Professional Cold Reader Transcripts?

[T'ai Chi]

Regarding my apparently controversial (by like 3 people) observational transcript study, I am having no problems finding professional medium transcripts which satisfy my criteria. Conjuring up professional cold reader transcripts which are unedited and from live sessions is another story. Even books would be good references, although links would be preferable, since transcripts in books are likely to be edited.

Limited numbers of professional cold readers also complicates things. Perhaps there are less than a dozen who do this as their sole profession? Also, these transcripts would need to be of live unedited performances which makes the numbers even smaller, also because it is not something which is on TV a lot. Lacking any numbers, I guess I could perhaps get barely 5 or so of such transcripts, while I already have around 20 medium transcripts by about 5 different mediums.

Understandably, if there aren't any available, then I'll have to make due with only looking at the live unedited transcripts of professional mediums; Yet I'm still curious about the comparisons between the two groups by looking at the actual data. Some self proclaimed skeptics have not been much help here, mostly because there is no general consensus among them, since some said that the whole idea of such a study is hopeless because the data is flawed, while others have said that I need to include more mediums and even amateur mediums and cold readers in the counts.

Any references and comments are appreciated! So far the spreadsheet is filling up nicely.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you have a column in that (secret) spreadsheet where we (in two or three years time) can see the number of threads you have started about your "study"?

We've been over this "where are the cold reading transcripts" before, and yet you still start a new thread, where you mostly gripe about people not receiving your "study" all that favorably.

Just stick to one thread, please. You don't need to start thread after thread after thread about your "study". It's not "controversial", it's just fundamentally flawed.

Don't confuse valid criticism with persecution.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Do you have a column in that (secret) spreadsheet where we (in two or three years time) can see the number of threads you have started about your "study"?

This thread was to gather information, but also a test of a hypothesis of mine, one which you confirmed brilliantly Claus.

If you write down the first letter of every sentence in my original post (except the very last two sentences). Then, of those letters, read every other one. You'll get "RCELPALUYS", reading every other one you'll get "REPLY CLAUS".

Following me around?

I applaud your utter predictability.

Just stick to one thread, please. You don't need to start thread after thread after thread about your "study". It's not "controversial", it's just fundamentally flawed.

Just like you and Bill can play policeman, I'll do what I want, but thanks.

The first thread proposed the study. The next two were polls to gauge peoples' opinions on whether to study transcripts and who can do it (good results from those polls). This one is about actually finding certain transcripts; specifically those of professional cold readers that are from live and unedited sessions, which don't seem to exist. If you don't like the threads, you can choose not to read them, not to reply, complain about it to the mods, or do whatever you like.

You'll have to offer more than your beliefs that anything is flawed as you claim. You haven't offered anything remotely approaching finding flaws despite your beliefs otherwise. Will you? So far, you've di**ed around trying to poke holes in an analysis that hasn't even started yet or claimed that things are secret and held me higher standards than any study in any subject, science or otherwise, that is out there.

I take it you still haven't found examples of ANY studies, not even one, that have the standards that you are holding me to? One wonders why... That is why I don't take your comments seriously.

You seem to be afraid of, and even resistant to studying, the actual data from professional cold readers and professional mediums. You seem to not want an actual resource, a database of summaries from transcripts, available to the believer and skeptical community? Why is that?

You also haven't managed to find any transcripts of professional cold readers from live unedited sessions. Neither have I. Hence this thread.

My other prediciton is that even though you've been asked to offer your comments on how to examine transcripts, and you haven't offered any, after this study is done, and the results are presented, you'll *then* start to let loose with the criticisms on how the transcripts were examined, what should have been done, etc.

Considering you continue to avoid all my questions and haven't found even one example of a study that had the high standards you attempt to hold me to, I'm pretty certain I won't miss anything if I place you on Ignore and actually do ignore you.

Thanks.

 

[AlienX]

What is the goal of the study in the first place?

Are you making the assumption that any apparent difference must show evidence for genuine psychic abilities?

I think you would need to demonstrate very clearly that any difference was not the result of a different appliation of the same "skill". For example the cold reader would certainly have a different motive thus using the same skill may result in an apparent difference - also i would find it hard to eliminate the feedback they get - one would assume a different response from a believer being read by a medium to that of someone who knows they are definitely being cold read. How you would account for this i'm not sure but i'm certain it would not be easy and any result would have to be clear on how it eliminates such factors.

So far from the examples i've seen the only "impressive" readings by mediums have been edited. Full transcrips are indeed very damning for the argument that the "genuine mediums" are indeed frauds. The analysis on these very boards of John Edwards live effort transcripts were very enlightening for me, since this i've hardened my standpoint on the who mediumship issue and I would require very strong evidence (repeatable thorough scientific testing). Although testing such claims and the protocols required is very difficult. For me scientists define the protocols and not your average layman (woowoo's included) as it's outside their scope to define the experiments - yet they keept on stating on what the protocols must be which is very suspicious.

All i can suggest is that you approach your study with an open mind to the possibility that the mediums are actually frauds and do not persue from the start to prove what you want to be the case. I think it's best to test your hypothesis with the "I wonder if this is happening" rather than "I am going to show that this is happening".

I think many woowoo's think that it's something personal - it's not especially for me - it's the poor science behind the claims that I argue against. Rather than reinforce the evidence with further more exhaustive testing, woowoo's constantly argue around the merits of a specific flawed test - listen to the concerns raised and modyfy your test to eliminate them. Your using science as evidence then you can't pick and choose which bits of the methodology you want to use im afraid.

AX

 

[T'ai Chi]

What is the goal of the study in the first place?

Hi AlienX,

I'd like to collect and see some actual data, that's all. People usually analyze excerpts from transcripts, examine edited transcripts, do a non-numerical examination of transcripts, only look at medium transcripts but not cold reader transcripts, or just go by cold reading 'theory' to make their conclusions.

I'm not saying these ways are bad, but I just don't see any one of them examining reality in a useful, cumulative, numerical manner.

A more basic question that interests me is: 'What does the data from unedited transcripts, from live sessions, for self proclaimed mediums and self proclaimed cold readers, actually look like? And can one analyze such transcripts and collect the results for others to use?'

Are you making the assumption that any apparent difference must show evidence for genuine psychic abilities?

Nope. It could just mean their methods are different, for example. But let me ask you; are there any patterns? Are there any differences? The thing is, is that no one can answer such questions with actual numbers it seems. I hope to shed some light on those for the mediums, cold readers, and transcripts we study.

So far from the examples i've seen the only "impressive" readings by mediums have been edited.

I'll only be looking at unedited transcripts from live sessions, for example from the call-ins on Larry King Live. If the readings are not impressive that is fine with me; I just want to collect and see some actual data, as found in 'the wild'.

All i can suggest is that you approach your study with an open mind to the possibility that the mediums are actually frauds and do not persue from the start to prove what you want to be the case.

My personal belief is that mediums are wishful thinkers deluding themselves, with high probability, based on what I've seen and how I understand this world to work, rather than they are really contacting the 'souls' or whatever of people who have died.

This study is to simply collect data on their unedited transcripts from live sessions and hopefully the transcripts of professional cold readers from the same conditions (if such transcripts can ever be found) and see what numbers we get, to use this spreadsheet as a resource whenever anybody asks questions relating to this area, for example, 'How often do mediums say 'Do you understand?' ', and then a person with the spreadsheet could just sum a column and report that out of the Y mediums we studied, they said 'Do you understand?' in X/Y of the readings (where X is less than Y), and out of N total questions they said 'Do you understand?' M/N times (where M is less than N). Another example is that someone could ask what initials were most commonly guessed by the mediums, and a simple graph could show the frequencies for the mediums and transcripts we studied. One could, for example, compare this to the initials guessed by the cold readers.

I think it's best to test your hypothesis with the "I wonder if this is happening" rather than "I am going to show that this is happening".

I agree with that way of proceeding. If I was making a hypothesis here I would certainly do that, but this is just a descriptive exercise. I'm just interested in what the actual data looks like, something which no one is able to do, as far as I am aware.

 

[Clancie]

T'ai,

I wonder if you could use Jason Oliver as a cold reader? He has some transcripts posted online (ersby used one in his thread).

Technically he -does- bill himself as a medium, but also as an "entertainer" who does "readings" as entertainment for parties given by people like Michael Eisner.

His readings are classic cold reading, imo, but...I don't know exactly what the definition you're going for is.

 

[magicflute]

Just a quick question... Will those doing the analysis be told if a particular trasncript is from a cold-reader or psyschic? What sort information about the transcripts will be available to the analyzers?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Just a quick question... Will those doing the analysis be told if a particular trasncript is from a cold-reader or psyschic? What sort information about the transcripts will be available to the analyzers?

That is something that needs to be decided on.

For one thing, since, at least so far, all of the transcripts are found on webpages, one could easily do a search and figure out if it is from a cold reader or a medium pretty easily.

I certainly can see the use of making it blind, but with the searches, I don't see how the blind could be effective.

 

[magicflute]

And there is the rub!! How honest are the researchers?! Makes you think about previous research that cannot be replicated.
Unless you can do it blinded, bias is going to play a part and make the results useless. It's well know that people will find what they are looking for. If you look for differences, and you know the sources, then differences will be found. However, blinded, differences found would be more valid. I would volunteer to do analysis, but I am afraid I am too familiar with the subject and I have read so many of these transcripts that I would probably recognize a lot of them. And that is another problem, finding people who are not familiar and who have no agenda, yet are capable of doing the analysis.
Hmmm, big task ahead of you! Just make sure you are up to it and that you cover all angles, let people shoot holes into your plans now, this will help you to tighten up the methodology. Better now than after the results are publshed. No matter what happens we are all learning something. Good luck!

 

[T'ai Chi]

Well, due to not many volunteers, this project has been at least temporarily cancelled.

Oh well. I still think it is a good idea, and will persue it again in the future.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, due to not many volunteers, this project has been at least temporarily cancelled.

Oh well. I still think it is a good idea, and will persue it again in the future.

Never saw that one coming...

It's OK, you can email me the transcripts. I'll save them, in case somebody wants them.

webmaster@skepticreport.com