I am a researcher in this area, and am confronted with the medium's feint, I am left with no alternative but to uncover whatever untainted evidence is available and see if it is workable. JE plays the medium's feint all the time. His show is heavily edited, he won't subject himself to testing (except by very friendly researchers) and leaves little evidence to scrutinize. With little data available, I look at the hypothesis and the available data and ask myself how can I test the hypothesis?

In the control population, "J" sings out as the, by far, most frequently seen initial. I chose that to test. I chose .05 significance. That poisons the well for further dipping afterwards as has been discussed before. JE's data were remarkable. In a small set (n=85), we would have expected 11 hits on "J". Yet he had 18. That is significant at the .05 level. I reject the null hypothesis.

[Clancie]

Not to divert this, but I'm just curious about something. If "J" showed up far beyond chance in JE readings...and if JE was 100% correct every time he said it, wouldn't it give more credence to the idea that he's not cold reading?

Apart from the argument about the too-small sample size (which now even Bill agrees with, apparently, finally), why would excessive use of "J" support JE as a cold reader if, hypothetically, all the "guesses" were correct? :confused:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Apart from the argument about the too-small sample size (which now even Bill agrees with, apparently, finally), why would excessive use of "J" support JE as a cold reader if, hypothetically, all the "guesses" were correct? :confused:
Clancie,

Where did I say that? Show us the post where you think I said that.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
You keep trying to shift the focus away from your assertion about not being able to work with the available data. You keep trying to focus the attention on this question of "wouldn't more data be better?"
No, I am not shifting the focus to "wouldn't more data be better". I am keeping the focus on "is this data adequate".

I do not feel that a test of one letter alone, whatever the results, is adequate to shed light on whether JE is cold reading. An analysis of all letters is adequate. And we don't have enough data right now to do it. Because the sample size is too small.

Now you try an angle of attack based on my hypothesis being wrong. It is not. You are really questioning the test of the hypothesis. Do you understand the distinction? If you have read the hypothesis and null hypothesis, why do you still confuse them with the test?
Not that the hypothesis is wrong per se. But that the hypothesis is not adequate to tell us anything meaningful about cold reading. It is fine as far as it goes - I just don't think that it goes far enough to tell us anything meaningful. There is just not enough information there. It leaves too much unquestioned.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

No, I am not shifting the focus to "wouldn't more data be better". I am keeping the focus on "is this data adequate".

I do not feel that a test of one letter alone, whatever the results, is adequate to shed light on whether JE is cold reading. An analysis of all letters is adequate. And we don't have enough data right now to do it. Because the sample size is too small.
This is patently false. Let us say that, in 85 guesses, he guessed "J" 85 times. This would be extraordinary. There would be no other letters whose frequencies we test. Does that mean we don't have enough data? No way.

You cannot make the assertion you made. The adequacy of n depends on the hypothesis, the distribution model, the desired significance and the observations.

I am done discussing this with you.



Not that the hypothesis is wrong per se. But that the hypothesis is not adequate to tell us anything meaningful about cold reading. It is fine as far as it goes - I just don't think that it goes far enough to tell us anything meaningful. There is just not enough information there. It leaves too much unquestioned. [/QUOTE]
Once again, you have confused the hypothesis with the test of the hypothesis. I am not repeating myself here either. I am done discussing this with you.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I am done discussing this with you.
Fine with me. Keep your leg in the puddle and keep insisting that you are swimming.

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt
You keep trying to focus the attention on this question of "wouldn't more data be better?" I have said, repeatedly, yes.
Okay, re-reading your post, I guess you only saying "more data would be better", but the very small sample size is still enough for what you were doing, in your opinion.

But I'm still interested if you -really- think your results stand up, Bill? Do you really feel that this "hypothesis about 'J'" has added something statistically of value to the discussion of cold reading and JE?

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I see you are back to discussing mediumship. Am I correct?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
But I'm still interested if you -really- think your results stand up, Bill?[/b]
"Stand up" how, Clancie? Do I really think that further data will support the cold reading hypothesis? Yes. Absolutely. The problem will be to find such data. CO cannot be used because it increases the likelihood of warm- or hot-reading.
Do you really feel that this "hypothesis about 'J'" has added something statistically of value to the discussion of cold reading and JE?
Yes. It adds a rejection (at the .05 level) of the hypothesis that JE's name and initial guesses match the names in the population. He overused the most frequently found forename initial, "J" significantly. If JE is cold-reading we would expect him to concentrate on those initials that are most abundant in the population. We see exactly that in this instance.

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

If JE is cold-reading we would expect him to concentrate on those initials that are most abundant in the population. We see exactly that in this instance.
Suppose he was correct 100% of the time? Do you still think the "over representation" of "J's" would still support your cold reading hypothesis if every 'J' name he got (and/or intial*) was very significant to the sitters?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I might be able to help more if I understood your question. Poisson is used for events with low probability. Classic uses are events over a geographic region, events over a span of time. Things like cars arriving at an intersection in a five minute interval. Horse deaths per acre. Defects per square foot of sheet metal. In this case, names beginning with "A" or "D" or "J".


I'm saying that I know the Poisson is used in some cases when you have counts. What I'm wondering, is just because we have counts, does that mean a Poisson is appropriate? That is, do we have any histogram of J counts to show that it is even remotely distributed like a Poisson? I don't doubt that it is, but I just don't want to say 'because it is a count, let's use the Poisson', when that might not be a good distributional assumption.


Close only counts in horseshoes. It means nothing. The rejection criterion is always binary: you accept or you reject. If you the significance is .049 or .019 or .0499, it still meets the criterion.


Close definitely counts in statistics and the conclusions you make from it. I hope you are not claiming that (if alpha = .05) the conclusions from a p-value of .0499 are the same, because it meets the criterion as the conclusions from a p-value of .019.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Yes. It adds a rejection (at the .05 level) of the hypothesis that JE's name and initial guesses match the names in the population. He overused the most frequently found forename initial, "J" significantly. If JE is cold-reading we would expect him to concentrate on those initials that are most abundant in the population. We see exactly that in this instance.



What have we learned from Bill's test? I will agree with Bill that it is a good test to perform and provides some interesting results.

We see that JE guesses the letter J at a higher proportion than the average (taken from the census). From this sample, this is indisputable.

Now, we have to ask why. Bill Hoyt jumps to a conclusion that it is consistent with cold reading. Certainly a possibility and at the risk of offending Thanz I would consider it probable.

But there are other possibilities as well. Bill's conclusion is predicated on the notion that JE is familiar with the proportion of "J" or that he has learned over the years that "J" guesses seem to work more.

Perhaps JE is partial to a letter which starts his own name? Perhaps his "frames of reference" that the spirits read his mind to use have better "J" representations than certain other letters. I merely throw out other ideas to illustrate that the analysis does not indicate cold reading necessarily. It merely means he uses J more than the average. Reasons behind his overuse of J still remain a mystery.

That all being said, I will reiterate I think the reason is cold reading.

Lurker

[CFLarsen]

Lurker,

I need a clarification.

Are you saying that JE "tunes in" (or whatever we should call it) to people who have more J's in their circle of relationships? He simply gets messages for that group more often than for others?

How is that falsifiable?

[Lurker]

Tai Chi:

Your questioning whether the Poisson Distribution is valid in defining this problem is a good point.

In what I have seen there are three parameters that a distribution should have to qualify as a Poisson Distribution.

http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/ForStudents/courses/math2899/handouts/lec4.pdf

1. N>=100

2. P<=0.01

3. NP<=20

You see, Bill, the problem is the Poisson Distribution has no upper limit. Clearly for a sample of 85 guesses 85 would be a hard limit. But the Poisson does not account for this. Further, this error is not just at the upper limit but appears in each value.

Perhaps we should be using the Binomial Distribution instead? It may not change the end results much but since p is relatively high we might want to consider it.

Just throwing my ignorant two cents into the arena.

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker
Tai Chi:

Your questioning whether the Poisson Distribution is valid in defining this problem is a good point.

In what I have seen there are three parameters that a distribution should have to qualify as a Poisson Distribution.

http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/ForStudents/courses/math2899/handouts/lec4.pdf

1. N>=100

2. P<=0.01

3. NP<=20

You see, Bill, the problem is the Poisson Distribution has no upper limit. Clearly for a sample of 85 guesses 85 would be a hard limit. But the Poisson does not account for this. Further, this error is not just at the upper limit but appears in each value.

Perhaps we should be using the Binomial Distribution instead? It may not change the end results much but since p is relatively high we might want to consider it.

Just throwing my ignorant two cents into the arena.

Lurker
Lurker,

Please read that document for understanding this time. Please. This is as politely as I can put it.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lurker,

I need a clarification.

Are you saying that JE "tunes in" (or whatever we should call it) to people who have more J's in their circle of relationships? He simply gets messages for that group more often than for others?

How is that falsifiable?

Glad to help clarify, I was not terribly clear in my meaning.

John Edward says the spirits read his mind and look for symbols that are in JE's frame of reference. We know he has a limited number of references. Possibly some come through better than others. for example, when he gets a "J" symbol is it a picture of him which he knows means a "J" name? Perhaps it is easier for spirits to use certain symbols in JE's lexicon. This would result in:

1. Spirits purposely choosing to communicate "J" names more often (remember it does not have to be the deceased. It can be ANYONE!) to indicate their presence.

or

2. Spirits who choose "J" symbols are more easily heard by JE.

or

3. ?

None of this is falsefiable. Just postulating possiblities. Much like cold reading is a possiblity in why he gets "J" names more often.

Lurker

P.S. And since I have your attention, I have read the Larsen List thread and generally agree with TLN. I may not always agree with your methods but you certainly ask good questions. Ones which certain believers wriggle to avoid.

I also did a quick check on some of the languages you used and from what I saw you use "possibility" when promulgating a debunking theory. It is humorous that certain believers will not even explore teh "possiblities" that you put forth. Very telling...

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Lurker,

Please read that document for understanding this time. Please. This is as politely as I can put it.

Ah, the restrictions were for the approximation of the mean.

Still, the rest applies. Since you put for the Poisson Distribution, care to provide support that it is accurate for the problem at hand?

And why not the Binomial?

Lurker

[CFLarsen]

Lurker,

Thanks.

I don't agree that JE has a limited number of references. It seems that he can use anything! :D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker


Ah, the restrictions were for the approximation of the mean.

Still, the rest applies. Since you put for the Poisson Distribution, care to provide support that it is accurate for the problem at hand?

And why not the Binomial?

Lurker
Lurker,

Your own source yields the answer. The "conditions" you cited were not to qualify a distribution as Poisson. They cite conditions under which the Poisson is a good approximation of the Binomial.

np <=20 is our condition. Poisson and Binomial in this range are almost identical. (Look at the tables in your source document.)

[Lurker]

Bill:

Clearly the Poisson is best used when the probability is small, wouldn't you say?

Clearly the Poisson is best used when N is large, wouldn't you say?

Clearly this is selfevident. If you cannot see that then you truly do not understand the Poisson Distribution and I cannot help you.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lurker,

Thanks.

I don't agree that JE has a limited number of references. It seems that he can use anything! :D

Devil's advocate, my friend. Devil's advocate...

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker
Bill:

Clearly the Poisson is best used when the probability is small, wouldn't you say?

Clearly the Poisson is best used when N is large, wouldn't you say?

Clearly this is selfevident. If you cannot see that then you truly do not understand the Poisson Distribution and I cannot help you.

Lurker

Okay, Lurker, go back to your source. In the order of your statements, here are my responses.

Bull. Balderdash. Wrong. You need to read your source and understand it says nothing of the sort. Go back and read it. Several times if necessary. It says no such things!

[Lurker]

I posted the source as an example.

Since you refuse to see the light I will go through it quite carefully so even an obstinate man can understand.

Let us say N=100
P=0.9

u=90

Use Poisson. What do you get for the probability that the count will be higher than 100? Since I am a nice guy, I will give you the answer. The answer is 1-0.8651=.1349

13.49% according to Poisson that in one hundred tries that you will get OVER 100 positive results.

Now the rest of us can see that is obviously impossible. Do you see the problem in this example?

If so, can you see that as we descend from this example to the problem we have used it for this error is diminished? The question is, how much?

Lurker

[Lurker]

You see Bill, the Poisson Distribution is merely an approximation fo a more accurate distribution (binomial). So the limits in the example that you called Bull are guidelines as to whether the Poisson is accurately predicting the binomial.

You aren't under the impression that Poisson is more accurate than the Binomial, are you?

Lurker

[Clancie]

Lurker,

I know nothing of statistics, but perhaps you would be kind enough to answer my question since Bill hasn't.

If JE uses "J" names and initials more often than they are expected in the general population--and, hypothetically, all of these "J" names were correct and meaningful to the sitter--does their overrepresentation in his readings still support the cold reading hypothesis?

And, if he's right about 'J', shouldn't Bill's results be consistent even if the sample increases? (I ask because there are two other LKL transcripts available on the web from 1998).

And...if the analysis of "J" is correct, can all the 26 letters be accurately calculated from the same sample, from using 78 names and initials only?

[Lurker]

What? No snappy rejoinder Bill? Did my p=0.9 show you the light? Turn the light on, Bill.

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker
I posted the source as an example.

Since you refuse to see the light I will go through it quite carefully so even an obstinate man can understand.

Let us say N=100
P=0.9

u=90

Use Poisson. What do you get for the probability that the count will be higher than 100? Since I am a nice guy, I will give you the answer. The answer is 1-0.8651=.1349

13.49% according to Poisson that in one hundred tries that you will get OVER 100 positive results.

Now the rest of us can see that is obviously impossible. Do you see the problem in this example?

If so, can you see that as we descend from this example to the problem we have used it for this error is diminished? The question is, how much?

Lurker

ROTFLMAO! You flaming ignoramous! Holy sh**. I don't believe it. Holy sh**.

Oh, wow. You've just proven Poisson doesn't work for anything! Wow! Why did that idiot french guy invent it? BTW, fool, did you find any pairs of n and p for which this doesn't happen? What do you make of that?

Tell me where n appears in the Poisson equation. Hmm. Why not?

Holy sh**. What a stooge. You don't understand the difference between a pdf and an expectation function, do you? Holy sh**! No wonder this has gone on for pages. Holy sh**. You haven't even bothered to educate yourself. You've simply searched for bits that help support your argument. You never truly considered that you needed to learn something! Holy sh**.

Drink heavily this weekend. You're going to need it.

I'm done with you. If you don't think you need to rethink this, then be my guest. But, as far as I'm concerned, go away.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Clancie
Lurker,

Perhaps you could answer my question since Bill hasn't. [QUOTE]

I'll give it a whirl.

[QUOTE]

If JE uses "J" names and initials more often than they are expected in the general population--and, hypothetically, all of these "J" names were correct and meaningful to the sitter--does their overrepresentation in his readings still support the cold reading hypothesis?



It does not matter whether the names were meaningful to the sitter or not. Immaterial. The hypothesis that Bill has proposed is that cold readers would use popular letters more often than mere chance (in the case of "J" 13%) in order to get more hits. So, yes, the stats that he ran does lend support to his hypothesis. It does not PROVE it, merely supports it.

But, I did provide some other reasons that we may see the result that we did in the stats. I was reaching, but I am trying to show that there are other possible explanation other than cold reading. It is not an EITHER/OR scenario.


And, if valid, shouldn't Bill's results be consistent even if the sample increases? (I ask because there are two other LKL transcripts available on the web from 1998).

And (since I know nothing of statistics, I'm wondering)....if the analysis of "J" is correct, can all the 26 letters be accurately calculated from the same sample, from using 78 names and initials only?

I would suggest we run the same test on the other two transcripts without using the previous data. If you can;

1. Count the "J" name guesses
2. Count the total number of guesses

then I will run the numbers and see what happens. Essentially follow the same method Bill outlined. I look forward to it.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt




I guess I better go through this even slower than I thought necessary.

So Bill, how exactly did you calculate the mean for the Poisson in your "J" example? If I recall you took 0.1336*85 and arrived at 11.356. Hmm? Is that correct? Let me input the variable names for the formula you used. p*N

So, Mr Hoyt, I guess I am a stooge for following your methodology. Otherwise, please explain how you arrived at the mean for the Poisson?

Also, please give a rough idea of the limitations of the Poisson Distribution. I am starting to think you simply plug numbers into a calculator and hope for the best.

Lurker

[Lurker]

This bears repeating...


So Bill, how exactly did you calculate the mean for the Poisson in your "J" example? If I recall you took 0.1336*85 and arrived at 11.356. Hmm? Is that correct? Let me input the variable names for the formula you used. p*N


Lurker

[Lurker]

In Bill's own words:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


...According to the US census data presented earlier, "J" surnames are 13.36% of the total population. In this analysis of 85 JE name guesses, I counted 18 "J" names. I calculated the expected number of "J"s (formally, the "expectation function") as 11.05.

I used the Poisson function to model the population. With an expected mean of 11.05, ...[/B]

Mea culpa. I used mean instead of Bill terms, "expected number" or "expected mean".

Now, how did you avoid using N here? I specifically see you getting the expected mean of 11.05 by multiplying 85*0.13. We'll ignore your roundoff. Isn't N*p being used here? Show me where I am wrong.

Lurker

[Lurker]

ROTFLMAO! You flaming ignoramous! Holy sh**. I don't believe it. Holy sh**.

Oh, wow. You've just proven Poisson doesn't work for anything! Wow! Why that idiot french guy invent it? BTW, fool, did you find any pairs of n and p for which this doesn't happen? What do you make of that?


No, I showed it does not work in all cases. What is so hard to understand about that? And yes, if we integrate the Poisson Distribution from one above the sample size to infinity and call that value A, as A approaches zero I would contend that the Poisson Distribution is getting more accurate.



Tell me where n appears in the Poisson equation. Hmm. Why not?



Um, in N*p to arrive at the expected mean which IS in the equation and which is exactly what you used in your "J" example.


Holy sh**. What a stooge. You don't understand the difference between a pdf and an expectation function, do you? Holy sh**! No wonder this has gone on for pages. Holy sh**. You haven't even bothered to educate yourself. You've simply searched for bits that help support your argument. You never truly considered that you needed to learn something! Holy sh**.

Drink heavily this weekend. You're going to need it.

I'm done with you. If you don't think you need to rethink this, then be my guest. But, as far as I'm concerned, go away.

Your name calling is merely avoiding the inevitable. First off, why is the example I provided inaccurate? You refuted nothing yet.

Evidence, it is about evidence, Bill. Not personalities.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Bill:

Here is a website that shows that p should be small.

http://galton.uchicago.edu/~artigas/Stat251/Handouts/poisson.pdf

It says the Poisson approximation to the Binomial Distribution is good when small.

Go through it, Bill. Don't have such blind faith in the Poisson Distribution.

Lurker

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

ROTFLMAO! You flaming ignoramous! Holy sh**. I don't believe it. Holy sh**.

Oh, wow. You've just proven Poisson doesn't work for anything! Wow! Why that idiot french guy invent it? BTW, fool, did you find any pairs of n and p for which this doesn't happen? What do you make of that?

Tell me where n appears in the Poisson equation. Hmm. Why not?

Holy sh**. What a stooge. You don't understand the difference between a pdf and an expectation function, do you? Holy sh**! No wonder this has gone on for pages. Holy sh**. You haven't even bothered to educate yourself. You've simply searched for bits that help support your argument. You never truly considered that you needed to learn something! Holy sh**.

Drink heavily this weekend. You're going to need it.

I'm done with you. If you don't think you need to rethink this, then be my guest. But, as far as I'm concerned, go away.

So much for just offering the idea that someone could be incorrect in their reasoning. :roll:

[Lurker]

Bill:

From http://www.computer.org/cise/cs2001/c3078abs.htm

"We scientists and engineers often use Poisson's probability distribution to characterize the statistics of rare events whose average number is small. Using it correctly is crucial if we are to validate claims of discovery of new phenomena, such as a new fundamental particle (few candidate collision events among millions), a remote galaxy (few photons in the telescope among the billions emitted), or brain damage from using cell phones (few tumors among millions of users). In risk assessment, such as estimating the chance of dying from a horse kick if you're in the Prussian army or from suicide (two of its early uses), it plays a crucial role, which should interest actuaries as well as morticians. I've noticed that the Poisson distribution is often misunderstood and misapplied, so in this column I'll describe some of its interesting and relevant properties."

Bill, I am not saying you misapplied it. I just wonder if you can justify it mathematically for us.

Thanks!

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


So much for just offering the idea that someone could be incorrect in their reasoning. :roll:

Yeah. I really just expected Bill to reply with something along the lines of:

"You know, you may have a point there but I feel that the p was still sufficiently small as to justify a Poisson Distribution."

I mean, I was only making a suggestion, a minor quibble if you will. Now Bill is calling into question my knowledge of stats, which I agree is not a whole lot. I do respect Bill for having some knowledge of stats, more than I do. But I don't uderstand why he is retreating into his shell here.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Is the light on yet, Bill?

Lurker

[Lurker]

Bill:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/math/poifcn.html

"If the probability p is so small that the function has significant value only for very small x, then the distribution of events can be approximated by the Poisson distribution. Under these conditions it is a reasonable approximation of the exact binomial distribution of events."

Lurker

[Lurker]

So, after some homework, Bill what do you have to say:

1. Is the Poisson always a good approximation?

2. When is it not?

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So much for just offering the idea that someone could be incorrect in their reasoning. :roll:
T'ai Chi,

I already have grave reservations about you. Please don't increase them. The "offer" that I may be "incorrect" has absolutely nothing to do with my outburst. Lurker has made a laughingstock of himself. He is suggesting that Poisson is flawed based on a complete misread of his cited source. (Read it, please), an apparent misunderstanding of Poisson as "Binomial lite", and a whacky interpretation of Poisson's cdf.

You're hopping on board his bus is doing you no good. But your response to this question will help me immensely: Do you understand the flaws in what Lurker said about the Poisson cdf. Please explain where either Lurker or I am wrong.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

T'ai Chi,

I already have grave reservations about you. Please don't increase them. The "offer" that I may be "incorrect" has absolutely nothing to do with my outburst. Lurker has made a laughingstock of himself. He is suggesting that Poisson is flawed based on a complete misread of his cited source. (Read it, please), an apparent misunderstanding of Poisson as "Binomial lite", and a whacky interpretation of Poisson's cdf.

You're hopping on board his bus is doing you no good. But your response to this question will help me immensely: Do you understand the flaws in what Lurker said about the Poisson cdf. Please explain where either Lurker or I am wrong.

Bill, this is about a particular analysis and everything that goes into that. I don't particularly care about your, or anybody else's agendas. Your "reservations" are irrelevant here- we are talking about science. I'm not "hopping on board" with anyones' particular analyses except my own. I have just asked very specific questions about the applicability of the Poisson in this case. Considering I do statistics for a living and have had two degrees in that area, I'm curious about the fine points. Thanks.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lurker
So, after some homework, Bill what do you have to say:

1. Is the Poisson always a good approximation?

2. When is it not?

Lurker
Lurker,

You claim to be a skeptic. And yet, here you are, taking up the mantle of another "avowed skeptic" who persistently takes up the mantle of clear woos, who also claim to be skeptics.

I would dearly love to accept you, Thanz, Clancie and the rest of all of you "skeptics" into the fold, but I have some serious problems. First, with you, of course, is one of your earlier posts where you described Randi's column in Skeptical Inquirer as one of the chief motivations for your coming aboard JREF. That would be nice, except that Randi didn't write "Twis Brilling" for SI, he wrote it for Skeptic. That would be Shermer's rag. And your mistake would group you in the good company, unfortunately, of Clancie, who can't tell that Shermer isn't part of CSICOP, and that O'Neill emailed Randi, and not Shermer and not CSICOP. I dunno. Chalk that up to woo racism. All us skeptics must look alike to you white-as-the-ghosts-you-believe-in folk.

I've been around the internet (and its predecessors) for many years. Don't ask how many. I've debated with many "avowed skeptics" who were really "shills". Now I don't want quite yet to classify you as a "shill", but they clearly exist. Along with the doctor (who thought i was a bouncer) telling me all about how little we understood anaesthesia, and whom I lived to watch flame out and abandon that board as I drove evidence between her and her idiotic claims. And the "biologist" who wrote about how wrong I was for expressing disbelief over a claim that a vaccine had killed two litters of puppies and who nearly got dragged into court by both the manufacturer and the distributor she named. And the constant flood of "net experts" (they really aren't experts but they play them on the net), who either flame out or keep on going and going like deranged energizer bunnies.

I tire of it. I tire of the game. I tire of the attempt to work from within skeptical groups and undermine their efforts. This is why one of my missions is to identify such idiots, root them out and make sure they dry up, if necessary. My other mission, though, is to bring more people into the light and forestall this attempt to drag us back into the dark ages.

It is my continued, though waning, hope that you and T'ai Chi are not examples of these types of irrational, dark-age people. That is why I am giving you one more shot at this.

Re-read your source. With understanding, please. That is not a description of the conditions under which Poisson is valid. Neither is it a description of Poisson as "Binomial lite". If you have real trouble understanding this, I will help you. That is an honest offer, if you approach this honestly. Unfortunately, your approach is part of the problem for me.

Now let me give you an exercise from Hogg & Craig's Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, third edition. It is from page 98. If you don't have a copy, just ask anyone who's been through Cherry's Stat 231 course here at _____'s exotic dance bar. She used to hold it late in the evenings, or early morning's, depending on your perspective.

"3.23 Let X have a Poisson distribution with mu=100. Use Chebyshev's inequality to determine a lower bound for Pr(75 < X < 125)."

Poisson with mu=100? What justifies that?

Wake up before you get branded a laughingstock. Last chance before heckling mode.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Bill, this is about a particular analysis and everything that goes into that. I don't particularly care about your, or anybody else's agendas. Your "reservations" are irrelevant here- we are talking about science. I'm not "hopping on board" with anyones' particular analyses except my own. I have just asked very specific questions about the applicability of the Poisson in this case. Considering I do statistics for a living and have had two degrees in that area, I'm curious about the fine points. Thanks.
Fascinating, T'ai. A mere week ago you said you were about to be employed as a geophysicist/statistician. Now you're doing stat for a living and have two stat degrees. Is that a total of 3? Or ? I dunno.

Whatever.

So let's exercise all that training. Read what Lurker wrote; what I responded to. There is an abundance of clear errors there. You'll have a field day. And you may understand why he is just shy of becoming a laughingstock.

I'm willing to give anybody a chance. I'm willing to give multiple chances. And I trust everybody. But I make them all cut the cards. Your turn. Read the source Lurker cited, and the things he said leading up to my post. Then explain them to us all.

Also, BTW, and on a side issue. You really have to explain why everybody has to be tested to conclude nobody has superpowers. You have, particularly, to explain that in the context of your claim to have scientific training. Just how does science make progress when everything must be tested to draw a conclusion. Is atomic theory wrong? Or have we tested every atom? Cite references, please.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Fascinating, T'ai. A mere week ago you said you were about to be employed as a geophysicist/statistician. Now you're doing stat for a living and have two stat degrees. Is that a total of 3? Or ? I dunno.


About to be employed doesn't mean that I wasn't in a job or that I am not currently in a job...

Oops, sorry, I wrote that like I have two degrees in statistics, I don't. I have a BS in mathematics, and a MS in statistics, my bad.

I have read what Lurker, and everybody else in the thread, wrote. I tried to ignore anything that didn't have to do with the analysis of JE's hits, such as the whole part on 'when can we compare percentages', etc. I'm solely interested in the methods of analyzing JE's letter counts and comparing them to what we'd expect.

Your turn. Read the source Lurker cited, and the things he said leading up to my post. Then explain them to us all.


As I understand it, the main content of this thread is about trying to find an appropriate statistical analysis to analyze JE's letter counts, not seeing if I can answer your off-topic questions (superpowers, atomic theory, you want to me to critique Lurker's approach, etc.) for your pleasure. I'm sticking to trying to find an appropriate analysis, regardless of where this thread may get steered.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
About to be employed doesn't mean that I wasn't in a job or that I am not currently in a job...[/b]
No, but the second claim that you do "statistics for a living" stands a bit in contrast with your first claim that you were "about to be employed" as a "geophysicist/statistician". One wonders why you didn't say "i'm about to change jobs from being a statistician to being a geophysicist/statistician.

One also has to wonder about someone who proposes chi-square over the entire histogram when n=85, and there are, perforce, 26 intervals. Seems bound and determined to run into the minimum of 5 problem. But that's just me.

So is this new position in the oilfield?

I have read what Lurker, and everybody else in the thread, wrote. I tried to ignore anything that didn't have to do with the analysis of JE's hits, such as the whole part on 'when can we compare percentages', etc. I'm solely interested in the methods of analyzing JE's letter counts and comparing them to what we'd expect.

As I understand it, the main content of this thread is about trying to find an appropriate statistical analysis to analyze JE's letter counts, not seeing if I can answer your off-topic questions (superpowers, atomic theory, you want to me to critique Lurker's approach, etc.) for your pleasure. I'm sticking to trying to find an appropriate analysis, regardless of where this thread may get steered.
I'm a bit puzzled why you don't see the relevance of Lurker's percentage comparison. Also that you didn't pick up on its inappropriateness as a tool. I'm also puzzled that you don't see the relevance of the superpowers comment to the topic at hand. It is, in fact, essential, I think, to further correspondence with you.

If you demand 100% testing to determine the existence of superpowers, what is the probitive value of all your inferential statistics? Why bother with the null hypothesis, sampling and attempting to refute the null? It matters not, it seems, in your putative epistemology.

Can you help me undrstand these issues?

I extend to you the same offer extended to Lurker. I welcome you into the skeptical fold if you really want to be here.

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

I would dearly love to accept you, Thanz, Clancie and the rest of all of you "skeptics" into the fold, but I have some serious problems.

First, with you, of course....That would be nice, except that Randi didn't write "Twis Brilling" for SI, he wrote it for Skeptic. That would be Shermer's rag. And your mistake would group you in the good company, unfortunately, of Clancie, who can't tell that Shermer isn't part of CSICOP, and that O'Neill emailed Randi, and not Shermer and not CSICOP.
That's true, as far as what I said is concerned. I went by my memory (of Steve's post--not necessarily remembered correctly) rather than looking in JE's book, "Crossing Over" which gives your version. (So, Bill, you're in the "good company" of JE).

But what does my mistake have to do with Lurker? :confused: Lurker confused Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. So what? I think its a very unpleasant tactic to somehow interject me (a "woo woo") into the mix and use my goof to somehow impugn someone else's credibility as a skeptic for a much less significant error--one totally unrelated to mine in any way.

Really, tarring someone with the taint of so-called "woo-wooism" just for being confused about which skeptic magazine he saw a Randi article in...I don't like my name used that way, Bill. What a cheap shot. :(

[Walter Wayne]

I don't see what we can proove with this statistical test.

If J is the most common initial, it makes sense for a cold reader to litter his guesses with the initial J. It would also make sense that, if he were a medium, that the ghost's contacting him would most likely the initial J.

If he never guesses Asian names (I'm an X, like Xhizen or ...) it could be because:
1. As a cold reader he notices few Asians in his audience.
2. As a medium, Asian ghosts don't contact him because they go to the same mediums that Aisans go to.
3. Asian ghosts attend the taping, but remain quiet when they don't see they buddies there.

Can somebody propose a result to a statistical analysis of his guesses (not hits and misses) that would be indicticative of cold reading vs. mediumship.

The method of cold reading that yields the highest number of hits is to guess the most common initial everytime. The reason cold readers don't use this tactic is because it would be to obvious to the audience. So they try to pepper they guesses with other letters as well to through them off.

Walt

[SteveGrenard]

The short history of the matter is that at one time, long long ago both Randi and Shermer were esteemed members of CSICOP.
However these two parted company with CSICOP and went on their own: Shermer, Randi's friend, to establish the Skeptic Society and the magazine The Skeptic and Randi to Florida to establish JREF. Randi writes (e.g. works) for Shermer supplying him with a regular column feature.

O'Neill did indeed send e-mail to Randi and Randi FIRST wrote about it in a magazine called, what do you know, The Skeptic where he has a regular column. He also gave the O'Neill quotes to Jaroff who used it in his TIME column bashing JE since he had no one other than Randi (who has never set foot in JE's TV studio) to back up his assertions of hidden mics, ringers, and over-attentive staff latching on to every audience member's conversation while telling them to keep very quiet. After the TIME article appeared, Shermer, in his own editorial in The Skeptic bragged how it first appeared in his magazine. Perhaps this is what Clanci remembers.

Shermer also used the O'Neill comments it in his regular monthly column in Scientific American, crediting Randi with having received the e-mail.

Neither Shermer nor Jaroff, nor Randi for that matter, have ever mentioned O'Neill again, did any follow-up with him nor did they (Jaroff and Shermer) say they checked out O'Neill for themselves.
It would appear, therefore, that if anyone wants to, they can e-mail anything they want to Randi including unsubstantiated observations and so long as it fits with Randi's agenda it will never ever be questionned. They may even get quoted in TIME magazine!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
No, but the second claim that you do "statistics for a living" stands a bit in contrast with your first claim that you were "about to be employed" as a "geophysicist/statistician". One wonders why you didn't say "i'm about to change jobs from being a statistician to being a geophysicist/statistician.


I worded it in a way that you think could have been worded better, even though there is no contradiction. That's great. Now that that is settled, could you please get back on topic here.


One also has to wonder about someone who proposes chi-square over the entire histogram when n=85, and there are, perforce, 26 intervals. Seems bound and determined to run into the minimum of 5 problem. But that's just me.


I've stated several times to only consider the high frequency letters for a chi-square analysis. That leaves about 6 "intervals". I defined high frequency to mean letters where n*frequency of that letter > 5, to avoid the minimum of 5 problem. I wrote that a few pages back, at least twice.

Whenever I ask for a rational for choosing the Poisson, all I get is that we are studying counts. How do we know that J counts are distributed as a Poisson? What does just examining the J counts tell us? Aren't there other letters that are important? As you know, there are statistical problems with doing that single-letter test many times. Are you interested in other letters, or just the J? You don't have to answer these or take these personal. These are just some questions about your analysis that spring to mind.

[b]
I'm a bit puzzled why you don't see the relevance of Lurker's percentage comparison. Also that you didn't pick up on its inappropriateness as a tool. I'm also puzzled that you don't see the relevance of the superpowers comment to the topic at hand. It is, in fact, essential, I think, to further correspondence with you.
[b]

I am interested in ways to analyze JE's letter counts. I'm not interested in questions that get this thread away from that specfic topic. I already know under what conditions percentages can be compared, etc. If answers to those questions are essential, to you, for further correspondence with me, then you don't have to reply to me, but I will keep finding a way to analyze JE's letter counts.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
But what does my mistake have to do with Lurker? :confused: Lurker confused Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. So what? I think its a very unpleasant tactic to somehow interject me (a "woo woo") into the mix and use my goof to somehow impugn someone else's credibility as a skeptic for a much less significant error--one totally unrelated to mine in any way.

Really, tarring someone with the taint of so-called "woo-wooism" just for being confused about which skeptic magazine he saw a Randi article in...I don't like my name used that way, Bill. What a cheap shot. :( [/B]

I said his mistake grouped him with you in making a similar mistake. If you view that as "tarring", I'm not sure what to say. Now I hope that the further implications are not true. I mean, I hope Lurker really is a skeptic and not a wolf in sheep's clothing. But that would only be demonstrated by evincing an ability to self-correct in the face of evidence.

Which segues nicely back to the topic of this thread and the question of why you continue to digress onto issues of fairness and reputation and credibility and personality. And whine and whine and whine. How about we talk about the issue?

For example, where is this other LKL transcript? Please provide the link. I would be interested to add its data to the data already accrued, and see if the same "J" skewing shows.

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Steve,

Are you sure that Shermer was a member of CSICOP? I thought so, but can't find anything to support it.

On the other hand, Jaroff (like Randi) was one of the founders of CSICOP. So...definitely strong connections with Randi & O'Neill, CSICOP, Jaroff.
Posted by Steve Grenard

After the TIME article appeared, Shermer, in his own editorial in The Skeptic bragged how it first appeared in his magazine. Perhaps this is what Clanci remembers.

Shermer also used the O'Neill comments it in his regular monthly column in Scientific American, crediting Randi with having received the e-mail.
Thanks, Steve. I think you're exactly right that that was where my confusion came in as to Shermer's connection with it all.

Glad that's straightened out! :)

(And, yes, it is really strange to me, too, that so much was made of O'Neill's account...but no follow up--and nothing, really, made of the information that JE brought through for him that day. After all, the content of the reading seems the most obvious thing to attack to me, don't you think?).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So I worded it in a way that you think could have been worded better, even though there is no contradiction. That's great. Now that that is settled, could you please get back on topic here.[/b]
Oh, settled? Really? But no answer either here or in the original thread about your strange epistemic claim?
[quote]I've stated several times to only consider the high frequency letters for a chi-square analysis. That leaves about 6 "intervals". I defined high frequency to mean letters where n*frequency of that letter > 5, to avoid that problem. I wrote that out several times, and you can scroll back to read it if you'd like.
No, I saw that, T'ai. I was addressing your first proposed approach of analyzing the entire alphabet.
Whenever I ask for a rational for choosing the Poisson, all I get is that we are studying counts. How do we know that J counts are distributed as a Poisson, Bill? What does [b]just examining the J counts tell us? Aren't there other letters that are important? As you know, there are statistical problems with doing that single-letter test many times. Are you interested in other letters, or just the J?
T'ai, go back to the hypotheses. I proposed that we distinguish between the letters being truly random and the letters showing cold-reading I specifically hypothesisized that the most frequent letters would be the focal point for a cold reader. Remember the aim of a cold reader is to appear to be right often enough to fool the audience. Would he pick a lot of "Z"s.? Clearly, no. Would he necessarily know the exact distributions of frequencies? Some might, but, clearly, not necessarily. Our most likely candidate, then, to show the skew would be the most frequent intial. According to the Census bureau, that would be "J". And the data show JE used "J" significantly more frequently than would be expected by random chance.
[quote][b]I am interested in ways to analyze JE's letter counts. I'm not interested in questions that get this thread away from that specfic topic. I already know under what conditions percentages can be compared, etc.
I'm really intrigued by someone who claims to be interested in the knowledge domain, and claims to be interested in the question at hand, and yet doesn't want to examine any flawed proposals. Did you forget that the flawed percentage comparison was proffered as evidence about the data? As a scientist, I would think you would be interested. As a statistician, I would think you would be interested. Whatever.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Are you sure that Shermer was a member of CSICOP? I thought so, but can't find anything to support it.

On the other hand, Jaroff (like Randi) was one of the founders of CSICOP. So...definitely strong connections with Randi & O'Neill, CSICOP, Jaroff.

Thanks, Steve. I think you're exactly right that that was where my confusion came in as to Shermer's connection with it all.

Glad that's straightened out! :)[/b]
Oh, yeah! Of course! That explains it.

Oh, but wait, Clancie. What are O'Neill's "strong connections" to CSICOP? Oh, man, not again, Clancie!
(And, yes, it is really strange to me, too, that so much was made of O'Neill's account...but no follow up--and nothing, really, made of the information that JE brought through for him that day. After all, the content of the reading seems the most obvious thing to attack to me, don't you think?).
Speaking of follow-up Clancie, not a peep out of you about this. I repeat the post now for your dining and dancing pleasure:
Clancie,

Perhaps you can help us out here. I read your post thoroughly, and have found numerous problems with it. Something seems a bit awry with your facts. Below is a handful of your claims and excerpts from Leon Jaroff’s article. Please consider each pair a question requiring an answer, and please either:
o address the question, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or
o state that, despite the evidence to the contrary, you still wish to believe what you claimed, or
o state that you refuse to answer.

I will number them for your convenience.I will also color them for you, in this fashion: Clancie, Jaroff I have also included one of my own corrections to a clear factual error. This will be in normal color.


“It looks very much like JE did an excellent reading for the skeptical O'Neill and it didn't fit into O'Neill's worldview so he's looking elsewhere (hidden mikes) to try to explain it.”

”Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, had no preconceived notions about Edward but experienced what he is convinced was a "hot reading"--a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance.

”What he didn't mention, however, is anything about the poor content of JE's reading. After all, O'Neill was read right there on CO that day. Why doesn't he talk about the information JE gave him?”

”While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known.”

”I find it really strange that he emailed all his suspicions to CSICOP, but didn't even try to debunk JE based on the content of the reading he got from him.

"O'Neill emailed Shermer his list of speculations to "show" that JE was a fake."

"Meanwhile, O'Neill e-mailed his suspicions to the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where the Amazing Randi, a magician and skeptic, had been tracking Edward's career."

Please note that Shermer is not with CSICOP, and that, therefore your two quotes about emails above are not merely dead wrong (because O’Neill emailed Randi), but are absolutely contradictory.

Answers, please? Add to these the "strong connections" claim, please.

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
I don't see what we can proove with this statistical test.

If J is the most common initial, it makes sense for a cold reader to litter his guesses with the initial J. It would also make sense that, if he were a medium, that the ghost's contacting him would most likely the initial J.

If he never guesses Asian names (I'm an X, like Xhizen or ...) it could be because:
1. As a cold reader he notices few Asians in his audience.
2. As a medium, Asian ghosts don't contact him because they go to the same mediums that Aisans go to.
3. Asian ghosts attend the taping, but remain quiet when they don't see they buddies there.

Can somebody propose a result to a statistical analysis of his guesses (not hits and misses) that would be indicticative of cold reading vs. mediumship.

The method of cold reading that yields the highest number of hits is to guess the most common initial everytime. The reason cold readers don't use this tactic is because it would be to obvious to the audience. So they try to pepper they guesses with other letters as well to through them off.

Walt

Walt,

I agree with your description of cold reading. But I'm a little perplexed at your request. Exactly that analysis is what we're talking about. No hits or misses, just frequencies of initials guesse versus their frequencies in the population at large.

Cheers,

[SteveGrenard]

Clanci: (And, yes, it is really strange to me, too, that so much was made of O'Neill's account...but no follow up--and nothing, really, made of the information that JE brought through for him that day. After all, the content of the reading seems the most obvious thing to attack to me, don't you think?).

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

The lack of any details in the O'Neill account is mind boggling. There are clues, however, which we have discussed to distraction and beyond before and I don't want to completely derail this thread even though both subjects involve JE.

1. O'Neill says JE got multiple hits but prefaces these with the word "guess." But since we dont know what these hits were we don't know how good or how easy a guess they were. Pure opinion.

2. O'Neill says he saw a van of 15 ringers arrive in the studio and he tracked each of them so carefully he was able to say that when they got inside they were all seated separately from each other. Presumably he kept careful watch on these ringers during the whole 4 hours he was there.

I am wondering: if there were 15 ringers why did O'Neill get read instead of these 15? Was O'Neill a ringer and didn't realize it?
O'Neill never says one of these people he tracked so carefully to
their separate seats had been read at all.

3. O'Neill says there were hidden microphones. If they were hidden how did he know they existed? I was there. I saw plenty of mics, its a TV studio but none of them were "hidden." There had to be a hundred mics hanging from the ceiling to record applause and ambient sound.

4. O'Neill says that production staff tending the crowd listened to everything everyone said, implying they'd report back who said what and then where they were seated or what they looked like. But oh yes, the staff also told everyone to keep very quiet.
Geez, weren't the hidden mics working well that day?

5. And finally the only item of substance making a case for illicit editing was O'Neill's claim his head nod response to one thing was used to make something else JE said look like it was true. But, of course, O'Neill doesn't tell us what that was.

6. Why didn't Jaroff or Shermer, both of whom used Randi's account of what O'Neill said ... check out O'Neill for themselves?

Shermer was a member of CSICOP and a friend of Randi's when Randi and CSICOP parted ways, probably over the lawsuits which cost CSICOP a pretty penny in legal fees. I don't think Shermer had any high profile role in the organization compared to Randi, however. Up to a year or so ago, even though these lawsuits by now were quite old, CSICOP still was appealing for contributions to its legal defense fund. I seem to recall something like $50K needed to finish paying these off.

Clearly Shermer established the Skeptic Society, a rival of CSICOP and The Skeptic, a competitor of CSICOP's Skeptical Inquirer.

Clearly Randi writes a regular column feature for Shermer's Skeptic magazine.

Clearly Randi first quotes the e-mai he got from O'Neill in Shermer's magazine.

Clearly Jaroff was given these quotes by Randi (also mentioned separately in Jaroff's piece) to use in TIME.

After this Shermer Clearly bragged that these most important quotes first appeared in HIS magazine. He also repeats them in
his SciAm column.

The Jaroff article was the subject of a multi-person panel LKL segment. Jaroff and Randi by remote faced off JE sitting next to LKL in LKL's studio. I dont remember the other panel members--
maybe Kutz (CSICOP) and even Shermer.

Randi, Jaroff and Shermer, following the above beehive of activity
all of which coincided precisely with Crossing Over's roll out into syndication, then never mentioned O'Neill again.

However O'Neill gets quoted over and over again by uncritical skeptic thinkers who believe the acccount proves JE is a fake.
Its about the worst evidence and pile of rubbish most of us have ever seen as an attempt to debunk a medium.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

No, I saw that, T'ai. I was addressing your first proposed approach of analyzing the entire alphabet.


It is what came to my mind right away. It certainly wasn't my final thoughts on the matter. Just like your 11.05 obviously wasn't your final thought..
In my first post, I also had caveats, like np>5. In my second post, I realized that np>5 obviously wouldn't be satisfied for our sample size and probably never for letters like x and z, so I suggested considering only high frequency letters (a, c, d, j, m, r).


I'm really intrigued by someone who claims to be interested in the knowledge domain, and claims to be interested in the question at hand, and yet doesn't want to examine any flawed proposals. Did you forget that the flawed percentage comparison was proffered as evidence about the data? As a scientist, I would think you would be interested. As a statistician, I would think you would be interested. Whatever.

I guess I'm not interested in discussing flawed proposals. I wonder why.


Our most likely candidate, then, to show the skew would be the most frequent intial. According to the Census bureau, that would be "J". And the data show JE used "J" significantly more frequently than would be expected by random chance.


What do you suggest for analyzing more than one letter at a time, or do you think that that isn't necessary?

[BillHoyt]

T'ai,

You have ignored a question I would like answered. Here it is again:

"I'm also puzzled that you don't see the relevance of the superpowers comment to the topic at hand. It is, in fact, essential, I think, to further correspondence with you."

This comment pertains to these discussions, I'm afraid. Why do feel we need to test each person for "superpowers" before we can confidently say "nobody has superpowers". How does this square with being either a "geophysicist" or a "statistician."

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Well, Bill...let me make it clearer. Connections between...Randi and O'Neill (via email)...Randi and CSICOP (Randi, a founding member)....Randi and Jaroff (both founding members of CSICOP, Jaroff has written articles about Randi and, as you mentioned--along with JE--Randi emailed Jaroff the O'Neill information so he could write about it for TIME). I'd say that's all pretty "interconnected".

As for Shermer, I've already explained I was in error and clarified it.

(1) Q: It looks very much like JE did an excellent reading for the skeptical O'Neill and it didn't fit into O'Neill's worldview so he's looking elsewhere (hidden mikes) to try to explain it.”

A: My deduction, Bill, from the absence of comment on the content of O'Neill's reading (about his grandfather).

The fact he suspects "hot reading" (i.e. correct information, correct because it was researched in advance) lends credence, imo, to the idea that the reading was good. (Also, Underdown feels JE doesn't hot read on CO, according to those who have read his article--as well as in an email I have from him. You might think about that....)

(2) Q: Please note that Shermer is not with CSICOP, and that, therefore your two quotes about emails above are not merely dead wrong (because O’Neill emailed Randi), but are absolutely contradictory.

A: I stand corrected, as I've said already, Bill. As Steve mentioned, Randi wrote about it and Shermer referred to the article. O'Neill had emailed Randi...and Randi sent the email to CSICOP member (and TIME writer) Leon Jaroff.

(I am responding to your reprint above. I don't know if the original, with its "color coding" had different questions or not). I believe this answers everything above, plus clarifying for you what I meant by "strong connections" between Randi and the other three that I listed.

Steve also has clarified this in more detail for you above--about both O'Neill and Randi (except I'll add one caveat: It was Jaroff and Paul Kurtz from CSICOP--not Randi or Shermer--who were on Larry King Live for the mediumship panel discussion. Also I still haven't seen where Shermer actually is or was a member of CSICOP, although it may be so; I don't know. :p).

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
T'ai,

You have ignored a question I would like answered. Here it is again:

"I'm also puzzled that you don't see the relevance of the superpowers comment to the topic at hand. It is, in fact, essential, I think, to further correspondence with you."

This comment pertains to these discussions, I'm afraid. Why do feel we need to test each person for "superpowers" before we can confidently say "nobody has superpowers". How does this square with being either a "geophysicist" or a "statistician."

Cheers,

It's not about me, it is about choosing an appropriate statistical analysis. I'm only sticking to directly relevant topics here, and I'm not paying attention to all the rest. I haven't ignored your question; I've read it and chose to not answer it. Fortunately, everyone has that right. :kiss:

Your statement on my philosophy of science as a geophysicist(not applicable yet because I am currently not employeed as one) or statistician are not even remotely around the topic of a specific analysis of JE's letter counts, and will not be answered either.

I'm not sure just how interested you can be in my answers anyway when you add a "Whatever." at the end of a question. :roll:

Anyway, has anybody done counts of JE's use of a, c, d, m, and r? If so, I'd like to get those results and see how an analysis of more than one high frequency letter turns out and see what conclusions we can draw from that. Ideally I'd like to try and work on a model where one could predict the occurance of JE saying a certain cause of death. Some factors could be age, gender, occupation, and several others. If one could build a model that could predict the cause of death with good results, it could be fun to use.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I see you've gone from debating mediumship to debating those who criticize mediumship. From debating the issues to attempts at mudslinging. It is also easier, I guess...

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, Bill...let me make it clearer. Connections between...Randi and O'Neill (via email)...Randi and CSICOP (Randi, a founding member)....Randi and Jaroff (both founding members of CSICOP, Jaroff has written articles about Randi and, as you mentioned--along with JE--Randi emailed Jaroff the O'Neill information so he could write about it for TIME). I'd say that's all pretty "interconnected".

Well, count me in, Clancie. From this kind of reasoning, I am also "pretty interconnected" with Randi, CSICOP, Skeptic Magazine, Shermer, etc.

Originally posted by Clancie
A: My deduction, Bill, from the absence of comment on the content of O'Neill's reading (about his grandfather).

Huh?? Can we similarly conclude that O'Neill found the solutions to all the problems in the world, from the absence of comment on those problems??? You cannot reason like this, Clancie.

Originally posted by Clancie
The fact he suspects "hot reading" (i.e. correct information, correct because it was researched in advance) lends credence, imo, to the idea that the reading was good. (Also, Underdown feels JE doesn't hot read on CO, according to those who have read his article--as well as in an email I have from him. You might think about that....)

Clancie, you are clearly not capable of understanding English. I simply cannot understand how you can deduct that O'Neill got a good reading from JE. Didn't Steve confirm that one of O'Neill's answers had been changed to fit a different question? Why would that be necessary, if the reading was so good??

Why do you all of a sudden place more confidence in Underdown? Is that because he didn't find evidence of fraud? Does that mean it's not there?

Originally posted by Clancie
Steve also has clarified this in more detail for you above--about both O'Neill and Randi (except I'll add one caveat: It was Jaroff and Paul Kurtz from CSICOP--not Randi or Shermer--who were on Larry King Live for the mediumship panel discussion. Also I still haven't seen where Shermer actually is or was a member of CSICOP, although it may be so; I don't know. :p).

Go find out before you claim something, Clancie. It is very tiresome pointing out your many mistakes.

[SteveGrenard]

Clanci:

When you have the time there is a lengthy and highly detailed article on the history of the current skeptical movement
by Michael Shermer. Rather than belabor and speculate on these issues to the distraction of this thread, anybody interested in this subject can find no more comprhensive as well as authoritative account of this subject:


A Quarter Century of Science, Pseudoscience and Skepticism

By Michael Shermer

http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=13&page=1

(It also proves Michael Shermer was a CSICOP member quite early on; by the way you too and anybody who pays the dues can become a member also....)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, Bill...let me make it clearer. Connections between...Randi and O'Neill (via email)...Randi and CSICOP (Randi, a founding member)....Randi and Jaroff (both founding members of CSICOP, Jaroff has written articles about Randi and, as you mentioned--along with JE--Randi emailed Jaroff the O'Neill information so he could write about it for TIME). I'd say that's all pretty "interconnected".
My, my. This logic makes us connected. What a horrid thought.

As for Shermer, I've already explained I was in error and clarified it.

(1) Q: It looks very much like JE did an excellent reading for the skeptical O'Neill and it didn't fit into O'Neill's worldview so he's looking elsewhere (hidden mikes) to try to explain it.”

A: My deduction, Bill, from the absence of comment on the content of O'Neill's reading (about his grandfather).
You and the facts are rarely friends. In fact, you rarely even correspond. I don't think you're connected (Clancie's lexicon) to the facts. Perhaps that even says there is a clear disconnect (Clancie's lexicon) here.

You see, Jaroff clearly says O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show. None. For some reason, you presume he had. There was no "worldview" about JE. Now, secondly, Jaroff also clearly states O'Neill DID comment on the content of the readings. Including his own. Did you even read the Jaroff article? Do you remember I gave you a link to it?

The fact he suspects "hot reading" (i.e. correct information, correct because it was researched in advance) lends credence, imo, to the idea that the reading was good. (Also, Underdown feels JE doesn't hot read on CO, according to those who have read his article--as well as in an email I have from him. You might think about that....)
No inference needed, Clancie, if you'd only read the article. This is what skeptics do, dear, they investigate. They read read read read. With woos, ya buy em books and ya buy em books and all they do is chew on the covers. Please stop chewing on the covers. Its unbecoming.

(2) Q: Please note that Shermer is not with CSICOP, and that, therefore your two quotes about emails above are not merely dead wrong (because O’Neill emailed Randi), but are absolutely contradictory.

A: I stand corrected, as I've said already, Bill. As Steve mentioned, Randi wrote about it and Shermer referred to the article. O'Neill had emailed Randi...and Randi sent the email to CSICOP member (and TIME writer) Leon Jaroff.
Thank you, Clancie.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It's not about me, it is about choosing an appropriate statistical analysis. I'm only sticking to directly relevant topics here, and I'm not paying attention to all the rest. I haven't ignored your question; I've read it and chose to not answer it. Fortunately, everyone has that right.

Your statement on my philosophy of science as a geophysicist(not applicable yet because I am currently not employeed as one) or statistician are not even remotely around the topic of a specific analysis of JE's letter counts, and will not be answered either.

I'm not sure just how interested you can be in my answers anyway when you add a "Whatever." at the end of a question. :roll:
Yes, you have the right not to answer a question. And thank for stating clearly that you refuse. (That is one of the ground rules for JREF, BTW).

The problem here is that question is directly relevant to the question at hand. I can only assume your statement evinces a fundamental problem you have with statistical techniques and the techniques of science. It speaks to a bizarre epistemology wherein we are not allowed to reach any conclusions about any class of things until and unless we have tested each and every member of that class. That you can't see relevance to the question at hand is quite interesting.

You claim you are a statistician. Yet you claim the methods of statistics cannot yield the answers that statistical theory says they can yield. Why should I have further discussions about appropriate tests when you apparently think none are appropriate? You said we cannot state nobody has superpowers unless we have tested each person. If continued analysis of JE readings continues to show evidence of cold reading, will you simply fall back to your bizarre and, as yet, unexplained, claim?


Anyway, has anybody done counts of JE's use of a, c, d, m, and r? If so, I'd like to get those results and see how an analysis of more than one high frequency letter turns out and see what conclusions we can draw from that. Ideally I'd like to try and work on a model where one could predict the occurance of JE saying a certain cause of death. Some factors could be age, gender, occupation, and several others. If one could build a model that could predict the cause of death with good results, it could be fun to use.
Let me spell this out to you, T'ai. Your ideas about science and statistics are an issue, whether you want them to be or not. I conclude from your bizarre claim about the necessity for exhaustive testing, that the years of statistical training you claim were for naught. You cannot understand the methods of statistical inference and stand by the claimed need to test each person before you state there are no superpowers. You need to explain this.

Now, you have refused to answer the question, which is your right, but I refuse to discuss anything more about testing until you clarify this point. It is completely relevant to the topic here. This topic IS about superpowers and it IS about what is required to draw conclusiions from tests of supposed superpowers.

Cheers,

[SteveGrenard]

Here's a snippet from Jaroff's opinion piece on JE appearing in TIME on March 5, 2001. This is ALL of what Jaroff
used where O'Neill is concerned which differs from the material supplied by Shermer (see link below) or Randi in his column in The Skeptic.

"Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, had no preconceived notions about Edward but experienced what he is convinced was a "hot reading"--a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance. Given an extra ticket by family members hoping to hear from his deceased grandfather, O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather. While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known. It was not until weeks after the performance, when O'Neill saw the show on TV, that he began to suspect chicanery. Clips of him nodding yes had been spliced into the videotape after statements with which he remembers disagreeing. In addition, says O'Neill, most of Edward's "misses," both on him and other audience members, had been edited out of the final tape. Now suspicious, O'Neill recalled that while the audience was waiting to be seated, Edward's aides were scurrying about, striking up conversations and getting people to fill out cards with their name, family tree and other facts. Once inside the auditorium, where each family was directed to preassigned seats, more than an hour passed before show time while "technical difficulties" backstage were corrected. And what did most of the audience--drawn by the prospect of communicating with their departed relatives--talk about during the delays? Those departed relatives, of course. These conversations, O'Neill suspects, may have been picked up by the microphones strategically placed around the auditorium and then passed on to the medium. (A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism.)

Meanwhile, O'Neill e-mailed his suspicions to the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where the Amazing Randi, a magician and skeptic, had been tracking Edward's career."


However, the account given by Shermer which is now on the front page of his website differs from Jaroff's in that
it includes the additional details of O'Neill's e-mail to Randi (as supplied to Shermer by Randi). This can be found
at: http://www.skeptic.com/.

Its called "Deconstructing the Dead....."

So in discussing O'Neill, it is important not to just look at Jaroff's version but also at Shermer's as well as Randi's (In The Skeptic column) for the complete picture including the items that were
disputable such as the van of 15 ringers or "multiple GUESS hits"
etc.

[BillHoyt]

I found one LKL transcript from 1998 and collected together JE's initials (same rules I used before). In this one, there were a total of 50 names/initials thrown out by JE, of which 10 were "J"s. That makes the grand totals 28 "J"s in 135 total names/initials. We'd expect to see 18.036 "J"s with this population size. The chances of seeing 28 or more come in at p=.018.

Cheers,

[neofight]

originally posted by BillHoyt:
You see, Jaroff clearly says O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show. None. For some reason, you presume he had. There was no "worldview" about JE.

I find it amazing how anecdotal evidence, when it supports what BillHoyt et. al. wants to hear, suddenly becomes quite acceptable as evidence. What a joke!

Oh, well, if Jaroff clearly says that O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show, well, hey! Forgive us for ever doubting, oh skeptical one! :roll: ....neo

[SteveGrenard]

What's interesting about Jaroff's assertion that O'Neill claims to have had no pre-conceived notions is that this aspect of O'Neill's experience did not appear in Shermer or Randi's account. Was this merely rhetoric? Fill? Or was this actually stated by O'Neill in his e-mail to Randi? We don't see this as quotes but rather in the form of paraphrasing or editorial introduction by Jaroff.

Jaroff never says he spoke with or interviewed O'Neill. Neither does Shermer. The only original account seems to be the material pulled by Randi from the e-mail O'Neill sent. Of course we have no way of knowing which writer chose which items in that e-mail to expound on or if Shermer or Jaroff had actually seen it. They do not say they did and in every case they reference it to Randi.

I frankly don't see what difference it makes regarding O'Neill's preconceived notions if he had any. JE in his own literature tells people not to come to the experience with expectations or preconveived notions so was this remark merely following the
instructions? Generally this kind of admonition refers to not expecting anything, rather than not to be skeptical. And clearly if one has deeply rooted, ingrained worldviews as Clanci implied , the inherent bias is there whether you protest its presence or not. If one has a worldview, something much larger than a mere preconceived notion, that does not allow for what JE does, and then JE provides that person with information he could not have possibly known, it is obvious that the recipient of that inmformation, in response to their worldview, will start poking around for things to explain it. In the O'Neill's case, he seems to rely heavily on his own theory of being overheard or eaves-dropped by mics. But does O'Neill come out and say what JE told him was discussed within earshot of staff or mics beforehand? No.
This typifies what makes O'Neill's account so frustratingly nonsensical and so impossible to confirm. It is given a lot more importance than it deserves considering this.

None of O'Neills remarks, especially the details given not by Jaroff but rather by Shermer and Randi himself (in The Skeptic) makes any sense in the cold light of day.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by neofight


I find it amazing how anecdotal evidence, when it supports what BillHoyt et. al. wants to hear, suddenly becomes quite acceptable as evidence. What a joke!

Oh, well, if Jaroff clearly says that O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show, well, hey! Forgive us for ever doubting, oh skeptical one! :roll: ....neo

When will you ever overcome your cargo cult mentality. You have the words, the form, but none of the substance. You simply don't get what is wrong about anecdotal evidence. Neither do you get what just happened here and how that is not anecdotal evidence that I am presenting.

I am responding to Clancie's specious claim about O'Neill's "worldview". She has made it multiple times on JREF. She presumes O'Neill had a skeptical worldview. Newsflash, neo: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT Update, neo: JAROFF REPORTS THAT O'NEILL SAYS HE "HAD NO PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS ABOUT" JE

My exact words were "Jaroff clearly says O'Neill", etc.

Now where is your evidence that O'Neill had a "worldview" about JE? Where is Clancie's evidence that O'Neill had a "worldview"? All we have is what O'Neill says he had, as reported by his various correspondents.

Not to worry, though, neo, your bamboo logic will make a good bonfire tonight.

[SteveGrenard]

Hoyt is fond of using the cargo cult card which was thought up by Richard Feynman in a commencement address at CalTech back in 1974.

Its on the web for anyone interested:

http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html

[Clancie]

Thanks, Steve, for the multiple references re: Jaroff, Shermer et al. You're really great at getting up those links! :)

I find it astonishing that Bill insists on repeatedly quoting Jaroff
Posted by Bill Hoyt

Jaroff clearly says O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show. None.
Well, if Jaroff says someone he never even met or spoke with had "no preconceived ideas" it certainly must be a fact! No room for doubt there, right, Bill? :rolleyes:

As for my idea about O'Neill's "skeptical world view"....well, how many people go see JE and then email their thoughts to JREF? Its great Jaroff "clearly says" so much about CO when he never even attended a taping himself...and never even talked with O'Neill personally.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie, neofight,

Why do you doubt O'Neill/Jaroff when it is said that O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show?

What evidence do you have that Jaroff has gotten the wrong impression of O'Neill's stance? Have you contacted Jaroff? Randi? Anyone? What do you base it on?

That O'Neill and Jaroff are critical of JE, ergo they must be wrong by default??

It looks very much as if you are doubting the things that can cast doubt on JE, but accept anything that will show him to be a real medium. Clancie even has to invent that O'Neill's reading was "good". Without ever having seen a transcript or the actual reading on TV.

What we are seeing here is pure, fanatical believers in action. Somebody should write a psychological thesis on this.

[SteveGrenard]

Neo: Well, if Jaroff says someone he never even met or spoke with had "no preconceived ideas" it certainly must be a fact! No room for doubt there, right, Bill?

Jaroff never interviewed or met O'Neill. He called CO the day before the story was to hit the streets and read it to them on the phone. He was invited to come to the studio for himself and see if anything O'Neill allegedly theorized on was true. There was no time and Jaroff refused. Besides Jaroff wasn't even in NY, he was home, in retirement, in Boca Raton, Florida. However TIME was in NYC and if Jaroff wanted to he could have sent some editorial researchers over to the studio which was within walking distance of the TIME offices. All he wanted was a comment from them on the story and he got that in the form of JE doesn't respond to critics, etc. But in this case they did respond. The day after the story appeared they reinforced the "be very quiet" advice to guests by adding, in writing and as a verbal admonition "not to discuss anything which might come up in a reading with JE." This was a very positive response IMHO.



Neo: As for my idea about O'Neill's "skeptical world view"....well, how many people go see JE and then email their thoughts to JREF? Its great Jaroff "clearly says" so much about CO when he never even attended a taping himself...and never even talked with O'Neill personally.

Yes, not only anecdotal but hearsay as well on Jaroff's part. Plus what kind of a reporter (and this man is was a science reporter) doesn't investigate the facts first-hand? Or, if thats not possible, have a trusted aide do so for him (e.g. a TIME editorial staffer).


And neo...........
for some discourse on BAMBOO LOGIC, go to the following site and scroll down to Page 7 (paragraph 27):

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/nick/content/L_&_M_B_lecture_7.pdf

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

I found one LKL transcript from 1998 and collected together JE's initials (same rules I used before). In this one, there were a total of 50 names/initials thrown out by JE, of which 10 were "J"s. That makes the grand totals 28 "J"s in 135 total names/initials. We'd expect to see 18.036 "J"s with this population size. The chances of seeing 28 or more come in at p=.018.
Didn't you use Kerberos's numbers to start with? Which page of this thread are your totals on, if you've used different sources?

For the record, Kerberos already used both of the 1998 transcripts. The LKL one he left out was the most recent one--2003. (He did use "Regis Live" though--and a CO transcript that neo had typed up).

Interesting, Bill. I'd like to know how you got this many names/initials from 1998 (Kerberos's numbers were much like mine. Yours are FAR different). Did you use the little edited clips that LK included from CO? If so, don't you think it should consistently be the "live" readings, as there may be something about the selection process of edited clips that we don't know? Seems best to consistently get it.

Also, did you count "I'm getting an 'R' name--like Rich or Richie or Robbie" as one guess or four? (It is obviously one...a guess on initial "R" followed by some possible examples. Counting it as four different names or initials would be absurd--and not Kerberos's method either, I might add).

You see, Bill, I went and checked the tally, too.

For the first LKL transcript in 1998 (live readings), I got: 17 names and 4 guesses on "J". Very different from your "50 guesses on names and initials and 10 of them J's".

If you used the second LKL transcript, I got 27 names or initials guessed (counting things like "An 'R'--like Rob, Richie, Rich" as one, which makes sense). There was 1 "J" for that reading.

Kerberos tallied 4 LKL appearances, "Regis Live" and a transcript neo had done that was posted here....and came up with a cumulative total of 78 initials and 14 "J's" from a total of six sources.

I'd like to know how you counted just one of his six sources and came up with 50 guesses for names/initials and 10 J's.

Not to mention the fact that, if you used Kerberos's total tally 78 to begin with, you can't tally and add the same transcript in twice. :rolleyes:

[SteveGrenard]

The evidence for O'Neill's worldview is as follows:

1. He chose to send an e-mail to Randi. Does this mean
he was a Randi fan before hand? hmm that rhymes.
Does Randi have a worldview on this? Did O'Neill agree
with it?

2. O'Neill speculates, truly speculates, on the reason for the
hits JE got for him: hidden mics and eaves-dropping staffers
but then doesnt back this up by stating this was possible
because the stuff JE got was discussed beforehand by
himself and/or his family. He also credited guessing but
with no information as to what was allegedly guessed.

3. He describes reasons he believes his segment was edited
for content BUT provides no details of what that alleged
editing did in terms of details, only in general terms.

This is called being skeptical but it falls short of valid skepticism because of the absence of additional information to back up his
assertions as exemplified in #2 and #3 above.

What is wrong with a worldview that precludes the possibility that JE actually does what he purports to do? Nothing. There are plenty of people like that. What is wrong is then to speculate on
possibilities, giving no proof and failing to back up such remarks with a simple exposition of what hits or details were involved.

[Clancie]

Yes, Steve. And, Claus, I speculated that O'Neill was skeptical of JE from the outset and was throwing out every explanation for hot reading he possibly could think of because if the reading was lousy the easiest way to discredit it was to say, "I was read and he came up with nothing. Junk. Typical cold reading that had nothing to do with me."

But...no. Instead O'Neill had to say "cheating/hot reading" as the explanation for the content of his reading. To me, that means the content was probably pretty good--and therefore didn't jive with O'Neill's belief that JE was a fake. If its not dismissed as "cold reading"...hot reading is pretty much the only other choice.

Funny how it doesn't bother Bill or Claus that Jaroff assumes to know O'Neill's state of mind...without even talking with him! Clearly, its Jaroff who should be claiming the million!!!!:D

And, Steve, could you clarify this for Claus? He repeats it so often.

Posted by CFLarsen on the previous page of this thread

Clancie, you are clearly not capable of understanding English. I simply cannot understand how you can deduct that O'Neill got a good reading from JE.

Didn't Steve confirm that one of O'Neill's answers had been changed to fit a different question?
Steve, do you have some special knowledge of O'Neill's reading that allowed you to "confirm" this claim from O'Neill/Jaroff, et al? (CO denies it).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The evidence for O'Neill's worldview is as follows:

1. He chose to send an e-mail to Randi. Does this mean
he was a Randi fan before hand? hmm that rhymes.
Does Randi have a worldview on this? Did O'Neill agree
with it?

Whoa....does this mean that whoever sends Randi email is against JE? Could it be that O'Neill contacted undoubtedly the most famous skeptic and simply told his story?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
2. O'Neill speculates, truly speculates, on the reason for the
hits JE got for him: hidden mics and eaves-dropping staffers
but then doesnt back this up by stating this was possible
because the stuff JE got was discussed beforehand by
himself and/or his family. He also credited guessing but
with no information as to what was allegedly guessed.

Why is trying to find mundane explanations "speculation", Steve? Aren't you presupposing that JE is in fact a real medium?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
3. He describes reasons he believes his segment was edited
for content BUT provides no details of what that alleged
editing did in terms of details, only in general terms.

We don't know the full content of his email to Randi. Nevertheless, you confirmed that O'Neill's reading was altered from switching a no to a yes.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This is called being skeptical but it falls short of valid skepticism because of the absence of additional information to back up his assertions as exemplified in #2 and #3 above.

I think this might be the best evidence that O'Neill did NOT have preconceived notions and most certainly wasn't a skeptic. If he were, why wouldn't he use what you call "valid" skepticism?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What is wrong with a worldview that precludes the possibility that JE actually does what he purports to do? Nothing. There are plenty of people like that. What is wrong is then to speculate on
possibilities, giving no proof and failing to back up such remarks with a simple exposition of what hits or details were involved.

Where in O'Neill's account do you see that he precludes the possibility that JE actually does what he purports to do? Quite contrary, he says the exact opposite?

Try again, Steve.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
And, Claus, I speculated that O'Neill was skeptical of JE from the outset and was throwing out every explanation for hot reading he possibly could think of because if the reading was lousy the easiest way to discredit it was to say, "I was read and he came up with nothing. Junk. Typical cold reading that had nothing to do with me."

But...no. Instead O'Neill had to say "cheating/hot reading" as the explanation for the content of his reading. To me, that means the content was probably pretty good--and therefore didn't jive with O'Neill's belief that JE was a fake. If its not dismissed as "cold reading"...hot reading is pretty much the only other choice.

But isn't this what the average Joe would think? That JE was simply using previously obtained material? It speaks against O'Neill being a skeptic from the start, and even while writing to Randi, that he does NOT use the cold reading explanation. Had he gone in as a skeptic, he would have known about cold reading. And mentioned it. He did not.

Originally posted by Clancie
Funny how it doesn't bother Bill or Claus that Jaroff assumes to know O'Neill's state of mind...without even talking with him! Clearly, its Jaroff who should be claiming the million!!!!:D

Stop, stop, stop....you don't know what was in that email, and here you go, pretending you do. If Jaroff writes that O'Neill has no preconceived notions, then that's what O'Neill said.

If you have any contrary evidence - or evidence that O'Neill was critical of JE before the taping, please provide it. Put up or shut up.

[SteveGrenard]

Clancie first quoting Larsen:

C: Didn't Steve confirm that one of O'Neill's answers had been changed to fit a different question?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Clanci: Steve, do you have some special knowledge of O'Neill's reading that allowed you to "confirm" this claim from O'Neill/Jaroff, et al? (CO denies it).


I have no special knowledge. I only have O'Neill's statement as reported by Randi from O'Neill's e-mail. O'Neill CLAIMS that his segment was edited with a single head nod inserted which made it look like he was agreeing with JE when, in fact, he claims he was not. (They allegedly got the head nod from a different response which was a positive response). However, O'Neill does not tell us what it was he disagreed with that editing made it look like he agreed with.

This would be the smoking gun.

For example, and this is hypothetical to be sure, if JE said:

"Your grandpfather's name was Sean"

and it wasn't, and then the editors inserted a nod for a negative head wave or a NO, everyone who knows O'Neill and his family could back this up as an edit job. So where is the smoking gun? What monumental wrong piece of info did JE give that some editor turned into a confirmation? By not telling the public what this was even this assertion is next to meaningless.

CO was able to find the raw footage and program segment O'Neill was on and they carefully examined the aired segment and plotted the responses O'Neill gave against the information JE provided. They found no evidence that editing turned a inaccurate JE-provided piece of info into a true one so they denied this allegation in its entirety. But, in the end, as they commented to Jaroff, they really dont care and would not get bogged down in this. And neither would O'Neill apparently who submerged as fast as Randi surfaced him. There were reporters and feature writers who wanted to follow-up with him; some no doubt contacted Randi to put them in touch. I wanted to talk with O'Neill about this. I was very interested in his experience and I was and remain skeptical of JE. Nada. Nothing. The man doesn't want to talk about it anymore or, perhaps, Randi doesn't want to respond anymore either. I don't know.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

It speaks against O'Neill being a skeptic from the start, and even while writing to Randi, that he does NOT use the cold reading explanation. Had he gone in as a skeptic, he would have known about cold reading. And mentioned it. He did not.
Lol, Claus.

Here's the way O'Neill could have "mentioned cold reading without knowing about it". By writing to Randi something like the following: "He 'read' me, but there were just a lot of names thrown out that I didn't recognize, lots of attempts to fish for information from me and make it into something, lots of things that didn't make sense but which he badgered me into accepting."

In other words...he could have criticized the content of the reading he got and Randi, Jaroff, etc would have recognized all of the above (which I made up, obviously) as classic "cold reading techniques", even if O'Neill didn't.

But, he didn't criticize the content as being bad, Claus--he just tried to explain it away as the product of cheating (indicating to those with an open mind that JE did get hits that had to, from O'Neill's point of view, be "explained" as something other than spirit communication)..

And, for the record, I just can't get over how willing you and Bill are to accept Jaroff basing most of his article about JE on O'Neill's email to Randi, without even checking the source for himself (or even visiting the show to have a look)!!!!

Talk about "hearsay" evidence! But, as neo said, I guess that's okay with you, no problem, just as long as the "hearsay" and second-hand (emailed!) anecdotes are critical of JE.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


If Jaroff writes that O'Neill has no preconceived notions, then that's what O'Neill said.



Nope. That's what Jaroff wrote. The two aren't necessarily the same.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Are you saying that O'Neill was wrong about the head nod?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Here's the way O'Neill could have "mentioned cold reading without knowing about it". By writing to Randi something like the following: "He 'read' me, but there were just a lot of names thrown out that I didn't recognize, lots of attempts to fish for information from me and make it into something, lots of things that didn't make sense but which he badgered me into accepting."

In other words...he could have criticized the content of the reading he got and Randi, Jaroff, etc would have recognized all of the above (which I made up, obviously) as classic "cold reading techniques", even if O'Neill didn't.

Pure speculation and fabulation.

Originally posted by Clancie
But, he didn't criticize the content as being bad, Claus--he just tried to explain it away as the product of cheating (indicating to those with an open mind that JE did get hits that had to, from O'Neill's point of view, be "explained" as something other than spirit communication)..

Did he say that the reading was good, Clancie?

Originally posted by Clancie
And, for the record, I just can't get over how willing you and Bill are to accept Jaroff basing most of his article about JE on O'Neill's email to Randi, without even checking the source for himself (or even visiting the show to have a look)!!!!

What reasons do you have to doubt it, other that it being critical of JE?

Originally posted by Clancie
Talk about "hearsay" evidence! But, as neo said, I guess that's okay with you, no problem, just as long as the "hearsay" and second-hand (emailed!) anecdotes are critical of JE.

Not at all. But if you want to dismiss this, why don't you dismiss each and every other testimonial about JE being a real medium, then? You don't even raise doubt about them, Clancie.

So far, what you have is speculation and fabulation. No evidence whatsoever. You merely dismiss it because it is critical of JE.

[T'ai Chi]

BillHoyt wrote:


Why should I have further discussions about appropriate tests when you apparently think none are appropriate?


I have never said that I think no tests are appropriate. In fact, I've been trying to find an appropriate test.


If continued analysis of JE readings continues to show evidence of cold reading, will you simply fall back to your bizarre and, as yet, unexplained, claim?


That will be evidence against JE's being able to get messages from the dead. I'm all for an appropriate analysis. I'd think that the real question is are all of the high frequency letters used more frequently by JE? What if J is significant, but the rest aren't? That wouldn't really be strong evidence for JE cold reading. JE's cold reads, oh, but only with the letter J. Feel free to prove me wrong and publish your work, perferably in a reputable journal. I'll keep my eyes out for it.

I conclude from your bizarre claim about the necessity for exhaustive testing, that the years of statistical training you claim were for naught. You cannot understand the methods of statistical inference and stand by the claimed need to test each person before you state there are no superpowers. You need to explain this.


I'll have to contact my profs., employer, and clients right away and inform them of your startling discovery. :rolleyes: Talk about "bizarre claims".

You will now be ignored for being off topic and getting personal when it is really about certain statistical analysis.

[SteveGrenard]

I have what may be a stupid question regarding the stats on letters or names beginning with certain common letters (e.g. J names).

If J, for example, is so commonly used , some are saying that this is why JE uses Js or J names more often in a cold reading gambit compared to say Xs or Zs. Is this correct? Is this the premise?

But exactly because a J or J-name is more common than a X or a Z name, isn't this a rationale for a medium, e.g. JE, to get such names? Don't the dead have the same statistical profiles when it comes to J names as everyone? I have heard the argument that mediums get commonly known things but perhaps it is precisely because they are common. And of course I have heard the speculative argument that they get less common or extremely rare things by guessing and dumb luck. Doesn't the former make statistical and scientific sense and the latter has no scientific basis whatsoever?

So perhaps common things should be mooted and rare things be counted? Oh, but no, then we can fall back on the dumb luck guessing scenario. This is why a compendium of common and rare items, for a single sitter, is often the validating scenario rather than singling out and weighing such items as oners.
Won't the probabilities for a series of facts, some common, some rare, exceed chance if they are correct and fall below chance if they are not?

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

I have a very hard time understanding what you mean. You seem to be changing your mind about this.

An example:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have no special knowledge. I only have O'Neill's statement as reported by Randi from O'Neill's e-mail.

Yet, you know how the editors have examined the tapings:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
CO was able to find the raw footage and program segment O'Neill was on and they carefully examined the aired segment and plotted the responses O'Neill gave against the information JE provided. They found no evidence that editing turned a inaccurate JE-provided piece of info into a true one so they denied this allegation in its entirety. But, in the end, as they commented to Jaroff, they really dont care and would not get bogged down in this.

And, you had this to say earlier:

"Questions for Clancie"
Posted by SteveGrenard on 06-12-2003 09:39 PM:
His only legitimate gripe, which he would know best is because the reading was for him: that the reading was edited to take out a head nod which was negative and replace it (not clear) with nothing or a yes head nod.
Since we have no details we can't even talk about that.

So, was there evidence of the meaning of a nod being changed or not?
Do you have special knowledge or not?

I also have great difficulty sorting out what you mean about the validity of O'Neill's complaint:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
(They allegedly got the head nod from a different response which was a positive response)

You reinforce this with:

"Taken in by John Edward"
Posted by SteveGrenard on 06-27-2003 06:47 PM:
Oh, and yes, when the editors patched together the footage from 6 to 8 camera angles they placed a head nod in the wrong place in a reading, an act by the way which was easy to verify and was verified by CO, after inspecting the footage, as NOT being true.

However, you had this to say earlier:

"No general seating at John Edward Seminars"
Posted by SteveGrenard on 05-28-2003 01:12 PM:
There are no assertions in that article that make any sense or which do not contradict each other EXCEPT for the head nod complaint. I, for one, conceded way above that this was the only thing O'Neill was probably right about.

So, how can you concede that O'Neill was probably right about the head nod complaint, when you also say that the editors did not place a head nod in the wrong place in a reading? Those two contradict each other.

[SteveGrenard]

No, I am NOT saying O'Neill was wrong about the head nod. I am saying I don't know. How could "I" know if he was right or wrong? I have no special knowledge regarding the head nod.


I am, however, reporting that Crossing Over, the producers,
after subjecting the footage to careful scrutiny are saying he was wrong. The fact that O'Neill has not responded to this nor anything else concerning this, leaves the ball in his court.
I think by now all of us concerned with the O'Neill saga would love to hear what this nod was about in terms of the question or JE-provided info which is alleged to have been rejected but made to look like it was accepted. If it was some undisputable fact like his garndma's name or his father's car or favorite pasttime or whatever, then that would be the smoking gun needed to confirm CO is edited for content. But di we have this info? No. We have silence, and while ignorance may be bliss for some of us, its not the case around here.

.

[Clancie]

Posted by Steve Grenard

I have what may be a stupid question regarding the stats on letters or names beginning with certain common letters (e.g. J names).

If J, for example, is so commonly used , some are saying that this is why JE uses Js or J names more often in a cold reading gambit compared to say Xs or Zs. Is this correct? Is this the premise?

Steve,

Yes, I'd like to understand what the argument is, too.

And I hope someone can clearly state what they're trying to show about cold reading by using (only) "J" from 78 choices. It seems the idea is that JE uses it more frequently than you would expect from how often it appears in the general population. (And what population is it being compared with now? Is it still that list from the U.K.?)

Also, I know Lurker answered my question, but I didn't understand the answer. :( If JE gets "J" names more frequently than would be expected and if, hypothetically, each and everyone of them is highly significant for the sitters how does that support the cold reading hypothesis?

I mean, suppose JE is a real medium who, because his own name starts with "J", finds it easier to identify spirit names starting with "J". And if he gets 100 names and 80 of them are "J" names--every single one of them important and significant for the sitter--how does that support cold reading? (hypothetically).

And shouldn't the population sample be large enough that all intials/names could be statistically calculated from the same sample? Somehow, that just seems like a better idea, for comparison purposes. "78"?

If you can't show relevant patterns for other letters, too, maybe results for "J" would just be a fluke. Wouldn't someone naturally want to look at other letters as well?

But, ultimately, I just don't see why this supports cold reading.

[SteveGrenard]

C:So, how can you concede that O'Neill was probably right about the head nod complaint, when you also say that the editors did not place a head nod in the wrong place in a reading? Those two contradict each other.


I should have said that I conceded that this is the only thing he COULD have been right about. All his other gripes were subject to sucessful disputation. In the absence of the tape and the facts ourselves, only O'Neill (or his family/friends) could, for example, tell us if the head nod to make something look confirmed was in fact in response to something that was not true. I have no special knowledge of O'Neill's family, I did not see the aired segment in question myself, neither did Randi, Shermer or
Jaroff (or they would've said so but then why ruin a good story),
but if I had to pick out anything from all the claptrap about hidden mics, vanloads of ringers and staff taking copious mental notes and tracking people to their seats so they can be called on during the taping by JE armed with those notes, we would have to dismiss all of it save for his statement about the head nod as being the only thing about which ONeill should have certain knowledge. The fact that he has not shared that with us or with what Randi released, makes it unresolved and, at this point, ostensibly moot.

Its just not a good story as it presently stands.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No, I am NOT saying O'Neill was wrong about the head nod. I am saying I don't know. How could "I" know if he was right or wrong? I have no special knowledge regarding the head nod.

I am, however, reporting that Crossing Over, the producers, after subjecting the footage to careful scrutiny are saying he was wrong. The fact that O'Neill has not responded to this nor anything else concerning this, leaves the ball in his court.

Your explanation stinks, Steve. You are changing your mind, depending on the circumstances. You claim inside information, then you don't know any more than the rest of us. You hold opposite views, yet denies this.

How did you get this information about the producers going through the tapes? That's not "special knowledge"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I think by now all of us concerned with the O'Neill saga would love to hear what this nod was about in terms of the question or JE-provided info which is alleged to have been rejected but made to look like it was accepted. If it was some undisputable fact like his garndma's name or his father's car or favorite pasttime or whatever, then that would be the smoking gun needed to confirm CO is edited for content. But di we have this info? No. We have silence, and while ignorance may be bliss for some of us, its not the case around here.

You got that right. The fact that you choose to ignore an anecdote that says JE is a fake but choose to believe the anecdotes that say he is not says a lot about your ability to discern reality from fantasy and wishful thinking.

[Clancie]

Claus,

Take out your copy of "Crossing Over". In it, JE talks about how the producers looked into O'Neill's allegation after the Jaroff article came out.

Steve didn't say he accepted every word of the producers. He made the valid point that O'Neill could provide details of what exactly is the alleged hit (or alleged miss) that he claims was supposedly misrepresented in the CO broadcast.

However, as Steve noted, O'Neill hasn't given any specifics about the alleged misleading editing at all. :(

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Walt,

I agree with your description of cold reading. But I'm a little perplexed at your request. Exactly that analysis is what we're talking about. No hits or misses, just frequencies of initials guesse versus their frequencies in the population at large.

Cheers, Bill,

Don't worry about my question. I submitted this just before heading out, and while walking to the theatre I realized I answer my own question in the last paragraph (and it had already been answered elsewhere - stupid moment by me).

I do have one question? Given that the US census may not be an accurate demographic of a JE audience, how sensitive is the p value to variation in the distribution of J's? Suppose J frequency in his audience demographic was 1 or 2% higher, what happens to p?

I expect very little variation but I'm not entirely sure.

Walt

[SteveGrenard]

larsen: You got that right. The fact that you choose to ignore an anecdote that says JE is a fake but choose to believe the anecdotes that say he is not says a lot about your ability to discern reality from fantasy and wishful thinking.


Anecdotes are valid only when there are a lot of them and the facts they support provide weight. Take case histories of infectious diseases as an example. They are all anecdotes but if there are hundreds or thousands of them, health authorities sit up and take notice. A single case or a few cases are not as worrisome except perhaps as harbingers. The same is true of mediumship, reicncarnation case, NDEs, mediumship sessions, telepathy/ESP trials. There are tens of thousands of positive examples and almost no evidence to refute them other than worldview and bias not that I expect anyone with a contrarian worldview needs to prove a negative. I have always gone along with that.

Keep in mind that the O'Neill account was, at the time released, the only case of its kind and up to now there are perhaps one other as well of people such as Underdown who were out to investigate and debunk JE. Even this differs from O'Neill which if we are to believe Randi (and there is no reason not to) that this was a spontaneous case of a random chance attendance at a CO taping where a sitter had one and only one possibly valid objection regarding a head nod. Out of the thousands of people JE has read this is the only one. It has no weight whatsoever.
Secondly, I was, am and no doubt will continue to be personally skeptical of JE as an individual so don't presume to tell me what I accept or don't accept. However, I am not skeptical of other mediums and you know about that. Nor has anyone who has had an encounter with such mediums. Unfortunately you will not open yourself up to such an encounter, either personally or when it was handed to you on a silver platter all expenses paid.
Your loss.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

You gotta be kidding.

You choose to discard O'Neill's account, only from speculation and because O'Neill is critical of JE.

You choose to believe what John Edward says about an investigation that could possibly be damaging to his own reputation as a real medium.

How can you be so biased in favor of JE being a real medium and still refer to yourself as a non-believer? You cannot possibly argue that you are considering the data from an unbiased viewpoint.

Oh, you "forgot" a few:


Did O'Neill say the reading was good?
What reasons do you have to doubt O'Neill's account, other that it being critical of JE?
Isn't O'Neill's reaction what we could expect from an average Joe?
How do you know what was in O'Neill's email?
How do you know that O'Neill said he didn't have any preconceived notions about JE?
Why do you doubt O'Neill/Jaroff when it is said that O'Neill had no preconceived notions going into the show?
What evidence do you have that Jaroff has gotten the wrong impression of O'Neill's stance? Have you contacted Jaroff? Randi? Anyone? What do you base it on?


I'm just nipping this in the bud, Clancie, so you won't have to be "hounded" with these questions.

So, please either:

address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claims, or
state that you refuse to answer.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Anecdotes are valid only when there are a lot of them and the facts they support provide weight. Take case histories of infectious diseases as an example. They are all anecdotes but if there are hundreds or thousands of them, health authorities sit up and take notice. A single case or a few cases are not as worrisome except perhaps as harbingers. The same is true of mediumship, reicncarnation case, NDEs, mediumship sessions, telepathy/ESP trials. There are tens of thousands of positive examples and almost no evidence to refute them other than worldview and bias not that I expect anyone with a contrarian worldview needs to prove a negative. I have always gone along with that.

Steve, there are also hundred or thousands of anecdotes that UFO abductions are real. That satanic cults are sacrificing babies. That people can walk through walls. Any paranormal belief could easily round up many, many anecdotes.

Do you think that UFO abductions are real, Steve? That satanic cults are sacrificing babies?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Keep in mind that the O'Neill account was, at the time released, the only case of its kind and up to now there are perhaps one other as well of people such as Underdown who were out to investigate and debunk JE. Even this differs from O'Neill which if we are to believe Randi (and there is no reason not to) that this was a spontaneous case of a random chance attendance at a CO taping where a sitter had one and only one possibly valid objection regarding a head nod. Out of the thousands of people JE has read this is the only one. It has no weight whatsoever.

Why are you leaving out Instig8r, Jeff Corey and the others you know have been to JE performances and are critical of him? You are aware of these, yet you "choose" to ignore them.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Secondly, I was, am and no doubt will continue to be personally skeptical of JE as an individual so don't presume to tell me what I accept or don't accept. However, I am not skeptical of other mediums and you know about that. Nor has anyone who has had an encounter with such mediums.

This is not correct. It's a flat-out lie, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Unfortunately you will not open yourself up to such an encounter, either personally or when it was handed to you on a silver platter all expenses paid. Your loss.

Strange that you "forgot" to include the little fact that I had to give up my personal info to get there.

[SteveGrenard]

Strange that you "forgot" to include the little fact that I had to give up my personal info to get there.


What your name? Claus Larsen on a plane ticket, Now that you are back in Denmark, tell me how many Claus Larsen's live there and in the rest of the world? You think your name makes you unique? Claus Larsen is almost John Smith for a Scandinavian.
Put your name into Google. I did. You'll get 73,000 hits.

Also this was when you were using a fake screen name, Cantata, for whatever reason and you were accusing me of being anonymous by using my real first initial and last name which you do here (CFLarsen). So what if you had to give out your name? We could have discounted or mooted any info you got related to name or nationality. There would still have been other areas to validate or discard.

I did not leave out Inst8r or Jeff Corey. These two and no doubt many others did not randomly get a chance to attend a taping of CO (as O'Neill was). They bought tickets to pubic peformances. They were highly skeptical beforehand. They were in the class I cited as Underdown so they were not forgotten. This is a lie.
Please retract this lie immediately.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


That satanic cults are sacrificing babies?




"What I can say is I now believe that ritual-abuse programming is widespread, is systematic, is very organized from highly esoteric information which is published nowhere, has not been on any book or talk show, that we have found all around this country and at least one foreign country."
http://mentalhealth.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.heart7.net/green.html

Herein is the lecture by D.C.Hammond, originally entitled "Hypnosis in MPD: Ritual Abuse," but now usually known as the "Greenbaum Speech," delivered at the Fourth Annual Eastern Regional Conference on Abuse and Multiple Personality, Thursday June 25, 1992, at the Radisson Plaza Hotel, Mark Center, Alexandria, Virginia. Sponsored by the Center for Abuse Recovery & Empowerment, The Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C. Both a tape and a transcript were at one time available from Audio Transcripts of Alexandria, Virginia (800-338-2111). Tapes and transcripts of other sessions from the conference are still being sold but -- understandably -- not this one. The transcript below was made from a privately made tape of the original lecture.
The single most remarkable thing about this speech is how little one has heard of it in the years since its original delivery. It is recommended that one reads far enough at least until one finds why it's called "the Greenbaum speech."
In the introduction the following background information is given for D. Corydon Hammond:

B.S. M.S. Ph.D (Counseling Psychology) from the University of Utah
Diplomate in Clinical Hypnosis, the American Board of Psychological Hypnosis
Diplomate in Sex Therapy, the American Board of Sexology
Clinical Supervisor and Board Examiner, American Board of Sexology
Diplomate in Marital and Sex Therapy, American Board of Family Psychology
Licensed Psychologist, Licensed Marital Therapist, Licensed Family Therapist, State of Utah
Research Associate Professor of Physical Medicine an Rehabilitation, Utah School of Medicine
Director and Founder of the Sex and Marital Therapy Clinic, University of Utah.
Adjunct Associate Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Utah
Abstract Editor, The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis
Advising Editor and Founding Member, Editorial Board, The Ericsonian Monograph
Referee, The Journal of Abnormal Psychology
1989 Presidential Award of Merit, American Society of Clinical Hypnosis
1990 Urban Sector Award, American Society of Clinical Hypnosis
Current [now Past] President, American Society of Clinical Hypnosis

http://mentalhealth.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.heart7.net/green.html

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

If you could stick to the truth, instead of trying to change reality, it would so much more productive.


First, the "offer" was before I moved back to Denmark.
Second, travelling under a false name after 9-11 would have severe consequences for me, especially since I was not an American citizen.
Third, Claus Larsen is not the "John Smith" for a Scandinavian. You either lie or speak from ignorance.
Fourth, you did initiate an anonymous smear email spam campaign against JREF, based on your prudish attempts at silencing your critics.
Fifth, giving out my name is only the first step of finding information about me. You know this is very possible, yet you ignore it.
Sixth, you did leave out Instig8r and Jeff Corey. Don't lie, Steve. I didn't. You shouldn't either.


If you have anything to complain about, e.g. smearing your name, I urge you to contact the moderators, whose verdict I will most certainly comply with.

Go ahead. I called you a liar. If you do not take action against this, you should realize that people will see this as an acknowledgment that I was right.

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

Please give one confirmed source of a satanic cult sacrificing a baby.

[SteveGrenard]

As usual you are avoiding the issue of using your name to get on a plane to see a medium, an offer which was made to you. You ignore the fact info related just to that name could be mooted. You ignore the fact that there are many thousands of Claus Larsens, including no doubt many hundreds just in the U.S. You think that any medium using a computer could get your parent's names, your grandparent's names and other highly personal information, especially emanating from a foreign country (Denmark) and expect us to believe if he did so, he would do it by researching your not very unique name on the internet? You are more paranoid than I thought but I dont think its paranoia, I think you were afraid that you would have to face the truth that there may be something to mediumship which you might find impossible to explain. Is this right? I am sure if you wanted to you could get referrals to mediums in Denmark and see one anonymously.

I answered the question re Corey and Inst8r. Go back and read that answer. They do not compare with O'Neill. O'Neill, we are told by Jaroff and which you insist is true, had no preconceived notions. Are you saying that persons who are members of NYASK do not have preconceived notions? Are you saying Corey and Inst8r randomly got chance tickets to attend a CO taping? If
so, you are mistaken. They did not. Therefore you lied. You took their presence at fee paid seminars to be the same as O'Neill's accidental presence at a non-fee CO taping. Very different indeed.
Try and be as much a stickler for literal interpretations as you are when they suit your biases and convenience. So, please retract your lie concerning this.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hoyt is fond of using the cargo cult card which was thought up by Richard Feynman in a commencement address at CalTech back in 1974.

Its on the web for anyone interested:

http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html

It was "thought up" by the natives of New Guinea. Reports go back at least as far as Jens Bjerre's 1956 writings.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

You know very well how easy it is to find information about people online. I am not paranoid, I am simply aware of how easy it is.

Do you want to know how easy it is? I got your name, address, phone number, interests, a lot of personal info about you. You want to talk about sleep apnea or reptiles, Steve? You want to talk about selling real estate almost three years ago in Staten Island, high ranch, 8 rooms plus garage, 100 X 50+, detached, Steve? Or your call for people "who have psychic abilities who work professionally or paraprofessionally as mediums, psychics or remote viewers and who wish to help find missing persons and solve other heinous crimes"?

Dang, Steve, your whole life is out there, ready to be plucked by an unscrupulous cold reader. Just thank your deity that I am not one.

If you have anything to complain about, e.g. smearing your name, I urge you to contact the moderators, whose verdict I will most certainly comply with.

Go ahead. I called you a liar. If you do not take action against this, you should realize that people will see this as an acknowledgment that I was right.

This is the second time I urge you to do this.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Thanks, Steve, for the multiple references re: Jaroff, Shermer et al. You're really great at getting up those links! :)

I find it astonishing that Bill insists on repeatedly quoting Jaroff

Well, if Jaroff says someone he never even met or spoke with had "no preconceived ideas" it certainly must be a fact! No room for doubt there, right, Bill? :rolleyes:

As for my idea about O'Neill's "skeptical world view"....well, how many people go see JE and then email their thoughts to JREF? Its great Jaroff "clearly says" so much about CO when he never even attended a taping himself...and never even talked with O'Neill personally. [/B]

Clancie,

Are you not a native speaker of English? I never said anything approximating what you say here. YOU are the one who said O'Neill had a preconceived worldview. I have offered contrary information. You have offered.. oh, yeah.. squat.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have what may be a stupid question regarding the stats on letters or names beginning with certain common letters (e.g. J names).

If J, for example, is so commonly used , some are saying that this is why JE uses Js or J names more often in a cold reading gambit compared to say Xs or Zs. Is this correct? Is this the premise?

But exactly because a J or J-name is more common than a X or a Z name, isn't this a rationale for a medium, e.g. JE, to get such names? Don't the dead have the same statistical profiles when it comes to J names as everyone? I have heard the argument that mediums get commonly known things but perhaps it is precisely because they are common. And of course I have heard the speculative argument that they get less common or extremely rare things by guessing and dumb luck. Doesn't the former make statistical and scientific sense and the latter has no scientific basis whatsoever?

So perhaps common things should be mooted and rare things be counted? Oh, but no, then we can fall back on the dumb luck guessing scenario. This is why a compendium of common and rare items, for a single sitter, is often the validating scenario rather than singling out and weighing such items as oners.
Won't the probabilities for a series of facts, some common, some rare, exceed chance if they are correct and fall below chance if they are not?

We don't care about wading through the nonsense associated with JE's hit claims. He claims he is getting real information from real dead folk These dead folk should be calling out names that match the names of real folk, dead or alive. Therefore we should see a distribution of initials that match with initials fo real folk, dead or alive. Therefore, seeing JE call out too many of the most frequent initial says we must reject the null hypothesis that the names he calls correspond with the distribution of real names.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
I do have one question? Given that the US census may not be an accurate demographic of a JE audience, how sensitive is the p value to variation in the distribution of J's? Suppose J frequency in his audience demographic was 1 or 2% higher, what happens to p?

I expect very little variation but I'm not entirely sure.

Walt

I don't know how accurately JE's audience reflects the U.S. population at large. But concern for this is one thing that motivated people here to get U.S census figures for control.

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

YOU (Clancie) are the one who said O'Neill had a preconceived worldview. I have offered contrary information. You have offered.. oh, yeah.. squat.
Actually, I used O'Neill's comments about hot reading in support of my point (and the total absence of any comments from O'Neill criticizing the evidential information that JE gave him).

For your part, you keep mentioning....Jaroff (a man who never even talked with O'Neill) claiming....stating as a fact (without a shred of support)....that O'Neill had --in Jaroff's words--"no preconceived ideas".

And what makes you think Jaroff was qualified to claim such a thing about a man he'd never even communicated with, Bill? You keep stating it as if it's supposed to show us something. It shows, in your words to me, ....squat.

And, Bill, I hope you're not going to "overlook" the questions about your numbers for the 1998 LKL reading. I find them very...puzzling...to say the least!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Didn't you use Kerberos's numbers to start with? Which page of this thread are your totals on, if you've used different sources?[/b]
No. Try reading the posts.
For the record, Kerberos already used both of the 1998 transcripts. The LKL one he left out was the most recent one--2003. (He did use "Regis Live" though--and a CO transcript that neo had typed up).
I didn't use the same set Kerberos used. I used transcripts renata posted here at JREF. I specifically left out any heavily edited CO stuff. Read the posts on this thread.
Interesting, Bill. I'd like to know how you got this many names/initials from 1998 (Kerberos's numbers were much like mine. Yours are FAR different). Did you use the little edited clips that LK included from CO? If so, don't you think it should consistently be the "live" readings, as there may be something about the selection process of edited clips that we don't know? Seems best to consistently get it.
Yeah. Interesting how you make an assumption and then build it up! Try reading the posts.
Also, did you count "I'm getting an 'R' name--like Rich or Richie or Robbie" as one guess or four? (It is obviously one...a guess on initial "R" followed by some possible examples. Counting it as four different names or initials would be absurd--and not Kerberos's method either, I might add).
Obviously one? And a guess of "a C or a K name" is obviously, what? How about "an Ellen or Helen?" Now what? I posted my counting rules earlier in this thread. Try reading them.
You see, Bill, I went and checked the tally, too.
Tally them again after reading the whys and wherefores of my counting rules.

For the first LKL transcript in 1998 (live readings), I got: 17 names and 4 guesses on "J". Very different from your "50 guesses on names and initials and 10 of them J's".

If you used the second LKL transcript, I got 27 names or initials guessed (counting things like "An 'R'--like Rob, Richie, Rich" as one, which makes sense). There was 1 "J" for that reading.

Kerberos tallied 4 LKL appearances, "Regis Live" and a transcript neo had done that was posted here....and came up with a cumulative total of 78 initials and 14 "J's" from a total of six sources.

I'd like to know how you counted just one of his six sources and came up with 50 guesses for names/initials and 10 J's.

Not to mention the fact that, if you used Kerberos's total tally 78 to begin with, you can't tally and add the same transcript in twice. :rolleyes:


Oh, wow, thanks for the newsflash about not counting a transcript over. I would never have thought of that.

One last time, before you make a fool of yourself: read my posts. They outline what I counted, how I counted and why.

[Clancie]

Claus,

In addition to not being at a taping of CO, another difference between Instig8r and Jeff vis a vis O'Neill is....that neither Instig8r nor Jeff Corey received a reading from JE.

O'Neill did get a reading, and his lack of critical comment about the content of it (and instead spending time trying to think of ways JE could have cheated to get the information he brought through for him), to me, speaks volumes.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus,

In addition to not being at a taping of CO, another difference between Instig8r and Jeff vis a vis O'Neill is....that neither Instig8r nor Jeff Corey received a reading from JE.


Actually, Clancie, I did attend a taping of CO. The seminar at Westbury Music Fair was videotaped, heavily edited, and then broadcast on television.

And, I guess I can also claim that I received a reading, although in a roundabout sort of way. The "Malibu Shrimp" reading, as performed live at Westbury, did not suit me at all. However, the edited version fit me like a glove.

Go figure! :)

[Clancie]

Posted by Instig8r

Actually, Clancie, I did attend a taping of CO. The seminar at Westbury Music Fair was videotaped, heavily edited, and then broadcast on television.
Well......I think a seminar of 2000 people taped and edited for broadcast is a bit different from a CO taping with an audience of 200...but I understand your point.


And, I guess I can also claim that I received a reading, although in a roundabout sort of way. The "Malibu Shrimp" reading, as performed live at Westbury, did not suit me at all. However, the edited version fit me like a glove.

Mmmm.....Not quite your own reading like O'Neill got, g8r. Sorry. :( But you ARE the acknowledged "Queen of the 'Me-Toos"! :)

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Clancie

Mmmm.....Not quite your own reading like O'Neill got, g8r. Sorry. :( But you ARE the acknowledged "Queen of the 'Me-Toos"! :)

Very true, Clancie-- My title is very important to me!

Seriously, though, when JE gave the live reading of Deborah (of "Malibu Shrimp" fame), she wasn't able to validate much of what JE said. Neither was I.

Thereafter, when the edited reading appeared on television, it was rearranged. In the edited version, Deborah was shown validating lots of things. How odd that I, too, was able to validate lots of things in the edited reading.

It was the editing that accounted for the differences when the reading went from "live" to "edited". I was thereby able to observe, firsthand, that the reading was edited for content.

[SteveGrenard]

inst8r: Thereafter, when the edited reading appeared on television, it was rearranged. In the edited version, Deborah was shown validating lots of things. .

So in the above you are saying the things JE said which were wrong were being shown as being acknowledged as true by this Deborah person? You are saying they took her no answers and somehow turned them into yes answers?



How odd that I, too, was able to validate lots of things in the edited reading

This I have a harder time understanding. Now you are saying not only the above but somehow whatever JE said as information given live and was rejected by you somehow made sense to you when you saw it recorded. Are you suggesting they not only edited the reading but that from the JE side, they substituted or put in new material as well? Can you explain perhaps in more detail how this was possible? Or perhaps there was a more parsimonious and mundane explanation like the fallibility of your memory?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, I used O'Neill's comments about hot reading in support of my point (and the total absence of any comments from O'Neill criticizing the evidential information that JE gave him).[/b]
I see. So your standard for evidence that he had a bias going in is his comments coming out? So anybody unhappy or suspicious coming out was, ipso facto, biased? Do you know what the post hoc fallacies are all about? Do you know you just committed one?
For your part, you keep mentioning....Jaroff (a man who never even talked with O'Neill) claiming....stating as a fact (without a shred of support)....that O'Neill had --in Jaroff's words--"no preconceived ideas".
No, dear. I did not state that O'Neill had no predisposition was a fact. I stated that Jaroff's reportage was a fact. You have now committed a post hoc fallacy and entered it as your sole "fact".
And what makes you think Jaroff was qualified to claim such a thing about a man he'd never even communicated with, Bill? You keep stating it as if it's supposed to show us something. It shows, in your words to me, ....squat.
You seem to be forgetting that YOU made the claim. Standard rules apply. Support your claim that O'Neill was biased going in. Your post hoc is fallacious reasoning.

[Clancie]

Bill,

You seem to have a hard time understanding reasoning that doesn't match your memorized paradigms. Let me try it another way....

O'Neill went to CO. He was suspicious to notice people arriving together. He apparently lies about cards being handed out so "aides" could give JE information about the audience in advance. Also after his reading, he speculates extensively...about hidden microphones, "ringers"..."info cards"...all this as a way of accomplishing one thing...impugning JE's reading and saying CO was researched and staged. (Which a more rigorous critic--Underdown--disputes, btw).

Other than one editing example (which O'Neill oddly gives no details of) he does not say that JE's reading of him was incorrect in any way. Do you acknowledge that? If JE's reading was bad, why (with all his OTHER criticisms) wouldn't O'Neill mention that one?

From the point of view of someone criticizing JE it seems odd not to criticize the reading itself. Unless, of course, the information given O'Neill was good.

In fact, so it would seem...that it was good...since he doesn't say it wasn't (while criticizing everything else about CO he can imagine--mikes, ringers, aides "scurrying" with cards, etc.)

If you get a good reading from a medium....usually people feel pleased. O'Neill seems to take his reading and need to "explain it away" by attributing it to hot reading. Why? Because he probably went in already thinking JE was a fake. Hot reading is the only other explanation for fraud if you can't attribute it to cold reading.

As for Jaroff....you keep quoting Jaroff saying that "O'Neill had no preconceived ideas". Yet he never TALKED with O'Neill at all, Bill!!!

WHY, then, do you keep on quoting Jaroff if your intention is NOT to give his remark about O'Neill some weight. Bill? Seriously, what's your point, then?

[BillHoyt]

Somebody start another scorecard for this poor misguided woman.

Originally posted by Clancie
O'Neill went to CO.
A hit! Yes, a hit for Clancie! Knocked it clean out of the park. He went to CO!
He was suspicious to notice people arriving together.
Uh, before he saw the edited show? Please cite the evidence, Clancie. We need a ref here. Ref?
He apparently lies about cards being handed out so "aides" could give JE information about the audience in advance.
Were you there at this show's taping? Please cite the evidence, Clancie. We need a ref here.
Also after his reading, he speculates extensively...about hidden microphones, "ringers"..."info cards"...all this as a way of accomplishing one thing...impugning JE's reading and saying CO was researched and staged. (Which a more rigorous critic--Underdown--disputes, btw).
Subject/Motive shift, Clancie. This is fallacious. Strike!
Other than one editing example (which O'Neill oddly gives no details of) he does not say that JE's reading of him was incorrect in any way. Do you acknowledge that? If JE's reading was bad, why (with all his OTHER criticisms) wouldn't O'Neill mention that one?
Strike Two! "O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather.

While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known."

I have given this to you before, Clancie. Please keep up with the evidence.

From the point of view of someone criticizing JE it seems odd not to criticize the reading itself. Unless, of course, the information given O'Neill was good.

In fact, so it would seem...that it was good...since he doesn't say it wasn't (while criticizing everything else about CO he can imagine--mikes, ringers, aides "scurrying" with cards, etc.)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I won't bother corresponding with you if you won't bother reading it! I've posted this CLEAR REFUTATION of your balderdash twice. From here on out, I will simply link you to my previous posts.
If you get a good reading from a medium....usually people feel pleased. [quote]
And this appeal to popularity is what? Oh, strike THREE. Another fallacy! The crowd goes wild, but wait, they're sending Clancie back up! Boos and hisses from the crowd.
[quote] O'Neill seems to take his reading and need to "explain it away" by attributing it to hot reading. Why? Because he probably went in already thinking JE was a fake. Hot reading is the only other explanation for fraud if you can't attribute it to cold reading.
Oh, another strike for Clancie's second time at bat. This is a continuation of your post hoc reasoning. You don't have any evidence to support your smears, do you? Where have you yet given any legitimate evidence for the claim that O'Neill came in with this "bias"?
As for Jaroff....you keep quoting Jaroff saying that "O'Neill had no preconceived ideas". Yet he never TALKED with O'Neill at all, Bill!!!
What is this? A twisted appeal to authority! Because someone didn't have a firsthand conversation doesn't mean they are reporting the facts incorrectly. Another fallacy. And Clancies gets strike two for her second at-bat.
WHY, then, do you keep on quoting Jaroff if your intention is NOT to give his remark about O'Neill some weight. Bill? Seriously, what's your point, then?
Strike three! A horrid attempt to turn the onus around. The onus is on you. That's with an "o", dear, although with an "a" it is also an apt description of one who's reasoning is this primitive. You have one of the finest minds of the Precambrian era, dear.

Now try to stay with the facts. Read what I wrote. Read what Jaroff wrote. Stop arguing in circles. Remove the illogic and start again.

Find a single shred of valid evidence to support your smear of O'Neill. Something he wrote prior to the CO show. Something he said prior to the CO show. This post hoc pap may work with your koffe klatch buds, but it won't fly here. This attempt to put the onus on us when it is your specious claim, backed by squat that has you whirling like a Dervish. When your room stops spinning, give it another go.

[Clancie]

Posted by Clancie

WHY, then, do you keep on quoting Jaroff if your intention is NOT to give his remark about O'Neill some weight. Bill? Seriously, what's your point, then?
And what is your response to this question, Bill?
Posted by Bill Hoyt

Strike three! A horrid attempt to turn the onus around. The onus is on you. That's with an "o", dear, although with an "a" it is also an apt description of one who's reasoning is this primitive. You have one of the finest minds of the Precambrian era, dear.

Now try to stay with the facts. Read what I wrote. Read what Jaroff wrote. Stop arguing in circles. Remove the illogic and start again.
No surprises here (except for a change in the insulting tone). Its the typical non-responsive kind of "answer" to questions that you specialize in, Bill, regardless of the topic.

Same old, same old.

(And by continuing to invoke Jaroff you show you really have no concept of proper journalistic procedure whatsoever. "Checking sources", Bill. That's what responsible journalists do.... FYI).

[SteveGrenard]

Bill.......forget about Jaroff for a moment. He was third-hand.
Randi got it first (his column is not, unfortunately online from the Skeptic), Shermer next (which is online below) and then Jaroff:

Go to the following website:

http://www.skeptic.com/


Scroll down to the article that starts out "Deconstructing the Dead....." and Cick on the MORE button

Scroll down about 3 paragraphs to the bit about O'Neill.
hopefully this will answer your questions..........................

As anyone can plainly deduce after reading Shermer and Randi's original column, Jaroff's piece was a rehash, paraphrased and contained assumptions that were not in the original reports.
He sources Randi for O'Neill and clearly never spoke with him himself or he would've quoted O'Neill directly. However, even though Jaroff cites Randi, he leaves out several of the items both Randi and Shermer included. This may be due to the tight space requirements imposed by TIME magazine.

But he adds but does not actually quote other things. You need to compare all three accounts. Sorry I cannot give you an online version of Randi's column. I checked Skeptic's online archives and it isnt there.

[BillHoyt]

Grenard / Clancie / Woos of all ages,

Who gives a flying pig whether Jaroff's article was firsthand or derived from another article? That is not bad journalism, Clancie.

Grenard / Clancie - cough up some evidence for Clancie's outlandish claims that O'Neill went in biased. Cough up some evidence that O'Neill did not comment on the bad parts of the reading. Cough up some evidence that O'Neill did not comment on the good parts of the reading.

I am fed up with these smear tactics, and drive-by assertions. You have not offered one shred of evidence in support of them. Neither one of you has. And, Grenard, your post is over the top. "Oh, go here, you'll see what Clancie is talking about, but you really need to compare all three accounts. I can't get them for you, though." That is lame-brained, and bordering on the McCarthyesque.

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

"You really need to compare all three accounts. I can't get them for you, though."

That is lame-brained, and bordering on the McCarthyesque.
:dl:


...invective galore, but still no response.....

[SteveGrenard]

Okay, I'll help you out even though I dont understand how McCarthy is related to this. Here ix what Jaroff said about
O'Neill, all of it in his TIME piece:

"Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, had no preconceived notions about Edward but experienced what he is convinced was a "hot reading"--a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance. Given an extra ticket by family members hoping to hear from his deceased grandfather, O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather. While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known. It was not until weeks after the performance, when O'Neill saw the show on TV, that he began to suspect chicanery. Clips of him nodding yes had been spliced into the videotape after statements with which he remembers disagreeing. In addition, says O'Neill, most of Edward's "misses," both on him and other audience members, had been edited out of the final tape. Now suspicious, O'Neill recalled that while the audience was waiting to be seated, Edward's aides were scurrying about, striking up conversations and getting people to fill out cards with their name, family tree and other facts. Once inside the auditorium, where each family was directed to preassigned seats, more than an hour passed before show time while "technical difficulties" backstage were corrected. And what did most of the audience--drawn by the prospect of communicating with their departed relatives--talk about during the delays? Those departed relatives, of course. These conversations, O'Neill suspects, may have been picked up by the microphones strategically placed around the auditorium and then passed on to the medium. (A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism.)


And here is what Shermer said about the same subject, all of it in his article. I compared it with my copy of The Skeptic with Randi's artice and it is identical. It should be since Shermer is the Editor of The Skeptic. Compare Jaroff with what Shermer and Randi wrote.It is the same direct O'Neill quote which Jaroff does NOT use.

"I was on the John Edward show. He even had a multiple guess "hit" on me that was featured on the show. However, it was edited so that my answer to another question was edited in after one of his questions. In other words, his question and my answer were deliberately mismatched. Only a fraction of what went on in the studio was actually seen in the final 30 minute show. He was wrong about a lot and was very aggressive when somebody failed to acknowledge something he said. Also, his "production assistants" were always around while we waited to get into the studio. They told us to keep very quiet, and they overheard a lot. I think that the whole place is bugged somehow. Also, once in the studio we had to wait around for almost two hours before the show began. Throughout that time everybody was talking about what dead relative of theirs might pop up. Remember that all this occurred under microphones and with cameras already set up. My guess is that he was backstage listening and looking at us all and noting certain readings. When he finally appeared, he looked at the audience as if he were trying to spot people he recognized. He also had ringers in the audience. I can tell because about fifteen people arrived in a chartered van, and once inside they did not sit together."

[Clancie]

Thanks for posting that, Steve. I always get a laugh from this:
From Michael O'Neill

They told us to keep very quiet, and they overheard a lot.

[Clancie]

And, g8r (re: Malibu Shrimp, etc.)....

What I always find most interesting about it is how you and neo went together, sat through the same reading, saw the same version of CO later on....and have such completely different impressions of the entire experience.

I don't personally have an explanation for it. But, yes, I do find it extremely interesting....

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I see you are back to moving the ol' goal posts again. Now, a person has to get a reading. Now, a reading has to be "quite like" O'Neill's. You don't specify how it must be "quite like", though.

You have to understand that in order for your argument to hold water, you have to state beforehand what the criteria are. You cannot say "Condition X" and then, when condition X is met, say "But Condition Y also!"

I know why you don't want to do this. You won't have "outs" anymore. But that's the way things are.

Now, to get back to your claim: Please provide your evidence that O'Neill had preconceived notions before going to the taping.

Whatever happened at the taping is not admissible. Before, Clancie. Not during or after. It doesn't matter what O'Neill discovered. It doesn't matter what he told Randi, et al.

Before, Clancie.

That was your claim. Now, put up or shut up. And work on your understanding of logical fallacies.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

How do you expect people to compare all three accounts if you can't even get them yourself?

You very often refer to data, which you have, which proves your point, but nobody else can get.

It doesn't work here. Present your data or retract. Put up or shut up.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie

:dl:


...invective galore, but still no response..... [/B]

You can't read, can you? I'm sorry to hear that. I'll make it bigger for you:

<marquee>Writing an article that reports on another report is not bad journalism. </marquee>

If you look at it a bit, it will march by many times and the message may sink in.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt



<marquee>Writing an article that reports on another report is not bad journalism. </marquee>



<marquee>That's right, it far worse than that, it is extremely sloppy, anecdotal journalism. </marquee>

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Idiotic response he will soon regret

So glad you decided to play, Luci! Please cite references in support of your claim that writing an article about another report is "extremely sloppy" journalism.

Good luck.

[Clancie]

Good journalists check their sources at least twice, Bill.

Beyond that, what I object to most is that in his article Jaroff never represents his source accurately. He never says, "In an email to James Randi, a man named Michael O'Neill claimed....." etc.

He just presents O'Neill's points as if Jaroff himself had first hand knowledge of O'Neill, giving the false impression that O'Neill's comments were produced by Jaroff's own research.

But they weren't, Bill. And Jaroff didn't even properly note the source, while essentially basing his entire article on the second hand account of someone he'd never talked with! After all, email accounts can be easily fabricated--this wasn't, but Jaroff took that part on faith, without checking his source at all, while still basing his criticism on what O'Neill had supposedly told Randi via the Internet.

If TIME had, instead, based the article on the unexamined comments of a believer who attended a taping, it would have been equally irresponsible.

Sloppy, sloppy.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

You may think that it was sloppy journalism. That's fine. Now, back to your claim:

Please provide your evidence that O'Neill had preconceived notions before going to the taping.

Whatever happened at the taping is not admissible. Before, Clancie. Not during or after. It doesn't matter what O'Neill discovered. It doesn't matter what he told Randi, et al.

Before, Clancie.

That was your claim. Now, put up or shut up.

Oh, I just saw your sig:

From CFLarsen: "Better include my name (in your sig line), just to drive your point home."

Per your above request, Claus, you're now back on my "Ignore" list (of one).

I have honestly lost count of the times you have put me on ignore, but I have to smile when you complain about me making personal attacks on you. If that sig is not a personal attack on me, then I don't know what is! The only one you ignore (repeatedly) is me. You want to talk to me, but I can't talk to you. Awww, Clancie...that's sweet.....dumb, but sweet.... :D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Good journalists check their sources at least twice, Bill.

Beyond that, what I object to most is that in his article Jaroff never represents his source accurately. He never says, "In an email to James Randi, a man named Michael O'Neill claimed....." etc.
His source was Randi. He says so, here:
"Meanwhile, O'Neill e-mailed his suspicions to the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where the Amazing Randi, a magician and skeptic, had been tracking Edward's career. Some of what Randi has learned is scheduled to be aired this week on Inside Edition, in what will probably be the first nationally televised show to take a skeptical look at the Edward phenomenon."

If you see this article as claiming he spoke directly with O'Neill, that is your inference, not Jaroff's implication. There is an immense difference.
He just presents O'Neill's points as if Jaroff himself had first hand knowledge of O'Neill, giving the false impression that O'Neill's comments were produced by Jaroff's own research.

But they weren't, Bill. And Jaroff didn't even properly note the source, while essentially basing his entire article on the second hand account of someone he'd never talked with! After all, email accounts can be easily fabricated--this wasn't, but Jaroff took that part on faith, without checking his source at all, while still basing his criticism on what O'Neill had supposedly told Randi via the Internet.

If TIME had, instead, based the article on the unexamined comments of a believer who attended a taping, it would have been equally irresponsible.

Sloppy, sloppy.
Your thinking is the only sloppy thing I see here. All you present is inuendo and insinuation. You simply cannot tell fact from your own fiction. That is immensely sad.

[Clancie]

No, Bill, Jaroff doesn't say his source was Randi. He says O'Neill emailed Randi. The way he wrote it, O'Neill could have just described doing that to Jaroff. Jaroff doesn't make it at all clear that he's quoting someone whose story he has never personally checked on, a stranger to him who had emailed his "suspicions" to someone else.

And here's another area of disagreement.....

[Clancie]

Your Tally of JE's 1998 Transcript (and others)
Posted by Bill Hoyt

I re-worked the transcripts and came up with different results and a different method. Here it is, in a nutshell:

...I excluded the CO show data, and concentrated solely on the available, unedited transcripts from LKL, etc.
Fine.


I looked at JE's style and adjusted the counting procedure as follows:
o I counted all of his name guesses
o Whether he stated them as names or initials, I counted them
o I excluded impossible-to-deal-with things such as "a B softened by a vowel," and chalked that up to a "B" guess.
o I included even bizarre names such as "pepper", "salt", "brooklyn" and other nickname guesses, except that
o I only counted "Liz", "Elizabeth" type guesses as the full given name, and did not also count an "L". but
o When JE recited a littany of names, I counted each one, whether they had the same initial or differing initials (again excluding the "Liz/Elizabeth, Ronny/Ronald, and Bill/William" type guesses, where I only counted the intial of the full given name.

Sound a bit complicated? You should read the transcripts. I could not see another way to approach things fairly given that sometimes he was all over the board.
Actually, they weren't hard to tally at all, Bill. My numbers were very close to Kerberos's. The only issue that I saw was that he gets sounds not initials, so he might say its a "C or K" when he's getting a hard 'C'. But whether those go as "C or K" that's irrelevant to your "J" count anyway.

The BIG problem with your method is this choice:


o When JE recited a littany of names, I counted each one, whether they had the same initial or differing initials
This is very strange, Bill. So if JE said, "I'm getting an 'R' name--like Rob, Rich, or Richie"--you counted it as four different guesses?

That doesn't even make sense, especially since you are only interested in the frequency he suggests certain letters of the alphabet. Clearly he is saying, "Does the letter 'R' mean anything to you?" then giving several possibilities of names that begin that way. Counting them all individually just inaccurately inflates your total.

That's why Kerberos tallied 6 different JE appearances and got a cumulative total of 78 intials. You used just one of those LKL transcripts and got 50 "names and/or initials"--2/3's of Kerberos's total from just that one appearance alone!

A very misleading method, Bill.

(And, fyi, on the first 1998 appearance I got:

17 letters/names and 4 of them J's....

Second 1998 appearance:

10 guesses and 1 of them was "J")

It makes no sense (unless one wants inflated results) to take JE's asking one sitter "Is it a 'J' name for her, like Jenna, Jessie, Jessica" and count it as four separate "cold reading guesses" for the letter 'J".

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
No, Bill, Jaroff doesn't say his source was Randi. He says O'Neill emailed Randi. The way he wrote it, O'Neill could have just described doing that to Jaroff. Jaroff doesn't make it at all clear that he's quoting someone whose story he has never personally checked on, a stranger to him who had emailed his "suspicions" to someone else.

And here's another area of disagreement.....

Fine. Then you want to persist in this characterization of Jaroff as a sloppy journalist. Let us look at your claim that O'Neill had preconceived notions, and let's have you give evidence that that slob, Jaroff, was wrong in his statement.

Now not your fallacious ad hoc reasoning previously given, but good a priori evidence of O'Neill's preconceived notions. Anything from him in writing? Anything with hard information? Any interviews where he gives away his bias. Again, not post hoc.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Your Tally of JE's 1998 Transcript (and others)

Fine.
[/B]
Actually, they weren't hard to tally at all, Bill. My numbers were very close to Kerberos's. The only issue that I saw was that he gets sounds not initials, so he might say its a "C or K" when he's getting a hard 'C'. But whether those go as "C or K" that's irrelevant to your "J" count anyway.[/b]
First of all, thank you for verifying that Kerberos' procedure was correct. Are you now conceding that his results were significant?

But, wow. Do you think before you spout? What is the denominator, dearie? How is the total count even remotely irrelevant?

[/B]
This is very strange, Bill. So if JE said, "I'm getting an 'R' name--like Rob, Rich, or Richie"--you counted it as four different guesses?

That doesn't even make sense, especially since you are only interested in the frequency he suggests certain letters of the alphabet. Clearly he is saying, "Does the letter 'R' mean anything to you?" then giving several possibilities of names that begin that way. Counting them all individually just inaccurately inflates your total.[/b]
What total, Clancie? You just contradicted yourself. At first you said it is irrelevant. Now you say it "inflates your total." There are two totals here, aren't there? It inflates them both, dear. One is the denominator.

A very misleading method, Bill...

It makes no sense (unless one wants inflated results) to take JE's asking one sitter "Is it a 'J' name for her, like Jenna, Jessie, Jessica" and count it as four separate "cold reading guesses" for the letter 'J".

Misleading, really? But I put it right out here in front of you, told you exactly what , why and how. Now let us look deeper at your flawed analysis:

- How do you count "Ellen or Helen"? "E" or "H"? My, my, what to do?
- How do you count "C or K name?" "C" or "K". My, my, what to do?
- How do you past the "spice name" thing, where he rattles off "pepper" and "cinnamon", etc.? One guess, two, four? Which letter, dearie, which letter?
- Now how about an "N" name, but softened with a vowel. Now what?
- Finally, how do you get past his sometimes using one letter, but clearly saying there are two people behind it?

There are multiple examples of JE doing exactly those things. All of them present problems for interpretation and counting. I corrected for these interpretation problems.

[T'ai Chi]

Clancie,

Regarding Bill's: "When JE recited a littany of names, I counted each one, whether they had the same initial or differing initials", I think that it could be done better.

I would not count them when JE says a series of names with differing initials, ie 'Helen? Ellen?' Or, I would be consistent, and always count the first or last of JE's names.

As far as counting 'Robert? Richard? Rick? Randi?' as 4 uses of R, it seems more reasonable to only count that as 1 use of R, because the only thing that is not changing in JE's guess is the leading R. Doing otherwise could obviously inflate the letter count too drastically.

[Clancie]

First, Bill, please stop calling me "dear" and "dearie". I'm not your grandmother and I'm not (thankfully) your wife.

Second....
Posted by Bill Hoyt

Misleading, really? But I put it right out here in front of you, told you exactly what , why and how. Now let us look deeper at your flawed analysis:

- How do you count "Ellen or Helen"? "E" or "H"? My, my, what to do?
Actually (not that it matters in terms of what you're looking at) but in that instance I listed "Ellen or Helen" as a single guess and tallied that pattern separately. Since, as you say, they only become part of the denominator in terms of what you're looking at, what difference does it make?

(In reality, those who understand the "process" might count them as "L", since--as I've told you, JE works more with sounds than with letters. But...for what you're looking for...counting them as "E" or "L" makes no difference whatsoever--as long as one is consistent)

- How do you count "C or K name?" "C" or "K". My, my, what to do?
Again, not hard Bill. I listed "C or K" separately and added them to the denominator. If we were counting more than "J's" I'd probably advocate more of a phonics-based system. But (especially with the absence of soft "g" names in the readings we have, for your purposes in tallying 'J's" this is another totally irrelevant question. Whether "C" or "K" it goes into the denominator).
- How do you past the "spice name" thing, where he rattles off "pepper" and "cinnamon", etc.? One guess, two, four? Which letter, dearie, which letter?
Well, since we're looking at how often he uses initials, I think that shouldn't even be included. That was clearly JE getting something from a symbol not a letter or sound--which is the category you claim to be looking at. If he had come up with the correct name, "Ginger", we could have counted it. But he didn't. The sitter did--from the spice symbolism, not from a name or intial. It stays out.)
- Now how about an "N" name, but softened with a vowel. Now what?
"N". How hard was that? :confused: (Besides, again, you're only interested in two tallies: denominator (made up of all the letters) and numerator with "J's". So what if "N" is softened? Its still is part of the overall total in the denominator, Bill.
Finally, how do you get past his sometimes using one letter, but clearly saying there are two people behind it?
Two people behind it? What do you mean? LIke "It's 'J', like Jack or Jake...could it be your father or brother?"

Again, easy as pie. It would be one guess for the letter 'J', and then left up to the sitter to figure out who the name connects with (JE just makes suggestions. If he said, "I have two men, both with "J-O" names, then obviously that goes down as two 'J's').
There are multiple examples of JE doing exactly those things. All of them present problems for interpretation and counting. I corrected for these interpretation problems.
I don't think they're problems, and I disagree that your method corrected for them.

To remind you....my objection is to inflating your total by counting "There's an 'R' name here, like Robbie, Rob, Rich, Richie" as 5 separate "R" guesses instead of one. He's clearly saying someone (someone) has a name that starts with an "R".

Its one guess, Bill. Not five.

[Clancie]

Posted by T'ai Chi

As far as counting 'Robert? Richard? Rick? Randi?' as 4 uses of R, it seems more reasonable to only count that as 1 use of R, because the only thing that is not changing in JE's guess is the leading R. Doing otherwise could obviously inflate the letter count too drastically.
Thank you, T'ai Chi. That is exactly my point.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


- How do you count "Ellen or Helen"? "E" or "H"? My, my, what to do?
- How do you count "C or K name?" "C" or "K". My, my, what to do?

I counted both E and H or C and K, though perhaps counting half an E and half an H would be more correct.

Originally posted by BillHoyt

- How do you past the "spice name" thing, where he rattles off "pepper" and "cinnamon", etc.? One guess, two, four? Which letter, dearie, which letter?

I didn't include this since it was a nickname, and thus might not have the same letter-distribution as the overall population.

Originally posted by BillHoyt
- Now how about an "N" name, but softened with a vowel. Now what?

I ignored the vowel and counted the N.

Originally posted by BillHoyt
- Finally, how do you get past his sometimes using one letter, but clearly saying there are two people behind it?[/B]

Just counted the letter and ignored that there were two people.

Originally posted by BillHoyt
There are multiple examples of JE doing exactly those things. All of them present problems for interpretation and counting. I corrected for these interpretation problems. [/B]

I agree that tallying is difficult, but if you count "Rob, Rich, or Richie" as 3 names then you're creating a false null-hypothesis because this is seen from a believer point of view only one name that JE doesn't hear very well.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Kerberos

I counted both E and H or C and K, though perhaps counting half an E and half an H would be more correct.

Hi, Kerberos. I agree with Clancie that categorizing these names becomes problematic, since as she states, JE *hears* these names as thoughts, so there definitely is a phonetic component to this.

For instance, although JE will hear "Ellen" or "Helen" as a prominent "L" sounding name, the names themselves, begin with and "E" and an "H", respectively, so how can you classify a name beginning with "E" or "H", as a name beginning with an "L"?

In the case of names such as "Carl" and "Kelly", even though they are both begin with the same hard sound, they both begin with completely different letters, so, basically, the same problem exists.

Again, the problem occurs with names such as "Joe" and "Gina" as well. Same sound, different letters. That makes for confusion, and inaccurately classifying names under the wrong letters, which would definitely skew the numbers for any given category affected by this complication.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem right that names beginning with vowels, but containing an "N", be counted among the "names beginning with 'N' category" does it? Names like Eunice or Annette, afterall, do not begin with an "N", so I'm not sure how you could simply drop the vowel entirely.

I definitely agree with both you and Clancie that you cannot count "Rob, Rich, Richie, who's the 'R' name here?" as four "R" names, since JE is quite clearly simply looking for one person whose name begins with an "R". :) .......neo

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by neofight


Hi, Kerberos. I agree with Clancie that categorizing these names becomes problematic, since as she states, JE *hears* these names as thoughts, so there definitely is a phonetic component to this.

For instance, although JE will hear "Ellen" or "Helen" as a prominent "L" sounding name, the names themselves, begin with and "E" and an "H", respectively, so how can you classify a name beginning with "E" or "H", as a name beginning with an "L"?

In the case of names such as "Carl" and "Kelly", even though they are both begin with the same hard sound, they both begin with completely different letters, so, basically, the same problem exists.

Again, the problem occurs with names such as "Joe" and "Gina" as well. Same sound, different letters. That makes for confusion, and inaccurately classifying names under the wrong letters, which would definitely skew the numbers for any given category affected by this complication.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem right that names beginning with vowels, but containing an "N", be counted among the "names beginning with 'N' category" does it? Names like Eunice or Annette, afterall, do not begin with an "N", so I'm not sure how you could simply drop the vowel entirely.

I definitely agree with both you and Clancie that you cannot count "Rob, Rich, Richie, who's the 'R' name here?" as four "R" names, since JE is quite clearly simply looking for one person whose name begins with an "R". :) .......neo

Well I think the most fair would be to count half an H and half an E though calculating stats on half’s could be difficult (probably possible but I don't know how).

As for the N softened by a vowel you're right that that can't be counted as an N. I thought that it meant an N followed by some vowel which could be counted as an N, but apparently I was wrong. These would probably have to be discounted.

[Clancie]

Posted by Kerveros

Well I think the most fair would be to count half an H and half an E though calculating stats on half’s could be difficult (probably possible but I don't know how).

As for the N softened by a vowel you're right that that can't be counted as an N. I thought that it meant an N followed by some vowel which could be counted as an N, but apparently I was wrong. These would probably have to be discounted.
Well, fortunately, these things don't have much impact on this small sample one way or the other, since you'lre only looking for total letters/names guessed compared with the number of "J"'s
.As far as counting 'Robert? Richard? Rick? Randi?' as 4 uses of R, it seems more reasonable to only count that as 1 use of R, because the only thing that is not changing in JE's guess is the leading R. Doing otherwise could obviously inflate the letter count too drastically.
Yes, this is the one with the big impact on these numbers. If Bill's doing this, it totally skews the results.

[SteveGrenard]

There is a great deal of room for error in this type of analysis. Phoenetics is important and cannot be overlooked. I saw a medium once that said he was getting the letters R-T, and
started suggesting Robert, Rita, etc etc. when in fact the deceased was someone named Artie (enunciated) and R-T was a perfect phonetic match for that name. Fortunately the sitter realized it after the medium, using his own and very poor interpretative skills managed to chalk up about 5 misses

JE in fact made a similar gaff, getting the full name Antoinette when in fact it was Aunt Annette which the sitter recognized. Aunt Annette and Antoinette are also near phonetic matches but JE managed to mangle that into a pile of misses as well before the sitters were allowed to talk (JE has this annoying habit of shutting them up).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Clancie,
Doing otherwise could obviously inflate the letter count too drastically.
What count exactly got inflated?

[69dodge]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
There are two totals here, aren't there? It inflates them both, dear. One is the denominator.a/b &ne; (a+x)/(b+x) unless x = 0.

This is perhaps relevant. Or perhaps not. I haven't spent a great deal of time thinking about it.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Very true, Clancie-- My title is very important to me!

Seriously, though, when JE gave the live reading of Deborah (of "Malibu Shrimp" fame), she wasn't able to validate much of what JE said. Neither was I.

Thereafter, when the edited reading appeared on television, it was rearranged. In the edited version, Deborah was shown validating lots of things. How odd that I, too, was able to validate lots of things in the edited reading.

It was the editing that accounted for the differences when the reading went from "live" to "edited". I was thereby able to observe, firsthand, that the reading was edited for content.

Hello, Instig8R. Not that I have any desire whatsoever to start this argument all over again, but there is just no way I can allow this post to stand unchallenged, because it implies the most egregious tampering of the tape, and I can't agree with what you've said here.

I won't belabor this point, but I will simply state, if there is anyone left who is even interested at this point, that your impression of this reading, and your characterization of the editing that followed, differs drastically from my own.

In my opinion, you are implying a degree of editing here, that just never occurred. Deborah didn't validate anything in the edited reading that she didn't validate first at the seminar taping. Did they cut out some of the reading because it was too lengthy? Yes they did. Did they "rearrange" everything to change non-hits to hits, the way you are insinuating? No, they did not.

And for now, that's all I'll say on the subject. :) .....neo

[69dodge]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please provide your evidence that O'Neill had preconceived notions before going to the taping.

Whatever happened at the taping is not admissible. Before, Clancie. Not during or after. It doesn't matter what O'Neill discovered. It doesn't matter what he told Randi, et al.That doesn't sound quite right.

Preconceived notions are often hard to change. Someone who believed before attending a John Edward show that John is a fake is likely to have the same belief afterward. And someone who believed beforehand that John is genuine is likely to continue in that belief after the show.

Therefore, a person's belief after the show does provide some indication, not 100% reliable of course, of what he believed before it.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
An alternative choice might be binomial, but therein lies a catch. The advantage of Poisson is that the moment-generating functions are such that its mean and its variance are the same and therefore, we only need to know the mean, which is about all we have here.I do not understand this argument.

A binomial distribution is defined by two parameters, n and p, which are the number of Bernoulli trials and the probability of success in each, respectively. We have both those pieces of information here. The number of guesses John made is n, and p is the fraction of US citizens that have names beginning with 'J'.

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

What count exactly got inflated?
Well, Bill, how can you even ask? :confused:

After all, one hardly needs to be a statistician to see that if JE says "I'm getting a 'J' name, like John, Jenny, Joan" and I count that as "1" guess of 'J' and you count that sentence as showing 4 separate guesses of 'J'...both totals--the total overall number of guesses, as well as the guesses of letter 'J'--will be greater for your results than mine.

Which is exactly what your tally of the 1998 LKL readings shows.

[CFLarsen]

neofight,

Did you - or did you not - change your account of the Malibu Shrimp reading?

Clancie,

I take it that you do not want to answer this question:

"Please provide your evidence that O'Neill had preconceived notions before going to the taping."

It will therefore be added to the list of questions you don't want to answer.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Lurker
Perhaps we should be using the Binomial Distribution instead? It may not change the end results much but since p is relatively high we might want to consider it.A binomial distribution is more appropriate, I think, though it and a Poisson distribution yield, in this instance, similar results.

If X has a binomial distribution with n = 85 and p = 0.133615, the probability that X >= 18 is 0.0306.

If X has a Poisson distribution with mean equal to (85)(0.133615), the probability that X >= 18 is 0.0415.

I see no reason to prefer the Poisson distribution over the binomial one besides ease of calculation, which is irrelevant as my computer has no trouble with either.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by 69dodge
A binomial distribution is more appropriate, I think, though it and a Poisson distribution yield, in this instance, similar results.


If JE only guessed high frequency names that start with the letter J, then OK.

However, these analyses ignore the other high frequency letters a, c, d, m, and r. Considering JE uses these letters too in his readings and not just the letter J, why completely ignore these other high frequency letters in the statistical analysis? The analysis offered doesn't seem to fit the situation.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Re-read your source. With understanding, please. That is not a description of the conditions under which Poisson is valid. Neither is it a description of Poisson as "Binomial lite". If you have real trouble understanding this, I will help you. That is an honest offer, if you approach this honestly. Unfortunately, your approach is part of the problem for me.Please help me. Nothing Lurker wrote leads me to believe that he misunderstood his source (http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/ForStudents/courses/math2899/handouts/lec4.pdf). What do you think is his misunderstanding?Now let me give you an exercise from Hogg & Craig's Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, third edition. It is from page 98. If you don't have a copy, just ask anyone who's been through Cherry's Stat 231 course here at _____'s exotic dance bar. She used to hold it late in the evenings, or early morning's, depending on your perspective.

"3.23 Let X have a Poisson distribution with mu=100. Use Chebyshev's inequality to determine a lower bound for Pr(75 < X < 125)."Chebyshev's inequality places an upper bound on the probability that a random variable is far from its mean. Specifically, letting mu be the mean of X, V be the variance of X, and d be the distance that we're interested in, it says that<blockquote>Pr( |X-mu| >= d ) <= V/d².</blockquote>The probability of the complementary event, namely that X is within the distance d of its mean, is therefore greater than 1 - V/d².

In this exercise, d is 25, the mean is 100, and, since the variance of a Poisson random variable equals its mean, V is also 100. So we get<blockquote>Pr(75 < X < 125) > 1 - 100/25² = 21/25.</blockquote>Chebyshev's inequality is nice because it applies to any random variable regardless of its distribution, provided we know its mean and variance. (Well, any random variable that has a mean and variance, anyway. But that's most of them.) However, if we know the exact distribution, as we do here, we can often do much better. Chebyshev's inequality here yields a lower bound of 21/25 = 0.84. The actual value of the probability is about 0.986.Poisson with mu=100? What justifies that?I don't understand. It's a textbook exercise. It says that X has a Poisson distribution with mu = 100. So by definition X does have that distribution. What kind of justification are you looking for?

I don't see the relevance of a textbook exercise about Chebyshev's inequality, even one which happens to involve a Poisson distribution, to the question of when in real life it is appropriate to use a Poisson distribution to model a situation we're faced with.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If JE only guessed high frequency names that start with the letter J, then OK.

However, these analyses ignore the other high frequency letters a, c, d, m, and r. Considering JE uses these letters too in his readings and not just the letter J, why completely ignore these other high frequency letters in the statistical analysis? The analysis offered doesn't seem to fit the situation.I was just comparing a binomial distribution to a Poisson distribution. I think BillHoyt's analysis of J's is ok as far as it goes. Nor do I see anything wrong with the chi-square test you propose. I don't think a great deal of weight should be given to the results of either of them, however, due to their sensitivity to the exact method of tallying the guesses and the lack of agreement about which method is the "correct" one.

[Lurker]

69dodge:

Thanks for the analysis. I knew I would not get an answer out of Bill Hoyt as he ignored my most basic questions. Glad to see SOMEONE truly understand stats here. I figured once I started talking integrals I would lose Bill. It seems I was correct.

Regardless, I have not gone through your binomial analysis but how did you calculate the standard deviation for the bionomial distribution?

Lurker

[Lurker]

Bill:

It appears you took the coward's way out. You chose not to address any of my questions. I will summarize them here for you:

1. What are the limits of Poisson Distribution use?
2. How does one calculate the error?
3. How did you avoid using N in your Poisson calculation? I specifically see you getting the expected mean of 11.05 by multiplying 85*0.13. We'll ignore your roundoff. Isn't N*p being used here? Show me where I am wrong.
4. Am I correct in saying that as p rises the error using Poisson rises?
5. Was my example { n=100, p=0.9, Use Poisson. What do you get for the probability that the count will be higher than 100? Since I am a nice guy, I will give you the answer. The answer is 1-0.8651=.1349} wrong and if you believe so, provide the evidence of it.

you see, Bill, unless you answer some of these questions, you really are just trying to bully people. You ask questions, turnabout is fair play.

Turn the light on, Bill.

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, Bill, how can you even ask? :confused:

After all, one hardly needs to be a statistician to see that if JE says "I'm getting a 'J' name, like John, Jenny, Joan" and I count that as "1" guess of 'J' and you count that sentence as showing 4 separate guesses of 'J'...both totals--the total overall number of guesses, as well as the guesses of letter 'J'--will be greater for your results than mine.

Which is exactly what your tally of the 1998 LKL readings shows. [/B]

Very good, Clancie. Now what happens as that denominator increases? What happens as all those "R", "Ronnie", "Reginald" and "DA name like Danny or David" get tallied. What is the number fed into the analysis, Clancie, and what happens?

The denominator goes up, lowering the "J" frequency and threatening to wash it out to insignificance. I applied the technique equally to "J"s and to "D"s and "M"s and "R"s, "B"s and all the letters. I did not distort the data as you keep trying to insinuate. I tried to resolve the problem of JE's blathering all over the place.

[neofight]

originally posted by CFLarsen:
neofight,

Did you - or did you not - change your account of the Malibu Shrimp reading?

Concerning anything substantive? No. The only thing that I conceded was that it appeared JE might have been wrong in a part of his interpretation about why the "Malibu Shrimp" recipe was kept "secret".

He interpreted it as meaning that it was secretly based upon one of Deborah's mother's recipes, which he believed was what he was being shown him by her mom, and Deborah said the real reason it was kept secret was because of the questionable clams that she and her friend used when making it, although she did admit that the recipe was based, at least loosely, upon her mom's recipe.

Instig8R feels JE pressured Deborah into admitting that fact, and considers this is a monumental matter. I feel that it could indeed be true, that the recipe was loosely based on one of Deborah's mother's recipes, since most daughters do tend to learn some cooking from their moms.

In any case, I also feel that this whole matter was blown way out of proportion by Instig8R, since the balance of that reading stands, and it was a good reading, with a lot of excellent, accurate hits, and in no way does any of that hinge upon this one, rather irrelevant point.......neo

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Lurker
Regardless, I have not gone through your binomial analysis but how did you calculate the standard deviation for the binomial distribution?I'm not sure what you're asking. I didn't calculate the standard deviation of the binomial distribution, as there was no need to.

In any case, the variance of a binomial distribution with parameters n and p is np(1 - p), and the standard deviation is, as always, the square root of the variance.

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Very good, Clancie. Now what happens as that denominator increases? What happens as all those "R", "Ronnie", "Reginald" and "DA name like Danny or David" get tallied. What is the number fed into the analysis, Clancie, and what happens?

The denominator goes up, lowering the "J" frequency and threatening to wash it out to insignificance. I applied the technique equally to "J"s and to "D"s and "M"s and "R"s, "B"s and all the letters. I did not distort the data as you keep trying to insinuate. I tried to resolve the problem of JE's blathering all over the place.
I'm just amazed at how, no matter what it is, Bill, you always insist on being right.

The problem with counting like that is two-fold: (1) "I get a 'J' name, like John, Joanne, Joan, Jenny" is difficult to count--as you say it is. It's easy....JE is guessing one 'J' name. The "problem" you "resolve" is one of your own creation, Bill. It's very clear and consistent to use this one guess on 'J', method throughout the readings. What you've done is the one that creates problems and misrepresentations of his actual number and pattern of guesses.

(2) Since he uses 'J's more frequently than other letters, what if he also [I]lists names after saying a 'J' more frequently than other letters? You say you apply the technique equally, but it's not a technique you want to apply, if you're really interested in seeing the pattern of how he uses each letter.

Doing the same thing for the other letters doesn't solve the problem, since JE is inconsistent in doing this (and, of course, the technique will pad results for letters he uses more often). It just makes it look as if your overall sample of JE guesses of letters is bigger than it really is and skews the frequency even more, since JE is inconsistent--does it more with some letters than others and not at all with most.

More to the point, though, "I'm getting a J name like Jenny, John, Joan" is one guess, Bill, only one 'J' name.

[BillHoyt]

Would someone please explain to Lurker why Poisson is not in error in his example? Will someone please help him understand there is no "N" in the Poisson equation?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie

I'm just amazed at how, no matter what it is, Bill, you always insist on being right.

The problem with counting like that is two-fold: (1) "I get a 'J' name, like John, Joanne, Joan, Jenny" is difficult to count--as you say it is. It's easy....JE is guessing one 'J' name. The "problem" you "resolve" is one of your own creation, Bill. It's very clear and consistent to use this one guess on 'J', method throughout the readings. What you've done is the one that creates problems and misrepresentations of his actual number and pattern of guesses.

(2) Since he uses 'J's more frequently than other letters, what if he also [I]lists names after saying a 'J' more frequently than other letters? You say you apply the technique equally, but it's not a technique you want to apply, if you're really interested in seeing the pattern of how he uses each letter.

Doing the same thing for the other letters doesn't solve the problem, since JE is inconsistent in doing this (and, of course, the technique will pad results for letters he uses more often). It just makes it look as if your overall sample of JE guesses of letters is bigger than it really is and skews the frequency even more, since JE is inconsistent--does it more with some letters than others and not at all with most.

More to the point, though, "I'm getting a J name like Jenny, John, Joan" is one guess, Bill, only one 'J' name. [/B]

And the spice names? And "Helen/Ellen"? And the case where he gives a single initial and says there are two different people? And The "C or K name"? It goes on and on and on. What do you do with those?

You continue to these. You also continue to see an "inflation" of "J" and ignore the "inflation" of "R" and "B" and "D" and "M".

[Lurker]

Bill, Bill, Bill,

Still refusing to answer direct questions. Isn't it a tad hypocritical when you accuse others of not answering questions?

Bill, how did YOU calculate the expected value for your "J" analysis again? Again, in your own words:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillHoyt


...According to the US census data presented earlier, "J" surnames are 13.36% of the total population. In this analysis of 85 JE name guesses, I counted 18 "J" names. I calculated the expected number of "J"s (formally, the "expectation function") as 11.05.

I used the Poisson function to model the population. With an expected mean of 11.05, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now you are claiming n makes no appearance in the formula yet YOU used it in your analysis, did you not?

You going to answer any of the questions directed towards you or are you going to continue to run and divert?

Lurker

[Clancie]

According to the US census data presented earlier, "J" surnames are 13.36% of the total population
Surnames? Is this a misprint?

[Lurker]

Clancie:

Man, I REALLY hope that was just a typo. Yikes!

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The results were a revised total guess count of 85. I then tallied the "J"s separately. I picked the "J"s because they are the most frequent initial. According to the US census data presented earlier, "J" surnames are 13.36% of the total population. In this analysis of 85 JE name guesses, I counted 18 "J" names. I calculated the expected number of "J"s (formally, the "expectation function") as 11.05.



Oh, my. I presume you meant first name, not surname. Right Bill? Please say this is a simple typo so our analyses were not a total waste of time.

Thanks!

Lurker

[BillHoyt]

Yes, I meant forenames. My error. Thanks for the correction.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


And the spice names? And "Helen/Ellen"? And the case where he gives a single initial and says there are two different people? And The "C or K name"? It goes on and on and on. What do you do with those?

You continue to these. You also continue to see an "inflation" of "J" and ignore the "inflation" of "R" and "B" and "D" and "M". Helln/Ellen and C or K both are in the "not J" bin. Spice names are more difficult, but since it is not a guess of the initial it probably doesn't belong within our sample.

It would be more difficult if he gave a J or G reading, in which case it clearly belongs with the test, but does not fit easily into the "J" bin or the not "J" bin.

Walt

[Clancie]

Posted by Walter Wayne

Helln/Ellen and C or K both are in the "not J" bin. Spice names are more difficult, but since it is not a guess of the initial it probably doesn't belong within our sample.
This all seems very logical and easy to follow, doesn't it, Bill?

It would be more difficult if he gave a J or G reading, in which case it clearly belongs with the test, but does not fit easily into the "J" bin or the not "J" bin.
I agree, but fortunately there was only one example like that in these readings so I just counted it as a "J", since he did mention the "J or G" sound, and we're not tallying "G".

[Thanz]

I went back to Renata's LKL thread and did some totalling of my own. I tried to take the approach that each person that JE was trying to show a connection with should be counted as one guess. So, if he said 'a "J" name, jim or john", I counted one J and one guess.

There were a couple of exceptions to this, typically where he tries to widen the net. So, if he says "Helen", I count one guess. If he then expands it to "Helen or Ellen", I count it as another guess - for the E. Similarly, I count J or G as one J guess and one G guess as he is trying to expand the net.

Needless to say, I get numbers substantially different than BillHoyt's. In the LKL readings posted by Renata, I counted 43 guesses, of which 9 were J. If I plug this into the Poisson calculator, I get a probability of >= 9 of .128, which means that we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Concerning anything substantive? No. The only thing that I conceded was that it appeared JE might have been wrong in a part of his interpretation about why the "Malibu Shrimp" recipe was kept "secret".

No, that is not correct. You also changed your mind about the Entenmann guess. Instig8r will probably fill us in with additional changes.

But OK, you changed your account of the Malibu Shrimp reading, because of editing of content.

Do you think it is impossible that this happens on a regular basis? Or do you consider editing of content "blown way out of proportion"?

In fact, is there any limit to what JE can get away with, without you sitting up and taking notice?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Helln/Ellen and C or K both are in the "not J" bin. Spice names are more difficult, but since it is not a guess of the initial it probably doesn't belong within our sample.

It would be more difficult if he gave a J or G reading, in which case it clearly belongs with the test, but does not fit easily into the "J" bin or the not "J" bin.

Walt

Yes, they are in the "not J" bin, but they count in the denominator and, actually, dilute the significance of the "J" counts. JE enumerated 3 spice names, and I counted each one into its appropriate initial bin.

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
I agree, but fortunately there was only one example like that in these readings so I just counted it as a "J", since he did mention the "J or G" sound, and we're not tallying "G".
Yes, we ARE tallying "G"s, Clancie. We are either tallying them as "G"s or tallying them as "not J"s, depending on the approach. Do you not see that, by doing so, I actually diluted the significance of the "J"s?

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Yes, we ARE tallying "G"s, Clancie. We are either tallying them as "G"s or tallying them as "not J"s, depending on the approach. Do you not see that, by doing so, I actually diluted the significance of the "J"s?
Bill, There was one instance where JE did that (compared with many where he listed a long string of 'J' names). No big impact in how you counted the 'G', whatever you decided to do with it.

(But, just out of curiosity, you counted it as 1 "G" guess and 1 "J' guess, right? That would be consistent with your method).

However, again, we're only talking about one example of one "J/G" guess. Its the I other choices you made, Bill, that skewed your results so much.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Very good, Clancie. Now what happens as that denominator increases? What happens as all those "R", "Ronnie", "Reginald" and "DA name like Danny or David" get tallied. What is the number fed into the analysis, Clancie, and what happens?

The denominator goes up, lowering the "J" frequency and threatening to wash it out to insignificance. I applied the technique equally to "J"s and to "D"s and "M"s and "R"s, "B"s and all the letters. I did not distort the data as you keep trying to insinuate. I tried to resolve the problem of JE's blathering all over the place.
All this does is show that both of your numbers are incorrect - the number of J guesses AND the total number of guesses.

I don't see how incorrectly counting the total number of guesses somehow makes up for incorrectly counting the number of J guesses. If anything, it just makes your data more suspect.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie

Bill, There was one instance where JE did that (compared with many where he listed a long string of 'J' names). No big impact in how you counted the 'G', whatever you decided to do with it.

(But, just out of curiosity, you counted it as 1 "G" guess and 1 "J' guess, right? That would be consistent with your method).

However, again, we're only talking about one example of one "J/G" guess. Its the I other choices you made, Bill, that skewed your results so much.
Oh, you mean like the 2 C and 1S where you would have done... what? Or, the three "T"s? Or two "R"s? Or two "L"s? How about the four "D"s and three "M"s?

Read the transcripts closely, Clancie. There are at least THREE instances in which JE guessed "J/G".

Think about my counting method carefully. What is the skew if I am counting "J"s and "not J"s by the same rule? One count is in the numerator and the other is in the denominator. Now start adding up the multi-Bs, multi-Rs, multi-Ds, multi-Ts, multi-Ls and on and on...

[edited to correct the "J/G" count to at least 3 -bh]

[Thanz]

One more thing - Kerberos' count of hits was 14 J hits out of 78 guesses. If I pop those numbers into the ol' Poisson calculator, I get a probaility of >= 14 of .168, which also means that we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Interesting that the only count that actually rejects the null hypothesis is Bill's.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
One more thing - Kerberos' count of hits was 14 J hits out of 78 guesses. If I pop those numbers into the ol' Poisson calculator, I get a probaility of >= 14 of .168, which also means that we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Interesting that the only count that actually rejects the null hypothesis is Bill's.
Thanz,

Perhaps you've forgotten that Kerberos' analysis rejected his null hypothesis? My analysis excludes data his included, and my altered analysis rejected my null hypothesis.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

All this does is show that both of your numbers are incorrect - the number of J guesses AND the total number of guesses.

I don't see how incorrectly counting the total number of guesses somehow makes up for incorrectly counting the number of J guesses. If anything, it just makes your data more suspect.

I analyzed the data, saw numerous counting problems and decided on a methodological solution. The point you are ignoring is this: the method was applied equally, regardless of the forename initial involved.

[BillHoyt]

Lurker moved his sad saga over to another thread. Here is my post in response to his tortured attempt to understand why N has nothing to do with the Poisson distribution!

Lurker,

The Poisson is not parameterized on N. Here is the equation:

http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/03438/PBC97Poisson/PoissonEQn1t.gif
a is the count value for which we want the probability. m is the mean. No "n". Poisson doesn't care about n. If we look at an acre of land and find 12 dead crows, what was the N? Who knows, who cares? Poisson is not parameterized on N.

There was no error in Poisson that you uncovered. The error was in the wrongheadedness of your analysis.

Let us take a couple of runs with Poisson here to get the point across.

Let us say the average number of dead crows per acre is known to be 5. Let us go to Montana and set up 1 acre grids and count in each grid. We see one grid with 9 dead crows and wonder what is the one-tailed probability of that high (or higher) a count. We use a mean of 5, and look at the cdf for >=9. And we get .03.

Now let's go to counting initials. We pick an initial that has a frequency of .5. We count 9 such initials in a field of 10. We use a mean of 5 and look at the cdf for >= 9. And we get .03.

Now let's pick an initial that has a frequency of .05. We count 9 such initials in a field of 100. We use a mean of 5 and look at the cdf for >= 9. We get .03.

In the first case, there was no N in any part of our ciphering. Same result as the second case in which we only used N to figure the expected mean. Same result as the third case in which we used a very different N to figure the expected mean.

N, sir, was incidental. Poisson is not affected by it one iota.

I hope you will spare yourself further embarassment. This was very sad.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I analyzed the data, saw numerous counting problems and decided on a methodological solution. The point you are ignoring is this: the method was applied equally, regardless of the forename initial involved.
I am not ignoring the fact that the method was applied equally to all initials. I am saying that the method is incorrect, and leads to incorrect counts for both the J value AND the denominator. Having both numbers wrong leads to a wrong analysis. It just means that ALL of your data is incorrect. I was not accusing you of bias in the data - in that you would count only extra "J" guesses. I am saying that your methodology was flawed from the beginning.