Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
Could you be a little bit more specific, please?
Click to expand...
In the post that I was responding to, you said So, your answer should be one of the three numbers: "1", "2", "3", or "I don't know".

I simply responded accordingly.

ETA this is obviously a thread with a long history which I have no intention of trawling through. Have you established the parameters of the responses that you expect for your test to pass the "null-hypothesis"?

BTW In order to beat suspicions that you are rigging the test, you should combine your answer with a pass-phrase and post a hash of that combination as well as a hash of the pass-phrase on this thread.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
...
BTW In order to beat suspicions that you are rigging the test, you should combine your answer with a pass-phrase and post a hash of that combination as well as a hash of the pass-phrase on this thread.
Click to expand...
I no longer use hash codes in these tests (though I have, in the past) because they make the tests more complicated (they can always be added later, if some evidence seems to be obtained in simple tests). Also, I think it may be important to develop "mutual respect".
 
Michel H said:
I no longer use hash codes in these tests (though I have, in the past) because they make the tests more complicated (they can always be added later, if some evidence seems to be obtained in simple tests). Also, I think it may be important to develop "mutual respect".
Click to expand...
I think you might have that backwards. You need the mutual respect before you can dispense with the anti-rigging measures and I don't see a lot of respect going your way.
 
Michel H said:
Hi, I invite you to participate in a simple telepathy test.

At about 10:50 p.m. on this Thursday April 2 (Brussels, Belgium time), I wrote carefully one of the three numbers: "1", "2", "3" on my sheet of paper, and I surrounded it with a circle. Then, I wrote it again twice.

I shall repeat this number (which was obtained using a random number generator) from time to time during this test.

I ask you to write it here (if you think you know it, even with a doubt). You may also answer "I don't know".

So, your answer should be one of the three numbers: "1", "2", "3", or "I don't know".

I would also appreciate a little comment; you may say, for example, how confident you are in your answer.

Thank you for participating
Click to expand...


No, thank you.
 
psionl0 said:
I think you might have that backwards. You need the mutual respect before you can dispense with the anti-rigging measures and I don't see a lot of respect going your way.
Click to expand...
I did get some positive reactions in my previous tests, e.g.
Ashles said:
Well this is certainly one of the most robustly controlled experiments I have encountered.
Click to expand...
jdc324 said:
Totally worth the wait.
Click to expand...
Ladewig said:
...
Congratulations on once again proving telepathy.
...You are the vanguard of the next Golden Age of psychic testing.
...
Click to expand...
 
psionl0 said:
I don't know about the other two but I suspect that Ladewig was not 100% genuine in his praise.
Click to expand...


You'll find that Michel is utterly unable to detect sarcasm.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
If you think my test is very good, why don't you adopt my methodology?
Click to expand...
I think my method can work too (though it doesn't have a hash in this test), and is more sensitive, in order to possibly detect a real telepathic effect. I do believe you will probably do your test in a rigorous fashion (like you probably did last time, I read all your thread), but it seems to be inspired by a skeptical philosophy, and seems to be designed to fail. Which, in a sense, is logical, because people really probably do not know most of your thoughts (fortunately for you). As far as I know, you are not a "telepathic phenomenon", an individual with an "overdimensioned telepathy" like myself (it seems) ;) .
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
I think my method can work too (though it doesn't have a hash in this test), and is more sensitive, in order to possibly detect a real telepathic effect. I do believe you will probably do your test in a rigorous fashion (like you probably did last time, I read all your thread), but it seems to be inspired by a skeptical philosophy, and seems to be designed to fail. Which, in a sense, is logical, because people really probably do not know most of your thoughts (fortunately for you). As far as I know, you are not a "telepathic phenomenon", an individual with an "overdimensioned telepathy" like myself (it seems) ;) .
Click to expand...


This is what you just said: "A properly designed test of real telepathy will fail. I already know I'm telepathic, therefore I am exempt from having to do any real testing."
 
Loss Leader said:
This is what you just said: "A properly designed test of real telepathy will fail. I already know I'm telepathic, therefore I am exempt from having to do any real testing."
Click to expand...
You have a rather strange way of quoting scientists, don't attempt to do that in any scientific journal.
Success in a test like this is by no means automatic or guaranteed. Normally, success is achieved only if the rate, the percentage of correct answers exceeds 33%. And this must occur repeatedly, often enough, in order to really prove anything. I reserve, however, the right to analyse answers for credibility, in an open and public way. This may be controversial, especially on this forum, but is also essential, in my opinion.
Also, success in a telepathy test requires some cooperation from participants. It may be quite possible that you know my number, but you simply choose to not give it. This may reflect dishonesty on your side (collectively). I believe this is probably very common. Because this forum, and its members have a rather "skeptical" orientation, it is always tempting for you to give lousy answers, to try to make sure the skeptical tenets remain unchallenged. Nothing complicated here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom