User talk:Sprocket J Cogswell/Aura reading

• Can you see auras through objects, or only when you can see the rest of the person?
• Can you see auras in recordings and pictures?
• Can you see auras if your ears and nose are plugged - i.e. is it dependent only on your eyes?
• Can you choose whether or not to see auras?

--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 16:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I go looking when the individual is in front of me, usually after getting their consent.
• I don't do remote aura sensing. Either I'm not sensitive enough for it, or it's BS, take your pick.
• Nose and ears plugged.. hmmm.... just checked a nearby person plugged and open, without noticing a difference in the perceived aura. There may be subtle differences to be found, but I doubt I'll explore that much more.
• I only see them when I go looking for them.

Rarely do I see them with my eyes open. Usually I glance at the individual, and shut my eyes. If they are wearing contrasty clothing, retinal afterimage effects can be distracting; I try to screen those out. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So when you want to see an aura, you close your eyes and will it to happen while looking at someone? Can you do it through objects? You say you don't do remote sensing, but can you see auras from someone in the next room? Or just through a door? Or just through a sheet? What are your limits?

What information is conveyed by an aura? Gender, race, intelligence, ethics? Is there anything you can specifically point to that you can usually tell? For example, does a person's aura usually reflect whether or not they are hungry?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 19:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I look at someone, close my eyes, and look. Couple of people in a nearby room just now, can hear em but not see them; I just looked, and didn't see much. Doesn't seem to work that way for me. Could see an aura through sheet draped around the person, hell, I don't ask them to undress, for Pete's sake, but I doubt it would do much good if they were behind a sheet hung as a curtain. What shows up is what shows up, to do with who they are just then. I take it to be what a medical person might call the "chief complaint" or an industrial consultant would call the tallest head of the dragon. Simply put, a few outstanding features are all I can pay attention to at any given time. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

When time allows, I'll see if I can give you some more particular examples of what outstanding features I remember seeing, in the parent essay to this talk page. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit point

You've mentioned that you need people's consent a couple of times. Why do you ask for this?--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy, mostly. I'll sometimes sneak a quick peek, but I don't usually go checking out random strangers in public places. Some of the ones who would come up and sit for an aura drawing may have been living with damage, and I wanted to demonstrate respect for their privacy. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I ask because, if the aura is being generated by you, then you are not intruding on their privacy - it is something which you are adding to your physical perceptions. However from this response I get the impression that you feel that the aura has some real physical existence - that it is generated by - and thus owned by - the person. Is this your belief?--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is more like "Mind if I stare at you for a little while?" I believe the aura is an artifact of both observer and observed, since without someone there, I see only the usual phosphenes and floaties and afterimages and so on. Of course, I suspect they don't exhibit "my view" of their aura when I'm not there, so there you are.

That does suggest a possible test: gather a symposium of aura readers, and have them all read a population of victims volunteers, with procedural and logistical controls to keep chicanery out of it. Collating the results might show something remarkable, or otherwise; won't know till you get a grant and a venue, plus my ticket there to help out, will you? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly you are suggesting that the auras are real and are independent of you - but that they are only present while you are looking at them? Something about your looking at people causes them to express the aura? Is that right?--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 17:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 17:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

<--Easy to get in trouble applying verbally-based logic to this. Specifically, I think it is a mistake to reify the aura as something that has an existence apart from the observer and observed. Sorry, that probably doesn't answer you adequately, but I really must go now. ¡Hasta otra vez! to coin a phrase, perhaps Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if verbally-based logic isn't appropriate - but I'm afraid that it's all I've got at the moment. It seems to me that the aura either exists or it doesn't. It's either in your head or it's out there. I can't quite get my mind around this idea of its being dependent on some inexplicable and mutual action between you and the person being observed. If verbally based logic isn't appropriate, what other means of discussion would be better?--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 19:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob, verbal logic is not so much inappropriate as tricky to apply in cases like this, to avoid errors. An aura may have an "existence" similar to the "existence" of understanding, or beauty, or trouble, or an idea, but is probably not as substantial as the sound of a bell or a handful of sand. Routine daily English does not, as far as I know, make much of a difference between those "existences." I sense beauty. I sip tea. Two statements, similar grammatical structure, but different sorts of object. Maybe calling an aura a "mental formation" is almost correct, I don't know. Mental formations arise all the time. The visual ones prompted by looking at another person in a certain way, I call auras, and I think I notice some regularities about their behaviour. Does that help you make any sense of it? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

English identifies these things quite well I think. All the other examples you give are either abstract of concrete nouns. "Beauty" is abstract and "tea" is concrete. You seem to be arguing for a new class of noun which is neither and which, as far as I can tell, would only include auras. Or are there many other things which are neither abstract nor concrete?

Is a sensation abstract or concrete? How about a perception? How about the flight of an arrow? With respect, I think English may be imprecise in its classification of such things; abstract/concrete is a false dichotomy, leading to black/white distinctions which map poorly to "reality," which includes not only external forms but human experience and who knows what else. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sensations are abstract nouns. I am not entirely sure what you mean by perceptions - could you give an example? You might want to consider this definition before answering. The flight of an arrow (where I assume you mean "The flight of an arrow" to be the entire noun phrase) can be seen and perhaps heard, it is a real physical event, therefore it is concrete. The simple test of whether a noun is concrete is whether is can be sensed by using one of the five classic senses. In some cases a noun may be used in either an abstract or a concrete manner, but it is (as far as I am aware) always one or the other.

So what in - addition to auras - should be in this new category you propose which is neither one nor the other?--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 16:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sensations may be abstract to a degree, the underlying neurons' firing less so. Ditto perceptions, but with a different set of neurons. Are you allowed to use intervening equipment to bring something within reach of your classic senses? If not, single bacteria are abstract entities, which I find absurd. I'm not proposing any new categories, much less corralling "all others" into a single new one; who needs that? I do endorse examination of assumptions, and dividing the world in two is right at the top of my list for that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't get away from the sensation that you are trying to redefine the language in order to find a place for your auras which allows them to be both real and not-real. If we use the English language in the way that it is used by the majority of its speakers then things either exist in a real, tangible, testable physical sense or they do not. Your attempt to create some sort of half-way-house for auras which exist in some sort of mutually-agreed, semi-reality between the aura producer and the aura viewer seems - at least to me - to be rather clutching at straws.--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 19:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

<--You are probably aware that lexicographers may be classified at "anthropologists" who report the language as she is spoke, and "missionaries" who try to enforceencourage the use of what they consider to be the correct or most prestigious form of it. The language is redefining itself, through the agency of its speakers and writers, even as we sit here. It should go without saying that sticking to established forms makes for easier understanding. Still, trying to cram reality into verbally-defined slots can lead to massive misunderstanding, massive in the sense of an obstacle which is difficult to shift.

I have no slightest desire to "create some sort of half-way-house" nor any need to, since we already have the concept of graded membership in categories, which allows us to step away from the rigidity of classical Aristotelian categories. Analysis of fuzzy set theory goes back a bit further, again recognizing that an item may have a degree of membership, other than complete or nil, in a set. I'm not against rigidity in itself; stairway banisters work better when rigid, but in the universe of this discourse, it leads to misapprehension and consequent error.

Is a single bacterium abstract or concrete? Is a single axon firing abstract or concrete? Seems a case could be made for them being a bit of both. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the fact that grammarians may be split into two categories: those who believe in Descriptive grammar and those who believe in Prescriptive grammar, but whatever way you look at language it's pretty clear that things either exist or they don't.

A bacterium is is concrete. So is a synapse. Ideas are abstract. What is an aura?--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 19:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Earlier you asked about the difference between a sensation and a perception. Sensations are our nervous boundary with the rest of the world. A perception has been processed a bit more; it sits closer to the conscious mind, wherever that is.

An aura, as seen by yours truly, is a transient perception. I see it, hence by the definition above it is concrete. The letters on this screen also prompt a transient perception. Is an electromagnetic wave abstract or concrete? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

An electromagnetic wave is concrete. Every single example you have proposed so far is either abstract or concrete. The only exception (as far as I can tell) is the aura - about whose reality you remain strangely ambivalent.--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

_{You know, I am starting to wonder if you brother has taken over your RW account.--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)}

I ask, "Is a single axon firing abstract or concrete?" and you respond that a synapse is concrete. Apples and oranges. A synapse is the junction between two neurons, in my lay understanding of it. Is a gap a thing?

I still claim that the single instance of a neural axon firing may be considered somewhat concrete and somewhat abstract, both at the same time. We know about the mechanism from the recorded observations of others. Try to observe that event, and it may not happen. Can you get to the right axon with your probe? Can you do so without damaging it? If a man says something in an empty house where there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?

What part of "An aura, as seen by yours truly, is a transient perception." is unclear? (I also still maintain that a case could be made for calling perceptions abstract, concrete, or something in between.) More importantly, what useful purpose in this discussion is served by assigning it to one of two classically defined categories? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Break

<-- @Tom: After I've drawn an aura, the first thing most people ask is, "What does it mean?"
My honest answer is always, "I don't know; I just draw what I see. Let's ask..."
We then have a conversation about it, usually starting with me pointing out features, supposing them to refer to something spiritual, something emotional, or something physical. I am quite open with the other person about keeping my internal BS detector running, to stop myself if I start telling them something I think they want to hear. I also try to find out if a feature is cause for worry, or if a feature refers to something that could stand to be changed. That's pretty much my method, as far as I can condense it into words. My BS detector is a form of dowsing, and it seems to work pretty well for me. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So it sounds like there's no real objective meaning you could point to; without discussing the matter, the aura's qualities don't tell you anything. I guess I don't need to point out that it sounds like you just see colors and then you convince yourself that they have meaning by extended conversation. Again, I'm not accusing you of lying, but I'm just saying that this is kind of how it looks to me. Yet you seem certain that you are actually sensing something with independent meaning. Why do you think this?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see layers of light inside and outside the person. The colors vary, their shape varies, the layer thickness and texture varies, as does the intensity of any given feature. The "conversation" is mostly me talking, occasionally asking, "Do you know what this means?"

If they say they know what a feature means, I let it go at that, unless they want to talk about it more.

Some people don't say much-- I still see what I see, and as I said before, quite often there is a single feature or arrangement of features that stands out, and seems to correlate well with who is there in front of me. After that, it has about as much solid diagnostic value as a hastily taken set of Myers-Briggs coordinates, as I said before. If anyone is claiming that this is magical, or based on some undiscovered radiative property of the animal body, it ain't me.

No, the auras I see do not have independent objective meaning. Did I claim they did? The phenomenon as I experience it, involves me and another person, or sometimes an animal. Can't separate the observer from the observation. Nothing to prove here really: I see this as a sort of extended {{citation needed}} on the line in the Aura article that says "The simple case is that "aura readers" are outright liars."

In aid of that I've tried to lay out some bits of my own experience. I don't know what previous notions someone may bring to this, but that is not really my business. I do appreciate your questions and comments. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Okay, well, in light of what you've said, it seems as though you see colors or simple patterns/images sometimes when you close your eyes and try to do so somehow. There doesn't seem to be much reason to think they're anything beyond that, since it makes much more sense and is a lot simpler to think that you are using a complex interpretative process to instill meaning into an everyday visual phenomenon. And I think if you were to claim you could see or heal disease or anything else objective (as you admit you cannot), you would be a liar. The aura section seems pretty clearly not to be referring to people who claim to heal disease or the like. Maybe it can use minor rewording, but it seems fundamentally accurate - even to your own knowledge of the matter.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 22:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we see a limitation of text verbiage. I might as well try to show you what kind of musician Fritz Kreisler was by showing you a dusty scratched fragment of an old shellac 78. See? it's all in those grooves there... of course some parts are missing, but that ought to give you a taste of it. Wouldn't really get the message across. And here I see a limitation of rational thinking. The world is not entirely about thinking, although natural laws seem to be rational, as far as we've been able to tell so far. There are senses, and there are senses. Once I became sensitized to my own glutei, I could forget about them, and just fly coordinated without looking at the dials. That's about practice informed by analysis.

Tom, your choice of "simple" and "[not] anything beyond that" seem dismissive. Yes, well, simple sugars in a supersaturated solution, we can take the refractive index and... that will carry you so far in some directions, and it is also worth while to open a busy hive on a warm summer afternoon and tuck a chunk of burr comb up under the veil and chew on it for a while.

Sometimes disease does present as an anomalous aura, but if someone is sick, better they should see a doctor than some guy sitting at a table between the crystal/dreamcatcher booth and the masseuse's chair. Still, people have taken comfort from the reflection or insight the reading may prompt, or simple focused attention from a well-meaning stranger. They come up again and want more. That's why I never took any money for it: it would have been a conflict of interest on my part.

I don't see my experience as a real live aura reader anywhere in that "Other explanations" section. It's not synesthesia or migraine onset or prevarication. It might be some part of my unconscious mind expressing itself, perhaps in a useful way to someone else. Not my business to figure that out if it's working; I just look and what I see is interesting. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to see why you are so certain about it not being synesthesia or a similar phenomenon. I mean, you are saying that it is a thing that can't be rationally described, but that's hardly something that is a reasonable explanation. Presumably (since you're a RWian) you wouldn't accept Andy Schlafly's explanation on why the Invisible Hand of Marriage is real if he declared that he couldn't explain it in rational terms ("You have free will to accept or deny the truth of the Invisible Hand of Marriage, but I can't break it down in rational science babble for you."). So why do you get a pass on this in your own head? Is it because it comforts and provides insights to other people sometimes? If the Invisible Hand of Marriage comforts some people and gave Phyllis Schlafly brilliant insight into why marital rape was okay, would that make it true?

Maybe you're a reasonable and understanding guy, who has extraordinary perception. Maybe that's why your discussions with people help them?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for hanging in here through all this. I think I already said so, but I acknowledge it is something that happens in my head when there is someone else there, and I go looking for it. I think I'd recognize synesthesia if I had any; there have been some pretty intensely introspective times in my past. If I had to summarize it in a sentence, let's say: the human mind most likely harbors emergent phenomena way more complex than our smartest ones are yet able to fathom, even with all kinds of fancy gear. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You think you'd recognize a physical experience almost entirely divorced from the lexicon of the language and nearly everyone else's sensory array? Why would you think that? And even if you could recognize it's not this one specific thing, why do you think the simpler explanation is a metaphysical insight into the character of others, rather than some minor physiological thing that makes you see mild hallucinations?

I'll agree that the human mind's capabilities are amazing and probably beyond our current understanding in certain respects, but that doesn't seem like a reason to think this. That would be like me saying that my dog is capable of way more than we could ever imagine with our science, and so that's why I think that my dog is speaking to me about Chomsky's theory of dialectic. Yes, there may be some greater possibilities there, but that doesn't mean that this specific possibility - contraindicated by things like my dog's clear lack of linguistics training - is true.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"almost entirely divorced from the lexicon" ?? I beg to differ. In my largely wasted youth, I read The Stars My Destination. There is also a short SF story from a not-so-distant era with the punchline, "What smells purple?"

The hallucinations are relevant to the person observed, and seem to contain information that my conscious mind is unaware of. That is ten or twelve years of experience I cannot convey in this venue, any more than you could hear Kreisler by visually examining a shard of an old phonograph record. Chomsky is kind of old-school for this kind of thing; since then linguistic understanding has gone a lot deeper, by examining actual linguistic behavior from other viewpoints, testing other hypotheses. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

<--I don't know that "tastes purple" expresses anything meaningful to someone without the trait. I certainly don't know what tasting purple is like. It might as well be "tasting jshsghhgf" for all the real meaning it conveys. It's very poetic and interesting, but I cannot imagine what tasting purple is like, because I cannot taste anything but tastes. But I don't know, that's just a semantic quibble. I was just talking about how it might be hard to recognize it.

I don't really want to get into Chomsky, if you don't mind, but I should say that only last year he published Foundational Issues and it is surprising to hear anyone describe his contributions as being old-school. He may have essentially founded modern linguistics and phonology, but there's good reason he's still one of the most prominent scholars in the world.

So your position is that this phenomenon is best-explained by an otherworldly ability for reasons you can't really explain to a third party, but that exploration and testing of this ability - which defies what we know of modern science and could overturn entire paradigms - is not worth the effort of investigation? I mean, does that sound reasonable? Or maybe (and I'm trying to be tactful) is avoiding that exploration and testing going to help you preserve this idea of yourself as a person with an amazing ability?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"What smells purple?" is something a synaesthete might say. That other book also had a synaesthete for a protagonist. The notion of synaesthesia is not all that recent nor esoteric, certainly not "divorced from the lexicon." It's a word. We use it.

Where do you get "otherworldly" from? Not me.

At least one third party recently suggested taping my eyes shut. That strikes me as a brute-force test, inappropriate for human subjects. Go ahead and try to find funding for the test I suggested to Bob above, and see who thinks it is worth the effort. No, you have not reasonably characterized what I said.

"Amazing ability?" again, I didn't say that, you did. I said, "nothing special, quite normal."

Not sure what you are trying to elicit with your most recent edit. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is not that you don't know what synaesthesia is, the point is that "smells purple" is not meaningful. There is no synaesthetic lexicon. I do not know any words to describe or convey meaning about the taste of a color or the smell of a sound. To say that something sounds like red is not a meaningful statement, since all it makes me think of is the color red and things that are colored red, like blood, representing visual concepts.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I am saying that the ability to see auras is otherworldly and amazing. Because I think it would be, and if you can, it is.

It was I who suggested the scenario where your eyes are taped to do testing. I am not sure how much funding you want, but if you need it I will send you a couple of bucks for tape, a blindfold, and earplugs. Then you can render yourself sensory-blind and see if you can detect someone's presence by their aura (assuming they are also far enough away and careful not to betray their presence by walking in front of the window or whatever). Although to be honest that experiment loses a lot of its interest now that you have stated that you obtain no objective information from your aura-viewings.

My edit is meant to suggest that perhaps your lack of interest in testing and exploration is related to your own self-interest - maybe you don't want to find out it's just a mild hallucination. It took me a while to accept the probability of atheism when I was a boy just because it goes against my self-interest to think that there won't be any heaven for much the same reason. It's pleasant to think I will live eternally in some form. Just as it might be pleasant to think I can see into people's natures. You are very low-key about seeing auras, taking care to describe it as normal to you and even correcting me when I describe it as amazing. Do you honestly not see how it would be an incredibly huge thing if this were true - or is your assurance of its minor nature related to ensuring you would have no reason to look at it too closely?

I don't want to insult you - it would be a perfectly normal thing. Like I said, the same sort of thing kept me from accepting something I knew intellectually to be almost certainly correct for years. It's a very human and common thing.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 02:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What is normal for me is also quite possible for lots of people, not such an otherworldly gift if plenty of others can do it too. Maybe it is a matter of giving oneself permission to do something considered strange by their peers or those they look up to, and then practising that "strange" activity. It is a gift, along the same lines as taking in this breath now being a gift which I treasure.

The test you propose, masking "normal" senses and detecting a person's presence using only an inner vision, does not address how I practise my gift. Might as well ask me to write a paragraph that makes the parakeet comfy perching on my finger. A more reasonable test would be to present various aura readers with the same population of subjects one at a time in a blind trial, blind in the sense that the readers don't previously know the subjects, and neither the readers nor the subjects talk amongst themselves while the experiment is ongoing. There may be other elements vital to a well designed experiment, best left in the hands of a real expert in such things.

You are the one using the phrase "obtain no objective information" which I consider not quite on the mark. The people I read know what it is I see, after I show them a drawing of it, and point out the unremarkable parts, common to lots of people, and point out the anomalies. Unsurprisingly, it is the anomalies that carry the most information. One of the difficulties with this net discussion is that I have to ask you to believe that I don't do cold readings. I wouldn't know how. It really is an eyeball-space thing. I don't think I could do it over a skype link, though I haven't tried. We will just have to wait til we can meet face to face. I used to know a nice storefront Korean restaurant about four or five towns over, Murphy's. Murphy was a big jolly yankee, and the Mrs spoke pretty good English and would plop a big plate of kimchi in the middle of our table practically before we had a chance to say hello. Perfect atmosphere for spending a few minutes demonstrating how it works. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not really objective information if you show it to them and discuss it with them before discovering what it means, though, is it? It would be objective if there was anything you could reliably say about a person from their aura without talking to them. But that doesn't seem to be the case. You see things, and then decide what they mean when talking with someone.

Now if that wasn't the case, then there would be something you could look at and say definitively. Black rings mean PTSD, a red velvet rippling means arousal, or whatever. But things only seem to have meaning after you speak with the person and assign them meaning in discussion. Just like in tarot, you'll always be able to find some meaning. Everyone has a Tower of Heaven in their life, and everyone has something they'll associate with an anomalous strange green pattern in their aura.

There just isn't any reason, from what I can tell, to think it's more than mild hallucinations induced at will.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 10:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You have every right to be skeptical, since the technique lends itself to abusive exploitation of needy people.

I don't know about the "induced at will" part. Many's the time I've wished I could take a second look; usually I have to be content with rendering what I can catch, hoping that the most outstanding features represent something the "client" can use. Not every subject is all that talkative, yet, more often than not, after I've looked it is glaringly obvious where the correspondences are, between the aura and the more substantial person.

Let's see if I've got this right. You don't do this. You don't know anyone who does. Yet, you are willing to say how it would work if it were "real," and propose tests on that basis. Classic straw man.

I never said I was really really good at reading auras; I get what I get, and not everyone gets a Tower of Heaven in their reading. Still, I feel like a pilot with only a few hundred hours logged, being told that there is no such thing as adverse yaw by someone who has never seen it outside the windscreen and felt it in their seat cushion, not in all the time they spent running a flight simulator from a PC keyboard.

I've offered a real-world view of aura reading from where I sit. Your part of this exploration is to poke holes in what I've said, to see where some of the boundaries and other parameters are. That is a perfectly valid way to go about it. At this rate, it will be a while before either one of us convinces the other. Not really a problem. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

<--..."classic strawman?" Are you serious? I'm carefully listening to how you characterize aura reading and trying to devise tests accordingly. I'm not setting up a version of aura reading that would be easy to disprove, which would be a strawman.

It's true that in tarot, not everyone gets a Tower of Heaven. But I can assure you that everyone can find meaning in what they get on their spread. Of course, you have to talk with them about it first...

I'm not trying to poke holes. I am trying to point out the skeptical side of the situation, and to show you how you could conclusively prove your case. I'd prefer not to "explore" like we have been doing, which is why I have been trying painfully to winnow out some objective criteria for testing. Your own proposed test is obviously impossible. Even if we could find ten "aura readers" and afford to fly them in and conduct the test, all that would establish is that a group of "aura readers" agree on characteristics or not. And it is not very helpful to know that a tall man with red hair reads as "green wavery aura" to a carefully selected group of people who experience similar mild hallucinations. It would be like bringing together a group of colorblind who cannot see purple, a very rare thing: just because they all agree that Barney the Dinosaur is green doesn't mean that they're right. It just means we have carefully selected a group of people who are all wrong.

You obtain no objective information. When I said this before, you protested, but then you gave another subjective example ("anomalies" that were explained when speaking with someone). Further, your aura-reading is apparently purely a visual function and doesn't give you any information without the use of your eyes. So what about if you painted a group of ten people's auras and then let them pick their own? Can someone more often than not recognize their own aura?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 11:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit button

In the best of worlds I would be staying neutral, presenting my own observations without decoration or comment. That's another thing I'm not very good at sometimes, so forgive me if I let some defensiveness stray in.

First test you suggested was "detect a person's presence or absence (or identity) without normal sensory cues." Nose plugs, ear plugs, blindfolded. (An aside of my own: Ear plugs do not block sound, but attenuate it. White or "pink" noise in a headset would effectively mask outside sounds, but would also be onerously distracting, and degrade the results.)

Looks like that comes from other debunking efforts such as Randi's, and has nothing to do with my own practice or experience.

One excellent question I haven't yet answered much is "What information is conveyed by an aura? Gender, race, intelligence, ethics? Is there anything you can specifically point to that you can usually tell? For example, does a person's aura usually reflect whether or not they are hungry?"

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, ...

That stands for "I'll have to get back to you on that." It's not like I've kept all my readings in a notebook over the years; the subject gets the original drawing, and only in very rare instances have I sketched a copy for myself. I do keep drawings of friends and relations, but those are scattered here and there. It is going to take some blocks of undisturbed time to gather the recollections.

Next possible test you mentioned is "something you could look at and say definitively. Black rings mean PTSD, a red velvet rippling means arousal, or whatever..." That might be a worthwhile direction, but I have my doubts. Searching on line will find various mappings of color to character. There may be some common factors but each reader basically must compile their own decoding scheme, if you want to call it that.

Lorem ipsum some more, similarly.

I don't "explain" anomalies, but suggest possible interpretations, and ask for answers. I don't ask the client, I ask spirit, and the answers come in different forms. I do everything I can to exclude wishful thinking and other forms of BS from the process.

You also suggested having people pick their own auras from an array. Maybe... but how often can you taste your own tongue? Mine has to get pretty rank before I notice it much.

I think the best way to get to know this process would be to observe it in its natural state for a while, and then formulate sensible relevant tests. It is something that happens between an observer and a subject, and is, aah, delicate. Information does arrive, but not something one would swear to in court, nor a basis for prescribing a course of treatment. ^p.s.:The process may be more acceptably described as an idiosyncratic form of sidewalk portraiture, which can form a basis for conversation._/p.s.

And yes, the "detect someone behind a screen or not" is a strawman demolition of the way I practise reading auras. Maybe that one should be laid at Randi's feet, although he may have been addressing a particular claim with it. The man is, after all, amazing, and I have a lot of respect for what he does.

"How often can you taste your own tongue?" It's hard for me to know what that means, and please forgive me for saying it seems to be cryptic. Does that mean that people can recognize their own auras, or that people cannot, or that you have no idea?

I am not sure why observation would be necessary before we could come up with a test, and it's probably not feasible (particularly not on my part, since my impression is that you're British and I am alternately in America and South Korea). We can work out a test without that, I think, if you would kindly answer some more questions - for which I would be grateful. You don't seem to know the answers to a lot of these questions, which seems weird to me, but then it's not something I'm familiar with. I am surprised you have no curiosity about it. But maybe you can tell me what you know.

• It would seem you require significant concentration for reading an aura, enough so that white noise would make it very difficult. Is this so?
• How long does it generally take to read an aura? You seem to present an idea of only seeing it for a moment and then you try to record what you saw. Is this accurate?
• Can you look at an aura as many times as you wish? Or is that glimpse all you get on a person in a certain period?
• There are the questions you are not sure about, of course. If you are interested in pursuing this, then you might want to look at them again. These are: what objective things can you tell from an aura; can you see an aura with a blindfold; can you see an aura through a screen or sheet; can someone recognize their own aura?

As to the strawman thing: a straw man is a representation of a given idea or theory that is particularly easy to defeat. When I suggest a possible test of the way you have stated your idea of aura-reading, I am hard-pressed to see how that is a straw man. I was only going by the way you described your ability: you said that you closed your eyes to do it and could possibly do it through a sheet, you didn't know. A straw man would be if I proclaimed that aura-reading could always be done through a sheet and thus you couldn't read auras unless you did this test. When I suggest a test you don't like, and then when I subsequently accept when you say why it won't work, it's not a straw man. It's just a suggestion of mine that you didn't think would work. The one is a deceitful method of undermining a rhetorical opponent's position through presenting a false picture of his position, and the other is me trying very hard to figure out something which you are finding very difficult to explain and work out a test.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I live in the northeast US. I sometimes use British spelling or syntax just because I feel like it or depending on who I think I'm talking to.

Regarding the tongue-tasting, I was trying to say that self-assessment is notoriously inaccurate. I don't see my own aura, and while I've never tested it, I suspect most people would have difficulty picking theirs from an array of sketches.

• I have read auras in various indoor and outdoor venues, mostly with other people around. Not a circle of onlookers or kibitzers around "my" table, but the usual ambient babble. It doesn't take a steely degree of concentration- to an onlooker it probably looks like a casual chat. I know if I had white noise blasting in my ears, I'd be annoyed and distracted.
• Yes, I see the aura for a flick, and then render it on paper, from memory. When I was doing this at faires, each reading took fifteen or twenty minutes what with the drawing and debriefing.
• Sometimes I can see it again soon after the first impression, sometimes not. This has motivated me to work on developing visual memory. Again, most realistic painters know this.
• What "objective" things? good question, let me return to that after some time. When I said I could probably see an aura through a sheet, I said a sheet draped around them. I see auras in clothed people, although it would be fun to ask some subjects to get naked and see if there was a difference. Not likely to happen soon, sad to say.
  • I don't work through a blindfold, why would I? Next opportunity, I'll try it and let you know, but you may expect that to be quite a bit later.
  • Working behind a screen is for orchestra auditions, and even then does not really mask the identifiable style of the performer- I think we can safely drop that one.

My turn to ask you a question: What are your qualifications, regarding the design and running of a robust scientific or psychological trial? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, we can just use noise-canceling headphones instead if need be. Or even just a separate room, if you have a French door in your house or the like where you can see through a large window while still being blocked off from the sound.
• Objective things like gender or age.
• If a sheet was hung to separate your normal vision from the subject, could you still see auras through it? The idea would be to test if you were gaining information from a sense beyond your vision.

I have no qualifications at all when it comes to design and carrying out of experimental scientific or psychological trials. Zilch. None at all. Nada. Just intensely curious about something that puts the lie to a large section of modern science and implies the existence of the supernatural.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 17:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not be too hasty to say it "puts the lie to a large section of modern science and implies the existence of the supernatural." I prefer to think it is perfectly natural, and understanding it better would extend modern science.

Ah, noise-canceling headphones. I had forgot we were here in the brave new XXIst century.

I've lost track of the number of times I've dismissed the sheet-as-curtain test. Maybe some charlatan told Randi they could see auras that way, but not the way it works for me. I suppose now I'll have to see if anything shows up when I try it that way, curiosity being what it is.

More likely to get fuzzily "objective" things like emotional state, physical distress, or even more nebulous spiritual stuff, which I've learned not to be too hasty to discount.

Emergent phenomena and distributed systems will be another whole discussion. Or not, since my knowledge of them scarcely goes past the "gee whiz!" level. That's how we used to say "woo," back when science was done by guys in white coats wearing horn-rimmed specs.

Gotta go now, more later, since this is proving enjoyable. Thanks! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just another bit: I had given the whole aura thing pretty much of a rest for several years, and somehow grabbed three images at a picking party last Saturday. In two cases, the images were taken across a crowded noisy room, and the other one was at close social distance, chairs next to each other. Maybe that will give you some more context. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

World-shaking?

Oh, it sure seems to me like it would overturn a lot of modern science, given that it would mean that character traits, personal experiences, and the like are all reflected on the exterior in some fashion, or perhaps further that human beings have the capacity to sense that energy (or whatever it may be) through a mechanism not reflected in their physical makeup and sensory apparatuses - rods and cones or the like. I'm not a doctor or a physicist, but I think it's pretty safe to say that satisfactory evidence of aura-reading's reality would not only make you spectacularly wealthy, but would also be the biggest scientific story in some decades.

Emotional state and physical distress are not really objective so much, but! I think we can work with it. If there were ten people, five of whom were undergoing physical pain or had been physically stressed, could you tell the difference by looking at their auras? Obviously controls will need to be put in place to ensure you can't tell otherwise, but still, this is something!

Or, emotional state: if there were ten people, five of whom were thinking about the saddest things they can imagine (death of a family member or the like), could you tell the difference between them by looking at their auras?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 18:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

<--Hmm. I don't believe "thinking about something sad" makes too much difference, or if it does, it takes someone more sensitive than myself to see it. A swift kick to the nads would make a noticeable difference, I think, but it would also show in the body language of the subject, big-time. Likewise, the loss of a family member is not something that one could ethically inflict on someone, just to see how their aura changed. A useful metaphor for working with auras is "spirit," and spirit does not alter itself much when we try to play games with it, at least not that I've seen, and I've tried a thing or two in that general direction.

Spectacularly wealthy, you say? In folk music circles they say you can make hundreds. Not sure if they mean dollars or euri or punt or CD's that you can barely give away at the open mic at the Barnes & Noble two towns away. Somebody like Darol Anger makes a nice enough living from his fiddling, and still he has to work at it. I doubt I'd make dozens (of dollars a year) with my playing.

The relevance of that has to do with any fine-tuned activity, be it swinging a bat at a ball, or getting the crowd out of their seats and dancing, or you name it. Swinging a bat, even the big-name pros don't count on connecting every time they step up to it. You need to know that as far as aura-reading goes, I'm a low-level amateur, and happy with that.

I haven't forgotten your questions, and will be composing a response, but it might not be for a day or two. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So you can't see strong emotion or pain, then? I don't understand. Earlier you said that was one of the things you could see in an aura. Could you help me understand why this wouldn't work? If you can see strong emotion, then we can generate strong emotion and you could see it, right? Is it just a question of the severity of the emotion?

Of course you will be spectacularly wealthy if you overturn some of the fundamental ways we understand how the mind works by virtue of a talent specific to you. A few studies and tests to demonstrate your efficacy and you will be able to put Uri Gellar to shame, because he was just a talented faker. Like most fakers, he was unwilling to undergo serious scrutiny - either because he was knowingly faking or because he couldn't handle the prospect of being proven deluded. Since you have no scruples about testing (since you're not faking) it's just a matter of working out the protocol. I'd be much obliged if you'd let me write or help write the stories and books about it, incidentally.

Of course you couldn't be expected to have perfect accuracy or perfect precision, just like no one expects a baseball player to always hit a ball with perfect accuracy or perfect precision. But you can be expected to outperform statistical randomness, just like a baseball player outperforms someone who is swinging a bat randomly in the strike zone. Thus out of ten people, you might not be able to perfectly detect each of the five who is clinically depressed (or whatever we manage to work out as the condition to be seen) but you would be expected to do better than the random control. And if ten people isn't enough, we could always increase it to thirty to give plenty of room for you to "hit or miss" on each one.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 15:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't done controlled tests, so I don't know what the parameters are, of being able to detect pain or strong emotion. I might even get an indication of someone faking strong emotion, which is what "thinking about something sad" amounts to, IMO. Call me contradictory, and I claim the right to be, but I have fun with this ability at the same time I think it is not something to play games with. _{drive-by response, so sorry} Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything you can say with confidence that you can detect from an aura without talking with the person?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 20:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Most obvious characteristic is overall energy level. People without much affect tend, in general, to have thinner external auras and dimmer inner ones than the general run of folks. Some quiet people have brilliant things going on inside, and skin-tight outer presentations. One person whose aura I was familiar with, grew a huge one at a stressful public speaking event. What I was used to seeing as about a hand's breadth all around her grew to be twice as tall as she was, and the colors grew more vivid, the layers easier to see, since they were much wider.

Particular individual features are not so easy to generalize about, naturally. The stranger with the censer on a tripod in her chest turned out to be a faith-based healer or counselor, strongly Roman Catholic. No way I could have known that previously. Few people show anything so figurative as that. One person, whom I knew previously in a social context, and knew to be a TV interviewer, astonished me with a totally flat featureless aqua-blue inner aura, with a solitary pencil-thin skin-tight red layer outside. Light aqua is a common color for me to see inside or out, but the featurelessness of this one was remarkable. Reminded me of clear blank mirror.

One fellow, again someone I knew, showed an inner aura like stacked boulders in the workplace. Later in the evening, when he wasn't multitasking so hard, his inner aura got smoother.

If someone wants a clinical diagnosis, they should go to a doctor; I do this for a hobby.

If you want to tell me that all I'm seeing is my own projection onto the person, go right ahead on. I've considered that myself at times, and most of the effort involved in the process is testing for that and trying to keep it to a minimum. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All you're seeing are your own projections onto the person. After this discussion, it's become clear that you carefully avoid seeing anything that could be verified. Whether that's conscious or unconscious, I don't know. I suspect it's the former to at least some degree; when you earlier said you could see strong emotion, you had to backtrack and contradict yourself to say that, no, never mind, sorry, you couldn't.

It's pretty clear that anything I could come up with to use as a test, you would find a reason why it wouldn't work, probably a reason involving the most esoteric explanation possible ("Trying to explain why that won't work is like trying to describe the way a nineteenth-century lathe's foot pedal doesn't move horizontally.")

Really, it's the attitudes like yours that always are the tip-off for me. I don't know how anyone can seriously not see the enormous implications of such a talent. The measured responses of "it's normal to me," "I don't want to sully my gift," and the like are pretty typical ways to get around this, but that projected view has never held water as far as I can see. You would have to be pretty stupid not to see that such an ability (were it real) would be unusual and amazing, and you don't seem stupid. And even if you didn't want to "play games" with a paranormal ability, and make money and fame off of it (or whatever), you would also have to be stupid not to see the astonishing benefits humanity could gain. A practiced person who could see men's souls to some degree could stop rapes and murders, diagnose disease, and so on. And for those people who say "anyone could do it" (as you hint) then it makes even less sense, because you're deliberately depriving most of the world of an amazing ability. Unless one was a complete moron, he'd use the ability for financial gain (because he was selfish) or for the benefit of mankind (because he wasn't selfish).

So yeah. It's not impossible you can see mystical auras. It's within the realm of the possible that you actually do have an amazing ability that just happens to manifest in ways that cannot be tested, and you have no curiosity about it, and you never saw the potential financial benefit or benefit to humankind. But I can't see much reason to give that possibility much credence. The aura article seems to just need one change: the addition of "or deluded" to the liars line. Sorry.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

<--Doing a fair bit of projecting yourself, it seems to me. "A practiced person who could see men's souls to some degree could stop rapes and murders, diagnose disease, and so on." You may want that to happen, but sorry, that kind of stuff is not my job. Where did I say I could see souls? Where did I say the auras I see are mystical? As far as financial benefit goes, WTF?

I've also been told I give a pretty fair back rub, but you think I could parlay that into great wealth, and grandiose benefit to humankind? Dude, the benefit comes one-on-one, and one interaction at a time. You seem to be the one all hot to franchise this and write the book about it. Not my operating model.

Where did I say I could not see strong emotion or pain? I do remember saying that somebody trying to work themself into a tizzy for experimental purposes ("thinking about the saddest things they can imagine" as you suggested) would most likely be ineffective.

My suggestion stands, that observation of the process as practised is a sensible precursor to the test design. Anything else involves you formulating what you think it ought to be, and me saying, "but it doesn't work that way." Sorry if that is frustrating for you.

You might be able to learn how to see auras. It is a simple matter of using what you do have, and practising with it. Then you would know something about it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I guess I am projecting when I talk about stopping rapes and murders. I just assumed that almost everyone with a special power would be interested in doing that if they could. Because of... um... you know, consciences.

You keep doing this "where did I say" stuff. I thought I adequately explained before... sometimes when I use words, they're not direct quotes of what you said. I consider the ability to see someone's profession (like seeing a censer when looking at a religious healer) to be mystical. You may not. That's peachy-keen for you, and I will send you a ribbon proclaiming that.

It's kind of weird I need to spell out the financial gain for you, especially since I again thought I explained that before. Do you honestly not see the difference between being able to give a back rub (an extremely common skill that everyone accepts can be learnt with a little training) and seeing a visual representation of a stranger's traits? I mean, are you really saying you don't see the difference there?

I said that someone with this ability would either be selfish (and thus use it for personal financial gain), not selfish (and thus only use it for the enormous benefit of humankind that would result), or a complete moron (and thus not see either possibility). You seem to be suggesting that you belong to a fourth category: you see both possibilities, but you do not care about money and do not care about people. Which is... um... do we have a userbox for "This user is a callous monster"?

About the emotion thing: so are you now saying that if we had ten people in front of you, you could tell which of the five of them had recently lost a family member and were deeply sad? Or maybe we could use people who are clinically depressed instead? I await your reason why that won't work.

I am not sure what good observation would do. I can watch John Edward on YouTube pretty easily, so I've seen it. Plus, at this point I'm not sure I want to get within knife range.

Like I said, I am pretty confident you will always find a reason why any potential test wouldn't work or would be inconclusive. I'll edit my final summation, though: It's within the realm of the possible that you actually do have an amazing ability that just happens to manifest in ways that cannot be tested, and you have no curiosity about it, and you never cared about the potential financial benefit or benefit to humankind.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, stopping rapes and murders by reading auras is your wish, not mine. Would be neat if they went away; PTSD from sexual assault is not a fun thing to live with. Don't ask.

I don't think cutting people is generally a good idea. Don't worry, we are just talking.

Learn to do it yourself, and see. Helpful but not necessary to pick up pointers from Jon Edward or Kyle Broflovsky or Stan Marsh or whoever did the cold reading on that show, about what not to do.

You provide the ten candidates, we'll find a neutral location, I'll do the readings, and we'll see what we see. Better still, read them yourself. This industry needs more workers, since I don't see a way to perform mass readings showing up soon. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fine that you aren't interested in stopping heinous things. I just think it's monstrous, and am surprised anyone would willingly admit to it. I like to think if I was in any situation where I had a special ability to stop a rape (such as being present at the assault, having telepathy, or being able to read auras) then I would do so. But to each their own.

Gosh, "we'll see what we see" sure doesn't sound like a conclusive test. It sounds like you're creating a way for you to avoid any potential results by saying that "Oh, that means this test won't work! Didn't prove anything!"

Yeah, there'll never be a conclusive test, will there? There will always be a reason why it won't work or would be inconclusive, like I said.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You saying that we should predetermine the results? "We will see what we see" is the way I've always approached diagnostic situations. That was hardware, not people, and I got pretty good at it. Just some practice.

I guess I haven't got your attention robustly enough yet. IF I THOUGHT I COULD STOP HEINOUS THINGS THIS WAY, YOU THINK I WOULDN'T? What, you think I should be put at the bus station to scope every passerby and say, "Him, Officer, HIM! STOP THAT MAN!!!" Get a logistical clue about this, please. One on one. One interaction at a time. Ever seen a piecework shop? I've done this for several hours at a time, maybe as many as six or eight people an afternoon or evening but not lately. Can't say how soon the sensor would fatigue beyond being useful. Oops, there's another "that wouldn't work" for you, ten points for you! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying predetermine the results. But you're clearly implying that if you couldn't do it, then it didn't mean that you couldn't really see auras. Instead, it would mean that the test was just flawed. Right?

That is different from a conclusive test. "Conclusive" is a word that implies we would have some conclusions when we were done, not that you could utterly fail and still claim you can read auras.

Are you agreeing that we can devise a conclusive test? Because I suspect there will always be a reason why it wouldn't work or would be inconclusive.

That's right, you can't say how soon the sensor would fatigue. You haven't explored that yet. Doesn't interest me to do so. It's back to the catgut and olive wood for me. No, sorry, this is just a hobby I've had for ten or twelve years. I do it at renaissance faires. Nope, not going to try to figure out if I could use it that way. It's way too normal to me, that's not how I work. Plus I've got a big lunch and I'm maybe going to take a nap afterward. Not my thing, that whole "preventing rape" thing. But don't you dare imply that I'm callous when I casually dismiss you. It's not my job.

Well yeah. I was way off the mark, huh?

Or, of course, the reason you never pursued the huge humanitarian possibilities is because you can't really see auras and know that on some level.

But let me guess: I just don't understand. It won't work that way and can't work that way. You can't really explain why, because trying to do so would be like trying to explain how [UNNECESSARY ADJECTIVE] [OBSCURE CONCEPT].--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 23:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't see auras the grandiose way you imagine someone might. Please explain how you would go about stopping rape by noticing the currrent condition of several people, say four or five a day, you gould get your eyes on, one at a time. I said condition, not trait. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no way seeing someone's profession, mental status, or the like could possibly be extraordinarily useful in examining criminals. You're right. No way you could have turned this into something useful that way.

And what about that test. I suspect there will always be a reason why it wouldn't work or would be inconclusive.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 00:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a tremendous future in law enforcement for taxed and licensed psychic readers. Operators are standing by, have your card ready.

And how we will calculate the statistical significance of this conclusive test? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, psychics have been used before. But there's a good reason your sarcasm makes sense: aura reading and psychic abilities both don't exist. Hint hint.

The significance is pretty easy. Probability would say that you could correctly guess 50% of the people involved were clinically depressed or had recently lost someone. Presumably you would do better than sheer luck, but not perfectly. So a range of 60% to 100% would be strong evidence you were not just deluded.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

<--OK, I guess it really is not my job, then. Thanks for your earlier unsolicited career advice, and have a nice day.

Best-of-public statistical analysis too! What's not to like? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk)

It was real rough figuring out what percentages were greater than 50, I will admit - it sure was complex. I was distracted by a ringing in my ears, though. I've discovered that it's not just tinnitus, it's actually the thoughts of people nearby. I write down what I think I hear, and then read it to someone nearby with different phonetic variations until it resembles something they had been thinking. I would explain it to you further, but it exists between both hearing and not-hearing in a transitional state. I do it at ren faires for tips.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC

Seems as if you are unaware of what you don't know about statistics. I don't know either, but am highly confident that I know I don't know.

About your tinnitus, I'm happy you've found a use for it. I used to hang out at ren faires too, but never did the aura gig there. Paid outright by the organisers to be a strolling garbed troubador. Hourly rate a bit less than the day job, but it was a lot more fun. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

...you're highly confident about not knowing what the odds are of making an uninformed binary choice? I would definitely not brag about failing to understand coin flips after more than a half-century.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Triage is only a binary choice when you cast it in terms of life or death. I know I can listen to a cello piece on TV from another room and tell you that better than 87.5% of the time (give or take 10%) it will be the Prelude to Bach's G Major Suite. See if you can figure out how that's relevant all by yourself. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

...life and death? No, see if you are saying "emotional" or "unemotional" with regards to each person in a trial, that's a binary choice because it has two choices. I wasn't expecting you to kill them, although that's not terribly surprising at this point. See, randomly picking one of two choices means that you will pick each one about 50% of the time. That's why when you flip a coin, it is equally likely to land on heads or tails. Most people are aware of this. Now, if someone sees colors when they look at people and those colors have no meaning despite their ardent wish that they did, then they will only pick correctly 50% (that's mathematics for "half") the time.

Personally, I mastered coin flips at a young age. But everyone grows at their own pace. I'm not judging you.

I don't know much about music, I'm afraid, although I admire your ability to try to wrangle this into an area that's more comfortable for you than basic math. I bet varnish will also be absolutely vital to this conversation somehow. Work it in there!--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That manages to be both cute and snotty, but it isn't statistics. A fair coin toss is 50/50, big deal. Calling them in the air, how would you tell how likely getting six out of ten right was to be just luck, or precognition? So far you haven't given me any hint that you even knew that was a question to ask. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

How about...

Find me 5 unemotional people, and odds are they will all be at room temperature. Point is, it is not basic math, and is not about black and white. I'll stay away from music, if that eases your mind. How about anthropology? Speakers of a certain New Guinean language only have two words for color, pretty much translatable as "black" and "white." Ask them to sort different-colored marbles, and they will do it as accurately as you or I would. Nothing wrong with their eyes, they just have other things to talk about.

Even if we get a sample of five ragtime-talkers and five no-pulses, (that's my sekrt code for hurtn puppies and iron men) and it doesn't show much from the outside, suppose I nailed it, five for five, and five for five. I will claim that could only give us a certain amount of confidence that I was right. Improbable things happen, and it could just be dumb luck on my part. That's why I'd like to get a test designed that actually made sense in the context of the activity being observed.

Independent med/psych assessment of the subjects would be a better start. Pick some relevant items to look for, preferably with some orthogonality. That means one parameter doesn't predict much about the other parameters in the test set. For example, including both pain and blood pressure would be a poor choice, since they tend to track together. The test designers could even choose the subject sample from a larger population, to even out the mix, make it interesting, or whatever. With that done, I'll take five silent minutes with each subject in a suitable setting, comfortable neutral surroundings if that is seen as important by the test designers, and take ten minutes break between each one. If the test designers think it would work better, I could use a scripted greeting along the lines of "hi, please have a seat and get comfortable." Randomize the order of the subjects somehow. I will have used my breaks to note salient features of each drawing. I will also note my interpretation of those features.

Then we will see what we see. Won't be able to score it as ten yes/no choices, will have to agree on some other way. I'm open to suggestion about that, but it needs to make sense. If it makes sense to someone skilled at doing this kind of testing, I suspect I'll be able to go along with it without a problem. Is that any better? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What language is that?

And that seems like a great test protocol to me, but now I think you're making it hopelessly expensive and difficult. I mean, it would be ideal to do it pretty much that way, but who is going to foot the bill for that? You appear to want to test for a large number of variables, as well, which makes it much more difficult, complex, and confusing. I mean, your interpretation would be up for interpretation itself, unless you were specifically noting specific traits.

Why are you discarding my suggested protocol first? You're worried you might accidentally guess 100% by freak coincidence? How about just do three trials instead?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 05:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The language is Dani.

We are talking about a technique for observing people, perhaps even assessing some facets of their condition not expressed overtly, or expressed in a way which is subliminal to most observers. People can have a lot going on, both inwardly as well as to do with their style of swimming around in the social pool. Attempts have been made to condense an appraisal of a human being to a single number, but I don't think I am alone in considering that a mistake.

I've seen what happens when someone tries do something like making sensitive audio measurements with what amounts to two cans and a wet piece of string. Sound and its manipulation is one of my comfort zones, as you've noticed, but I don't think that example is too far out for this discussion. I don't mean to say elegant work can't be done with very basic equipment and simple methods, but right now I'm not sensing that kind of quality in a binary trial such as the one you have suggested. I'd like to think that the data would be scrutinized for what it is, rather than being offered up to a go/no-go gauge that might or might not have anything of value to say about the process as it is practised.

There have been times in this thread when I have been tempted to regret putting up the topic in the first place, but I did it with my eyes open, pun not intended. My intent, as I think I've said, is to point out that not everyone who strays outside the Aristotelian envelope is a charlatan. Some of us are honest explorers trying to maintain an awareness of possible delusion and eliminate it, or at least compensate for its effects. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)