churchistrue Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 I am super interested in this topic. I saw a video that came from the Book of Mormon Central team that showed a chart from the Fields Roper Book of Mormon Wordprint Study project. I guess the study is not published yet, but they are presenting on this in a few months. https://bookofmormoncentral.org/events/bmc-conference-2018 The chart they showed in the video looked very similar to data I have played with in the past. So I spent some time this week refreshing my analysis and proving a summary of my work. I think my analysis implies a potential serious error in their study. https://wheatandtares.org/2018/02/22/bom-wordprint-analysis-review/ I'm not in the academic community, so I don't expect the team to formally respond to my work, but I'd be very curious to hear the Fields-Roper team thought. Do either of them post here, or anyone else familiar with their work? Those of you who are interested in word print study stuff, what do you think? My conclusions: My work needs to be reviewed by an expert (which is harder than you think–we’ve had a lot of bad BOM computer studies over the years), but these are my personal conclusions based only on the data analysis. There are no more than three unique authors (contributors?) to the BOM. The variations between the S-N-L can be sufficiently explained by my model, and the homogenity and unique vocabulary patterns within the voices appears to be strong enough that it’s unlikely there are more than three unique contributors. The BOM prophets Mormon, Moroni, and Nephi transform their own voice across these voices (from N to S and in Mormon’s case even adding L), in a way that has similar variation that LDS researchers have formerly attributed to statistically unique voices. No traditional faithful explanations can explain the multiple voices. The best faithful explanation is that there are no multiple voices, and the voice is Joseph’s voice that comes through with translation. More research and comparison with other works should be done to determine 1) if the distinction between S and N is normal for one author and 2) if the concept of voice creep can adequately account for L. Statisticians should be aware of the logical explanations for the three voices, and account fully for this in studies. ie remove any variation that correlates to the S-N distinction.
clarkgoble Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) Not being an expert in this I don't have much to say other than I was pretty skeptical of word print analysis when they seemed to confirm my beliefs and I remain consistent in my skepticism. But you highlight my skepticism in that it seems we can break things up in many ways and get completely different results depending upon how we break it up. Edited February 23, 2018 by clarkgoble
Calm Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, churchistrue said: I'm not in the academic community, so I don't expect the team to formally respond to my work, but I'd be very curious to hear the Fields-Roper team thought. Do either of them post here.... Nope, they don't post here. Edited February 23, 2018 by Calm
Robert F. Smith Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 In JarMan's latest Galileo thread, I did mention Book of Mormon Central, “Is It Possible That a Single Author Wrote the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 27:13),” KnoWhy # 399, January 16, 2018, online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/is-it-possible-that-a-single-author-wrote-the-book-of-mormon , which you should probably respond to here. In JarMan's case, I was interested in the possibility that his 17th century Book of Mormon translation by Hugo Grotius (or a contemporary scholar) might be examined in light of the latest stylometric studies. We could examine the style of known 17th century authors.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Calm said: Nope, they don't post here. Matt Roper has in the past, but not lately, and then under a nom de plume.
Calm Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Matt Roper has in the past, but not lately, and then under a nom de plume. He is rather busy these days, I don't see him coming back anytime soon.
churchistrue Posted February 23, 2018 Author Posted February 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: In JarMan's latest Galileo thread, I did mention Book of Mormon Central, “Is It Possible That a Single Author Wrote the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 27:13),” KnoWhy # 399, January 16, 2018, online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/is-it-possible-that-a-single-author-wrote-the-book-of-mormon , which you should probably respond to here. In JarMan's case, I was interested in the possibility that his 17th century Book of Mormon translation by Hugo Grotius (or a contemporary scholar) might be examined in light of the latest stylometric studies. We could examine the style of known 17th century authors. Interesting. I didn't notice that. I'll check that out.
cdowis Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) I strongly suggest that everyone read Hilton's introduction to wordprint studies, especially the section "Word Prints and Word Printing". A few key points Quote most modem wordprint woodprint wordprint techniques measure only the placementof noncontextual contextual non words noncontextual contextual Non words like the and a of etc are often capable of being interchanged or even dropped without a loss of overall meaning they seem to add little in context information often being consciously ignored by writer and reader alike obviously measuring noncontextual contextual non words makes wordprinting wordprinting less sensitive to the subject matter in addition the technique improves statistical accuracy noncontextual contextual Non wordstypically make up 20 to 45 of the total text thereby providing a high number of statistical events and the larger the statistical measurement su is the more reliable the results are woodprint wordprint Wordprint measurements made from large numbers of noncontextual contextual non words continue to show that an authors free flow writings use these words in a habitual nearly subconscious unique way 4 however ifthe author consciously imposes an external structure the free flow of the authors woodprint wordprint wordprint pattern is modified and accurate wordprint woodprint wordprint measurements become more difficult to obtain https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4013&context=byusq Take note here Quote Book of Mormon Central addressed this in a post about a month ago, but what was new in this video was a chart, which I was told is from an ongoing BYU research project by Matthew Roper, Paul Fields, and others. These are identified as statistically unique voices, and the claim is made that this combined voice diversity is greater than 8 total novels from four 19th century writers (Cooper, D ickens, Austen, Twain). Huck Finn has a unique voice compared to Tom Sawyer. And Austen’s Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy have unique voices. This would indicate that the methodology is flawed since it cannot see that both character pairs have the same author. Edited February 23, 2018 by cdowis
Calm Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 You need to edit that first quote so it makes sense.
Calm Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 1 hour ago, cdowis said: This would indicate that the methodology is flawed since it cannot see that both character pairs have the same author. "While these characters’ voices still generally cluster together by the author who created them, they are distinct enough to consider them as statistically separate from one another."
Calm Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) From churchistrue' blog: " I don’t know the Roper study methodology...." It seems rather premature to me to make analysis claims when you don't know what you are analyzing (that is probably coming out snarkier than I mean it, I am short of time and brain dead and the other ways I phrased it weren't precise enough). Are you just assuming based on similarities to their chart or something else? (Because if just the chart, perhaps you should show that yours is statistically closer to theirs than others, etc.). It really seems wiser though to me to not waste time on possibilities and instead wait for a few months for the presentation so you are not just guessing. Edited February 24, 2018 by Calm
strappinglad Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 1 hour ago, cdowis said: most modem wordprint woodprint wordprint techniques measure only the placementof noncontextual contextual non words noncontextual contextual Non words like the and a of etc are often capable of being interchanged or even dropped without a loss of overall meaning they seem to add little in context information often being consciously ignored by writer and reader alike obviously measuring noncontextual contextual non words makes wordprinting wordprinting less sensitive to the subject matter in addition the technique improves statistical accuracy noncontextual contextual Non wordstypically make up 20 to 45 of the total text thereby providing a high number of statistical events and the larger the statistical measurement su is the more reliable the results are woodprint wordprint Wordprint measurements made from large numbers of noncontextual contextual non words continue to show that an authors free flow writings use these words in a habitual nearly subconscious unique way 4 however ifthe author consciously imposes an external structure the free flow of the authors woodprint wordprint wordprint pattern is modified and accurate wordprint woodprint wordprint measurements become more difficult to obtain Is it just me or does someone have a bad case of the hiccoughs ? 3
cdowis Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 20 minutes ago, Calm said: "While these characters’ voices still generally cluster together by the author who created them, they are distinct enough to consider them as statistically separate from one another." The wordprint studies that I have seen fail the validation test, if any test was made at all. When I see "stylometrics" it puts a shiver up my spine.
churchistrue Posted February 24, 2018 Author Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Calm said: From churchistrue' blog: " I don’t know the Roper study methodology...." It seems rather premature to me to make analysis claims when you don't know what you are analyzing (that is probably coming out snarkier than I mean it, I am sort of time and brain dead and the other ways I phrased it weren't precise enough). Are you just assuming based on similarities to their chart or something else? (Because if just the chart, perhaps you should show that yours is statistically closer to theirs than others, etc.). It really seems wiser though to me to not waste time on possibilities and instead wait for a few months for the presentation so you are not just guessing. It's complicated to explain. But here's the gist of it. I have analyzed BOM data over and over again. And I have identified two trends. Two very unique characteristics that seem to hold using all kinds of different tests. Those two characteristics you can think of an X axis and a Y axis on a chart and then you can place whatever you want on that chart. Books in the BOM. Sections of text. Voices, ie Amulek, King Benjamin, Nephi, etc. The chart I am referencing that came from them is near exactly what I produced. Voices as the bubbles across an X axis and Y axis of what I call the two trends. All the bubbles are in the right spots. Thus, I can say very, very confidently that we are using the same techniques. More technically, we're using techniques that correlate to each other. But the underlying driver is my explanation. ie this is what's happening. Fields-Roper and I both are looking at lemonade sales by my kid's lemonade stand last summer. Fields-Roper do a proper statistical study and give a fancy report that lemonade stand daily sales were highest in months that start with J, weak in August, and pretty strong in May. Also sales were strongest on days that didn't start with S. And also there was a unique trend that days ending with a 2 also didn't do that well. Then I just do some data mining and say the lemonade stand was open from May 10 to August 10, closed on weekends, and it rained on June 12, July 22, and August 2. We're both reporting same results, but they're not capturing what's really going on. Edited February 24, 2018 by churchistrue
Calm Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 4 hours ago, cdowis said: The wordprint studies that I have seen fail the validation test, if any test was made at all. When I see "stylometrics" it puts a shiver up my spine. And what validation test would that be?
Calm Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) From your blog: "I developed a theory that the Book of Mormon could best be analyzed by splitting up the narrative (I will call this N Voice) portions and the sermon (I will call this S Voice) portions." How did you choose what was narrative vs sermon? Edited February 24, 2018 by Calm
Robert F. Smith Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Calm said: He is rather busy these days, I don't see him coming back anytime soon. When I called this item to his attention today, he replied that he had already seen it on this board. So he is lurking. Edited February 24, 2018 by Robert F. Smith
Calm Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) I mentioned churchistrue posts on this board when I first heard about the wheatandtares' blog (before it was posted here) in case anyone wanted to engage him that I was talking with, someone else might have mentioned the board as well as you. Hopefully not more than a dozen or so, lol. He was aware of the blog as someone asked about it. That was how I learned about it. So I am not sure lurking is the right word. That conversation is how I know he is too busy to respond. His presentation is coming up soon, so hopefully that will answer any questions not currently dealt with in the BoM Central videos. Edited February 24, 2018 by Calm
mfbukowski Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 8 hours ago, churchistrue said: I am super interested in this topic. I saw a video that came from the Book of Mormon Central team that showed a chart from the Fields Roper Book of Mormon Wordprint Study project. I guess the study is not published yet, but they are presenting on this in a few months. https://bookofmormoncentral.org/events/bmc-conference-2018 The chart they showed in the video looked very similar to data I have played with in the past. So I spent some time this week refreshing my analysis and proving a summary of my work. I think my analysis implies a potential serious error in their study. https://wheatandtares.org/2018/02/22/bom-wordprint-analysis-review/ I'm not in the academic community, so I don't expect the team to formally respond to my work, but I'd be very curious to hear the Fields-Roper team thought. Do either of them post here, or anyone else familiar with their work? Those of you who are interested in word print study stuff, what do you think? My conclusions: My work needs to be reviewed by an expert (which is harder than you think–we’ve had a lot of bad BOM computer studies over the years), but these are my personal conclusions based only on the data analysis. There are no more than three unique authors (contributors?) to the BOM. The variations between the S-N-L can be sufficiently explained by my model, and the homogenity and unique vocabulary patterns within the voices appears to be strong enough that it’s unlikely there are more than three unique contributors. The BOM prophets Mormon, Moroni, and Nephi transform their own voice across these voices (from N to S and in Mormon’s case even adding L), in a way that has similar variation that LDS researchers have formerly attributed to statistically unique voices. No traditional faithful explanations can explain the multiple voices. The best faithful explanation is that there are no multiple voices, and the voice is Joseph’s voice that comes through with translation. More research and comparison with other works should be done to determine 1) if the distinction between S and N is normal for one author and 2) if the concept of voice creep can adequately account for L. Statisticians should be aware of the logical explanations for the three voices, and account fully for this in studies. ie remove any variation that correlates to the S-N distinction. I would suggest the word "traditional" rather than "faithful" since we do not get to judge who is faithful or not Some of us who are "faithful" can be VERY non-traditional. Not that I know anyone like that. 3
mfbukowski Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: In JarMan's latest Galileo thread, I did mention Book of Mormon Central, “Is It Possible That a Single Author Wrote the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 27:13),” KnoWhy # 399, January 16, 2018, online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/is-it-possible-that-a-single-author-wrote-the-book-of-mormon , which you should probably respond to here. In JarMan's case, I was interested in the possibility that his 17th century Book of Mormon translation by Hugo Grotius (or a contemporary scholar) might be examined in light of the latest stylometric studies. We could examine the style of known 17th century authors. If it's anyone I would vote for Grotius, but if there was actual evidence, I would just.... just..... uh.... be very surprised .....and surrender all the bad things I have said about historical research Now THAT would be earth-shattering. Totally weird but totally earth shattering! Edited February 24, 2018 by mfbukowski 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: If it's anyone I would vote for Grotius, but if there was actual evidence, I would just.... just..... uh.... be very surprised .....and surrender all the bad things I have said about historical research Now THAT would be earth-shattering. Totally weird but totally earth shattering! It might even shatter JarMan. 2
JarMan Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 10 hours ago, churchistrue said: I am super interested in this topic. I saw a video that came from the Book of Mormon Central team that showed a chart from the Fields Roper Book of Mormon Wordprint Study project. I guess the study is not published yet, but they are presenting on this in a few months. https://bookofmormoncentral.org/events/bmc-conference-2018 The chart they showed in the video looked very similar to data I have played with in the past. So I spent some time this week refreshing my analysis and proving a summary of my work. I think my analysis implies a potential serious error in their study. https://wheatandtares.org/2018/02/22/bom-wordprint-analysis-review/ I'm not in the academic community, so I don't expect the team to formally respond to my work, but I'd be very curious to hear the Fields-Roper team thought. Do either of them post here, or anyone else familiar with their work? Those of you who are interested in word print study stuff, what do you think? My conclusions: My work needs to be reviewed by an expert (which is harder than you think–we’ve had a lot of bad BOM computer studies over the years), but these are my personal conclusions based only on the data analysis. There are no more than three unique authors (contributors?) to the BOM. The variations between the S-N-L can be sufficiently explained by my model, and the homogenity and unique vocabulary patterns within the voices appears to be strong enough that it’s unlikely there are more than three unique contributors. The BOM prophets Mormon, Moroni, and Nephi transform their own voice across these voices (from N to S and in Mormon’s case even adding L), in a way that has similar variation that LDS researchers have formerly attributed to statistically unique voices. No traditional faithful explanations can explain the multiple voices. The best faithful explanation is that there are no multiple voices, and the voice is Joseph’s voice that comes through with translation. More research and comparison with other works should be done to determine 1) if the distinction between S and N is normal for one author and 2) if the concept of voice creep can adequately account for L. Statisticians should be aware of the logical explanations for the three voices, and account fully for this in studies. ie remove any variation that correlates to the S-N distinction. Help me understand your four quadrant charts. On both axes you have a scale from 0 to 1. What is being quantified with these values?
JarMan Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: If it's anyone I would vote for Grotius, but if there was actual evidence, I would just.... just..... uh.... be very surprised .....and surrender all the bad things I have said about historical research Now THAT would be earth-shattering. Totally weird but totally earth shattering! Did somebody just mention Grotius?
cdowis Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 9 hours ago, Calm said: And what validation test would that be? See the section "Developing and Verifying the Technique" https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4013&context=byusq
churchistrue Posted February 24, 2018 Author Posted February 24, 2018 9 hours ago, Calm said: From your blog: "I developed a theory that the Book of Mormon could best be analyzed by splitting up the narrative (I will call this N Voice) portions and the sermon (I will call this S Voice) portions." How did you choose what was narrative vs sermon? I used the BOM Voices db from a BYU study project. Most voices are split wholly N or wholly S (ie Zeniff N, Alma Amulek Abinadi etc S). The four main narrators Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, Jacob I had to comb through verse by verse to allocate between S and N. For Mormon it's easy, because he's almost entirely N. The parameter for dividing the narrators was a qualitative evaluation whether they were narrating storyline in the verse or whether they were teaching/testifying.
Recommended Posts