Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[AdMan]

That may well be true, but jsfisher's posts have to be put in context. I said:

and jsfisher replied:

Then I asked:

and he replied:

I sense a lot of superficial aggressivity in these posts. He first suggested that my credibility rating were not serious, that all I have been doing is to assign negative (positive) credibilities to incorrect (correct) answers. Then he went on to suggest that my thread "has a bad smell", and he made a mistake by writing "I am definitely sense..." instead of "I am definitely sensing".
Note also, that he seemed to cynically answer 2 after he "concluded" that my number certainly was not a 1, a logical "deduction" instead of a telepathic process.
So I give this answer (which actually might be better than it seems, but I cannot say that now, because I cannot give the correct number away) a credibility rating CR=-7.

jsfisher, see what I meant about feeding his delusion? Why play along with his silly game, if he's not going to get the joke?

And Michel, your "analysis" is laughable. It is not based on anything at all. No actual scientist would accept it.

 

[abaddon]

That may well be true, but jsfisher's posts have to be put in context. I said:

and jsfisher replied:

Then I asked:

and he replied:

I sense a lot of superficial aggressivity in these posts. He first suggested that my credibility rating were not serious, that all I have been doing is to assign negative (positive) credibilities to incorrect (correct) answers. Then he went on to suggest that my thread "has a bad smell", and he made a mistake by writing "I am definitely sense..." instead of "I am definitely sensing".
Note also, that he seemed to cynically answer 2 after he "concluded" that my number certainly was not a 1, a logical "deduction" instead of a telepathic process.
So I give this answer (which actually might be better than it seems, but I cannot say that now, because I cannot give the correct number away) a credibility rating CR=-7.

Did you somehow miss the entire point that jsfisher was explicitly saying that your test smells of a big pile of bovine fecal matter? How is it possible that you missed that? Why on earth would you "analyse" such an answer? How can I predict you will not respond? Or that you will purloin this response into a number?

 

[AdMan]

Did you somehow miss the entire point that jsfisher was explicitly saying that your test smells of a big pile of bovine fecal matter? How is it possible that you missed that? Why on earth would you "analyse" such an answer? How can I predict you will not respond? Or that you will purloin this response into a number?

Michel is apparently unable to detect humor or sarcasm in the responses, thus his "credibility analysis" is a joke. He simply picks and chooses whichever responses he likes, and dismisses the others equally subjectively. It's anything but an actual scientific experiment.

 

[Michel H]

Michel is apparently unable to detect humor or sarcasm in the responses, thus his "credibility analysis" is a joke. He simply picks and chooses whichever responses he likes, and dismisses the others equally subjectively. It's anything but an actual scientific experiment.

If you disagree with me, perhaps you (and abaddon) should tell us (and tell me) which "credibility ratings" oody and jsfisher ought to get. You don't need to know the correct number to do that (otherwise you might be biased yourself).
I hope that you fully understand that sometimes people can take some steps to voluntarily and deliberately make their answers look non-credible.

 

[AdMan]

If you disagree with me, perhaps you (and abaddon) should tell us (and tell me) which "credibility ratings" oody and jsfisher ought to get. You don't need to know the correct number to do that (otherwise you might be biased yourself).

They should get NO "credibility ratings" at all. That is a subjective measurement that has no place in an actual scientific experiment.

 

[abaddon]

Michel is apparently unable to detect humor or sarcasm in the responses, thus his "credibility analysis" is a joke. He simply picks and chooses whichever responses he likes, and dismisses the others equally subjectively. It's anything but an actual scientific experiment.

I know, and since he has freely confessed his issues, I have made an effort to not fuel his notions. It is harder than one might think to respond without mentioning any particular numbers which might later be construed as "hits".

 

[abaddon]

If you disagree with me, perhaps you (and abaddon) should tell us (and tell me) which "credibility ratings" oody and jsfisher ought to get. You don't need to know the correct number to do that (otherwise you might be biased yourself).
I hope that you fully understand that sometimes people can take some steps to voluntarily and deliberately make their answers look non-credible.

Both oody and jsfisher were extracting the urine, taking the piss. I cannot fathom how you miss this.

It is obvious to me and everyone else. Except you. Now given your self professed illness, should this not give you pause for thought? Should you not step back and think for a moment?

I urge you to seek professional assistance.

 

[fromdownunder]

If you disagree with me, perhaps you (and abaddon) should tell us (and tell me) which "credibility ratings" oody and jsfisher ought to get. You don't need to know the correct number to do that (otherwise you might be biased yourself).

They both get a +10 from me because I understand exactly what they are saying, and you are so innocent of humour and sarcasm that you do not. We all get the joke here except you.

I hope that you fully understand that sometimes people can take some steps to voluntarily and deliberately make their answers look non-credible.

This is the thing. You accept all correct answers and think that all the incorrect answers are people lying to you, because you genuinely believe that people hear your thoughts and are just being liars when they give a wrong number, and discount those for no reason, except your belief in tha stupid.

You have said before on this thread a number of times that you do not trust anybody to give correct answers, so why are you begging for answers here, when you think that we are liars?

You have lived a lifetime in a lie of your own making. You still have many years left to make something meaningful for yourself. Forget this garbage and do something constructive. Start in a Soup Kitchen.

Norm

 

[AdMan]

I hope that you fully understand that sometimes people can take some steps to voluntarily and deliberately make their answers look non-credible.

You believe this only because you think that people are lying when they say they cannot receive your thoughts. But this is something that you're coming up with only in your own mind.

Michel, you clearly have issues that you need to talk to your doctor about. Looking for solutions on Internet forums won't do it. Please do seek some help with medical professionals. It may help if you show them this thread.

 

[Michel H]

...
I urge you to seek professional assistance.

Oh no, again...
My (assumed) "telepathy" has not been fully integrated yet into modern Medicine and modern Psychiatry (or Psychology). This is why I believe that consulting a medication-oriented "shrink" could be unproductive, traumatizing and even dangerous, not only for me, but also possibly for the "therapist". This is based on past experience, but I do not wish to talk a lot about that. Please avoid this subject from now on.

 

[Pixel42]

If you disagree with me, perhaps you (and abaddon) should tell us (and tell me) which "credibility ratings" oody and jsfisher ought to get. You don't need to know the correct number to do that (otherwise you might be biased yourself).
I hope that you fully understand that sometimes people can take some steps to voluntarily and deliberately make their answers look non-credible.

How credible would you have found their answers if no-one had explained the jokes to you?

I'm pretty sure you'd have found a reason to give a low credibility rating to whichever gave the wrong number and a high one to whichever gave the correct one. I can be confident of that because of what happened the only time your test required you to give credibility ratings before you knew whether the answers were correct: the result was negative for telepathy so you went back and found reasons to change your ratings, destroying your own credibility (or what little was left of it at that point) for ever.

 

[Michel H]

...
You have lived a lifetime in a lie of your own making. You still have many years left to make something meaningful for yourself. Forget this garbage and do something constructive. Start in a Soup Kitchen.

Norm

There is nothing wrong (as far as I know, at least) to study telepathy in an utmost rigorous and scientific way (and also peaceful way), even if some skeptics would like so much to live on in a universe of lies of their own making .

 

[AdMan]

Oh no, again...
My (assumed) "telepathy" has not been fully integrated yet into modern Medicine and modern Psychiatry (or Psychology). This why I believe that consulting a medication-oriented "shrink" could be unproductive, traumatizing and even dangerous, not only for me, but also possibly for the "therapist". This is based on past experience, but I do not wish to talk a lot about that. Please avoid this subject from now on.

Michel, you are NOT "telepathic". If you believe you are, it's because your brain isn't well and is makng you believe you are. No one is lying by telling you they don't hear your thoughts. Consulting a medical professional to better understand what you are going through will certainly not be unproductive.

You probably won't believe what I'm saying, but I hope you will consider it.

 

[Pixel42]

There is nothing wrong (as far as I know, at least) to study telepathy in a utmost rigorous and scientific way

There is something wrong in claiming to study something which has not yet been demonstrated to exist.

There is nothing wrong in attempting to establish whether or not something exists in a rigorous and scientific way, but that's certainly not what you're doing. You start with the unalterable conviction that telepathy exists and attempt to manufacture evidence for its existence by any means necessary, no matter how dishonest.

 

[abaddon]

Oh no, again...
My (assumed) "telepathy" has not been fully integrated yet into modern Medicine and modern Psychiatry (or Psychology). This why I believe that consulting a medication-oriented "shrink" could be unproductive, traumatizing and even dangerous, not only for me, but also possibly for the "therapist". This is based on past experience, but I do not wish to talk a lot about that. Please avoid this subject from now on.

And it won't ever be, because your (assumed) "telepathy" simply does not exist. You might as well claim that Unicorns or Mermaids or Gnomes have not yet been integrated into modern Medicine and modern Psychiatry (or Psychology). They haven't either because they do not exist either.

Seriously, seek professional assistance.

 

[Michel H]

And it won't ever be, because your (assumed) "telepathy" simply does not exist. You might as well claim that Unicorns or Mermaids or Gnomes have not yet been integrated into modern Medicine and modern Psychiatry (or Psychology). They haven't either because they do not exist either.

Seriously, seek professional assistance.

My telepathy has actually be admitted by two psychiatrists (partially in one case, implicitly in another).
Also, it seems that Tiktaalik works for the police (beware! ). He said:

4

I know it. I'm absolutely sure. I feel it inside of me ...

...
I was originally issued a side-handle baton, but the umpteenth time I sat down in the car, the bottom landed on the seat, and the thing shot out of its holster and clocked me in the side of the chin, I switched to a straight baton and then a collapsible.

 

[AdMan]

My telepathy has actually be admitted by two psychiatrists (partially in one case, implicitly in another).
Also, it seems that Tiktaalik works for the police (beware! ). He said:

That second quote has nothing to do with the first one.

Plus, you again demonstrate your inability in detecting sarcasm.

 

[SezMe]

I think I know the problem with your rating system, Michel. It is limited to the real integers, a limitation that prevents you from reaching your true ratings potential. You need to work in the complex plane. For example, I give jfisher a rating of 3-7i where i is the classical square root of -1. You are familiar with the complex plane, no?

 

[Michel H]

I think I know the problem with your rating system, Michel. It is limited to the real integers, a limitation that prevents you from reaching your true ratings potential. You need to work in the complex plane. For example, I give jfisher a rating of 3-7i where i is the classical square root of -1. You are familiar with the complex plane, no?

Yes, but I prefer things that are real to things that are complex, especially if they are unnecessarily complex.

 

[AdMan]

Yes, but I prefer things that are real to things that are complex, especially if they are unnecessarily complex.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand when posters are making fun of your methodology.