Is Analyzing Medium/ColdReader Transcripts OK?

[T'ai Chi]

I've heard mixed feelings on this.

Is it ok for anyone to analyze medium/coldreader transcripts?
Only disbelievers in mediumship?
Only believers in mediumship?
Or.. ?

 

[Garrette]

It's not the person who performs the analysis that matters, it's the method used.

I suspect you know this.

 

[Ersby]

Yes, as long as the working is shown it should be fine.

 

[Ed]

Still not sure of the utility.

 

[Darat]

Whoever has the required skills.

T'ai Chi - What skills are needed?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Whoever has the required skills.

T'ai Chi - What skills are needed?

You brought up skills, why don't you tell us?

 

[Clancie]

I would say "Anyone", that is, anyone who can follow (your) precise directions, has patience, a good eye for detail, no emotional investment in the outcome one way or the other...oh, yes, and someone who is not easily bored (because I think analyzing two or three hundred transcripts, even if each person only does...ten...would be incredibly difficult for many people due to the boredom factor).

For me, even counting up hits/misses in the JE/LKL ones we argued over here was the mental equivalent of "nails on the chalkboard"...a particularly bad thing because it also makes it more likely for someone to make mistakes on the task.

 

[Darat]

You brought up skills, why don't you tell us?

I have no idea what skills would be required just an opinion that to do a specific task normally requires particular skills. Therefore when looking for someone to do a task you look for someone with those skills.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Still not sure of the utility.

Some ideas:

To have actual data, not just theories of how mediums and cold readers work.

To see how they are alike and how they differ, in reality, not just in theory.

To compare the claims of mediums and cold readers with their actual performances.

To have a spreadsheet that one could obtain the data from instead of again going through all the transcripts.

And more.

Aside: Ed, you seem to think it is wiser to only analyze the transcripts from live readings. I agree, but this as you know will of course create WAY less transcripts to analyze, but more meaningful data could be obtained. If the study I proposed only looks at live readings, something which I think sensible, the number of transcripts would probably be less than 50, and the project would then be tractable. Another drawback though is that there would probably only be a few if any transcripts by self proclaimed professional cold readers.

 

[magicflute]

Personally,I think more telling would be to analize the transcripts blinded to see if by analysis you can determine which of the transcripts belong to a coldreader and which belong to a psychic. This would be better than just trying to see which is more accurate unblinded since personal bias will always interfere.
Again, I know.. the methodology would still be a b**ch!
Interesting also would be to see how the 'believer' analysers results compare to the non-believer analyzers.

p.s. If this was suggested before, then...never mind! I have not had the oppotunity to read all the threads that relate to this issue.

 

[Ed]

I am not saying "live" just unedited

Some ideas:

To have actual data, not just theories of how mediums and cold readers work.

Can't say much if they are edited

To see how they are alike and how they differ, in reality, not just in theory.

Can't say much at all, if edited

To compare the claims of mediums and cold readers with their actual performances.

definately cannot say anything. Edited transcripts are only self referential. They are useless for any meaningful comparisons

To have a spreadsheet that one could obtain the data from instead of again going through all the transcripts.

And more.

Aside: Ed, you seem to think it is wiser to only analyze the transcripts from live readings. I agree, but this as you know will of course create WAY less transcripts to analyze, but more meaningful data could be obtained. If the study I proposed only looks at live readings, something which I think sensible, the number of transcripts would probably be less than 50, and the project would then be tractable. Another drawback though is that there would probably only be a few if any transcripts by self proclaimed professional cold readers.

Perhaps. A scientist would probably opt for a little good data than a boatful of dreck. If data is edited it is not a "sample" in any useful way. It is indicitive of only itself. We are dealing with research into the paranormal so I suppose my observations are irrelevant

 

[Ed]

In response to your poll: If you are designing this correctly it should be double blind. You are also, presumably, formally questiuoning the graders? Any systematic effects should be picked up then.

A little scarey that you are even asking this question.

 

[T'ai Chi]

In response to your poll: If you are designing this correctly it should be double blind. You are also, presumably, formally questiuoning the graders? Any systematic effects should be picked up then.

A little scarey that you are even asking this question.

Ed, are you proposing that a non-experimental study should be double blind?

I will not be formally questioning the graders. I will be recording who did the grading and if they are believers or disbelievers in mediumship. Perhaps several people could grade the same transcript?

I think that it could be difficult to tell if a transcript is edited. How would you know Ed?

I think that I'll only consider transcripts from live readings for now; for now that is just Larry King Live as far as I know. This is good and bad; good because it eliminates the analyzing edited things that you are worried about (with good reasons) and makes the project MUCH more tractable, but bad because it basically eliminates readings from self proclaimed professional cold readers, which I don't like.

 

[CFLarsen]

I will not be formally questioning the graders. I will be recording who did the grading and if they are believers or disbelievers in mediumship.

False dichotomy. What about those who are undecided, e.g. most skeptics (me included)?

I can understand why you are so secretive about your study, because everytime you lift the veil, there are nothing but holes to be found.

Better keep it secret, so nobody finds out just how much you are fumbling in the dark...shhh...

 

[T'ai Chi]

False dichotomy. What about those who are undecided, e.g. most skeptics (me included)?

For a given point in time, Claus, one either believes in mediumship or they don't.

I can understand why you are so secretive about your study, because everytime you lift the veil, there are nothing but holes to be found.

Better keep it secret, so nobody finds out just how much you are fumbling in the dark...shhh...

Please inform us how I am fumbling around in secret when I am publicly asking people for their comments and advice..

 

[CFLarsen]

For a given point in time, Claus, one either believes in mediumship or they don't.

Patently false. I have no belief either way. I haven't seen any evidence that it exists, but I am open-minded about the possibility of it.

Please inform us how I am fumbling around in secret when I am publicly asking people for their comments and advice..

You never tell us how far you have gotten. You answer evasively, if at all. You keep critics on "ignore" (yet answer them). You want to distance your study from the scrutiny of the public. You want to keep things secret.

Hey, don't blame me for keeping it secret, T'ai Chi: You started it.

 

[Ed]

Ed, are you proposing that a non-experimental study should be double blind?

If you want whatever it is that you are doing to be anything more than a curiosity, yes. What does "an experimental study" have to do with intellectual honesty? If anything you say is suspect because of how things were graded, what is the point? You do realize that this very question makes this thing suspect, don't you? If you are oblivious of the implications of a basic control, what other short cuts are being taken...See?

I will not be formally questioning the graders. I will be recording who did the grading and if they are believers or disbelievers in mediumship. Perhaps several people could grade the same transcript?

Yes. Some stab at a reliability measure would be nice. A more interesting study (that might be relevant) would be to have performed this study as a decoy and assess the relative quality of believer and non-believer grading. Made up transcripts would have served admirably in such a case. You might also have used the exact same transcripts identified as both "medium" and "cold reader". That would have been neat.

I think that it could be difficult to tell if a transcript is edited. How would you know Ed?

I am not sure whay this question is meaningful, perhaps you can explain. The larger issue which gives me additional pause is that you are asking in the first place. One the relsults are in and critisism is leveled on a point like this, saying "how could you know" shows a massive naiveaty regrading research. If it comes up it is an issue.

I think that I'll only consider transcripts from live readings for now; for now that is just Larry King Live as far as I know. This is good and bad; good because it eliminates the analyzing edited things that you are worried about (with good reasons) and makes the project MUCH more tractable, but bad because it basically eliminates readings from self proclaimed professional cold readers, which I don't like.

Good. It is usually a good idea to have a shake-down on the process anyway.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Patently false. I have no belief either way. I haven't seen any evidence that it exists, but I am open-minded about the possibility of it.

You can evaluate data and come to a conclusion, and that is fine, but at a point in time you either believe in it or you don't believe in it.

Claus, do you right now believe in mediumship? Yes or no?

You never tell us how far you have gotten. You answer evasively, if at all. You keep critics on "ignore" (yet answer them). You want to distance your study from the scrutiny of the public. You want to keep things secret.

I've said that things are still in the planning stage and about 25 transcripts have been gathered. Why you want to pretend some massive secrecy is going on here is beyond me.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you want whatever it is that you are doing to be anything more than a curiosity, yes. What does "an experimental study" have to do with intellectual honesty? If anything you say is suspect because of how things were graded, what is the point? You do realize that this very question makes this thing suspect, don't you? If you are oblivious of the implications of a basic control, what other short cuts are being taken...See?

I think you might be oblivious here since you are proposing an observational study be double-blinded, hence me asking the question to you. Think about it for a bit..

There is also a problem with single blind, since if I take away the mediums' name from the transcript, and the person (Larry King for example) the medium was talking to, and the link to the transcript, someone can just Google for it and discover who it is pretty easily. How do you propose one gets around this?

Yes. Some stab at a reliability measure would be nice. A more interesting study (that might be relevant) would be to have performed this study as a decoy and assess the relative quality of believer and non-believer grading.

I'm not interested in trickery here Ed. I'm interested in studying the actual data, the actual performances of self proclaimed professional mediums and self proclaimed professional cold readres.

I am not sure whay this question is meaningful, perhaps you can explain. The larger issue which gives me additional pause is that you are asking in the first place. One the relsults are in and critisism is leveled on a point like this, saying "how could you know" shows a massive naiveaty regrading research. If it comes up it is an issue.

I'm asking because you go on about not analyzing edited transcripts. So I'm asking you how do you tell if a transcript is edited.

Good. It is usually a good idea to have a shake-down on the process anyway.

So would you agree or disagree that analzying only mediums' live transcripts is more informative than analyzing live and edited medium and cold reader transcripts? I tend to think so, but would also like some cold reader transcripts in there as well. Ah well.

 

[CFLarsen]

You can evaluate data and come to a conclusion, and that is fine, but at a point in time you either believe in it or you don't believe in it.

Why? I don't.

Claus, do you right now believe in mediumship? Yes or no?

I just told you: I have no belief either way. I haven't seen any evidence that it exists, but I am open-minded about the possibility of it.

Are you going to change how you record who did the grading to include those who are neither believers or disbelievers in mediumship?

I've said that things are still in the planning stage and about 25 transcripts have been gathered. Why you want to pretend some massive secrecy is going on here is beyond me.

But there is, T'ai Chi. You were the one who started keeping things secret. They still are.