Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[jsfisher]

Sadly, MichelH has wandered over to my thread looking for confirmation of the test he conducted here. Check it out.

Also, vote for me in the Pith Language Award Poll. Link is in my sig.

FTFY

 

[Loss Leader]

FTFY

I'm nominated for a Language Award? I didn't see that coming.

 

[SezMe]

Yes sure, I do have doubts sometimes.

I was encouraged by this .....

When I have these doubts, I remember for example that phone call my mother gave me more than 20 years ago, when she said (in French) that "les gens lire dans tes pensées" (people can read your mind). Also, I seem to hear "telepathic voices in my head" (I often talk with them), and various noises coming from outside (car and ambulance horns, even birds), that often seem correlated with my thoughts (or, at least, this is the impression I have). All of this is so strong, telling me there is no telepathy is like telling a fish there is no water in the sea.
I believe I need people's help, to help me overcome these doubts (not necessarily on this forum, perhaps on other forums too, or through other ways). Having the truth recognized and acknowledged may perhaps be hard sometimes for all of us, but I think it's better than collective lie and torture against me through hostile voices in head.

...then I read the rest of the post and realized the first sentence was not true.

 

[Michel H]

I was encouraged by this .....


...then I read the rest of the post and realized the first sentence was not true.

Actually, my mother did not just tell me (in 1991) "people can read your mind", she also added (roughly): "If this thing annoys you, tell yourself 'This phenomenon annoys me, so I decide it does not exist' ".
Perhaps she has the right profile to become "a good skeptic" (if there is such a thing as a "good skeptic").
I note, on this forum, a tendency to accuse me of being dishonest , or of lying. A few more (sad) examples:

... you are stretching truth so far to reinforce your failed idea, that you cannot even be honest any more. Not that you ever were.
...

...
You know who I find to be lying and spinning here? Michel.

In criminal psychology (though I am not an expert on this, perhaps lawyers on this forum know more than me about this), it is perhaps frequent that liars accuse the honest person of lying, perhaps it's a way to try to project these lies that annoy them on another person to try to get rid of them.

 

[abaddon]

Actually, my mother did not just tell me (in 1991) "people can read your mind", she also added (roughly): "If this thing annoys you, tell yourself 'This phenomenon annoys me, so I decide it does not exist' ".

Sounds to me like what a mother would say. Anything to save her son.

Perhaps she has the right profile to become "a good skeptic" (if there is such a thing as a "good skeptic").

Your mother is a mother. She will both agree with you and disagree with you if she had the slimmest hope of rescuing you from any situation. That is what mothers do, and fathers too, to be fair.

I note, on this forum, a tendency to accuse me of being dishonest , or of lying.

They are not accusations. They are observations. Your posts remain regardless of any protestations you chose to make.

A few more (sad) examples:
In criminal psychology (though I am not an expert on this, perhaps lawyers on this forum know more than me about this), it is perhaps frequent that liars accuse the honest person of lying, perhaps it's a way to try to project these lies that annoy them on another person to try to get rid of them.

And you see no irony in this?

 

[Michel H]

Sounds to me like what a mother would say. Anything to save her son.

Your mother is a mother. She will both agree with you and disagree with you if she had the slimmest hope of rescuing you from any situation. That is what mothers do, and fathers too, to be fair.

They are not accusations. They are observations. Your posts remain regardless of any protestations you chose to make.


And you see no irony in this?

No, I don't.
My own impression is that people lie frequently on this forum (a mix of aggressivity and of dishonesty).
Written by a moderator of this forum (the most active on telepathy):

For the record, I was lying about having any indication of knowing what number you were thinking of. I lied because I thought it was funny. I lied to make you look foolish. ...

There have, however, also been a fairly large number of excellent posts on this forum (perhaps more than in any other forum I have posted in), and I am even considering the possibility of compiling a "best of" of good posts on this forum (and perhaps other fora too). But I don't know if that would be a good idea, or not (with a publication in mind, perhaps).

 

[jsfisher]

No, I don't.

Please remember you wrote this:

it is perhaps frequent that liars accuse the honest person of lying

It is perhaps frequent that you accuse others of lying.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[dlorde]

it is perhaps frequent that liars accuse the honest person of lying

It is perhaps frequent that you accuse others of lying.

Cue special pleading...

 

[abaddon]

No, I don't.
My own impression is that people lie frequently on this forum (a mix of aggressivity and of dishonesty).
Written by a moderator of this forum (the most active on telepathy):

What shall we make of this? Are you lying? Or is everybody else lying? Which is more likely? What do you think, and why?

There have, however, also been a fairly large number of excellent posts on this forum (perhaps more than in any other forum I have posted in), and I am even considering the possibility of compiling a "best of" of good posts on this forum (and perhaps other fora too). But I don't know if that would be a good idea, or not (with a publication in mind, perhaps).

Wow. You will not get a publisher. The whole notion is baloney. Nobody hears your thoughts. At best, amused denizens humour your ideas. As I have posted, this is not a good idea as it only fuels whatever it is you have going on.

Now, I will admit taking the mick out of various folks who have turned up from time to time, but you are different. You appear to have a genuine problem. For the love of whatever god you ascribe to, see a doc.

 

[The Moog]

Please remember you wrote this:


It is perhaps frequent that you accuse others of lying.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

That's his premise is it not, that everyone in the entire world is lying to him.

 

[Loss Leader]

Written by a moderator of this forum (the most active on telepathy):

Why do you keep quoting me as though my position as a moderator means anything? Moderators enforce the Membership Agreement. The enforceable rule of the MA say nothing whatsoever about skepticality, critical thinking, truthfulness, honesty or openness. All they say is to be civil and try not to curse.

There is no requirement that any moderator meet any special level of anything. I've gone back and read the discussion about me when I was nominated, and it sheds no light on how the mod team chose me. In fact, I've been an active part of the process of choosing four new moderators and I still have no idea how they were selected.

Stop identifying me as a moderator as though it means anything. It does not.

 

[Michel H]

Why do you keep quoting me as though my position as a moderator means anything? Moderators enforce the Membership Agreement. The enforceable rule of the MA say nothing whatsoever about skepticality, critical thinking, truthfulness, honesty or openness. All they say is to be civil and try not to curse.

There is no requirement that any moderator meet any special level of anything. I've gone back and read the discussion about me when I was nominated, and it sheds no light on how the mod team chose me. In fact, I've been an active part of the process of choosing four new moderators and I still have no idea how they were selected.

Stop identifying me as a moderator as though it means anything. It does not.

Being a moderator may mean something, even if you don't fully realize it

 

[ComfySlippers]

Being a moderator may mean something, even if you don't fully realize it

Go on then, enlighten Loss Leader ...

 

[TheSapient]

Michel,

Can you detail exactly how this conspiracy against you works and why everyone participates? If everyone knows you have these magic powers, why would anyone bother to lie about it? Why is there not also a conspiracy to lie about the existence of the sun or gravity? Why lie about your telepathy and not your ability to type or speak?

How does your test fit into this? If you think we are going to lie, how does your testy help? If you think we will be truthful, why do you need the test?

It seems to me that your approach belies the knowledge that you really don't have telepathic abilities, even if you don't want to admit it. See a doctor. They really can help you.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

My own impression is that people lie frequently on this forum (a mix of aggressivity and of dishonesty).
Written by a moderator of this forum (the most active on telepathy):

For the record, I was lying about having any indication of knowing what number you were thinking of. I lied because I thought it was funny. I lied to make you look foolish. ...

You have a mistaken impression. Aggression and dishonesty are not the reasons why people post things in your threads which are not true.

People regularly make jokes in your threads, and typically this appears to be because they regard the idea of telepathy as ridiculous and they decide to make fun of it.

Now it's regularly noted that you appear to have a particular problem in spotting when someone is joking, but you can hardly be unaware of the concept that jokes very often involve writing things which are not true, on the understanding that you expect not to be taken seriously when the reader sees the joke. Nobody normally categorises jokes as lies because there is no intention to deceive.

When people tell you they were only joking, or that some other poster was obviously joking, I seriously suggest you just take their word for it.

 

[Michel H]

...

... And, if necessary (or if some people are interested), I could say a few words about results (recently) obtained on other sites. ...

I actually would be interested, as long as you include links to the original answers so that people here can look at the responses for themselves (that is the "scientific" method)
...

Here are the results of the two other tests that I did in parallel (about simultaneously, with the same target number [equal to 3]) with this latest test, on Yahoo Answers and on skeptiko-forum.com.

On Yahoo Answers, I got three answers equal to 1, 2 or 3, all were correct (equal to 3):

Patricia wrote:
3. I'm pretty confident and I'd like to know the number you wrote down. Thanks.

PhotonX wrote:
That is *so* strange! Earlier today I was shopping, when a number just appeared in my head from nowhere. So, I can say with complete confidence that the number you wrote down was 1,427,918. There is absolutely no doubt about it.
.
Oh, wait...1, 2, or 3? I must have been receiving someone else's number and not yours. Okay, let me think...3. I'll go with three. Hell, now I've got a 33% chance of being telepathic--that's a far better chance than I thought.
.
There is a Polls & Surveys category over in Entertainment & Music that you might have better luck getting responses in.

and z said:
I dont have telepathy but ill guess......3 3 3 =nine
(note that punctuation seems to be lacking in this answer: he/she should have written:
I don't have telepathy but i'll guess......3. 3 3 =nine.)

Link: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150402140102AAvnsCS

As to credibility, I think Patricia's answer is credible without much problems, I find PhotonX's answer credible too because it is humorous and friendly, but z's answer is not credible because he/she said "I dont have telepathy".
So, my credibility method makes me lose one correct answer here. This happened also in a test in French I did recently on Yahoo.

On skeptiko, the first answer (equal to 1, 2 or 3) was:

3 (first that came to mind).
(this answer was given by perandre)

The next numerical answer was given by Hurmanetar, who said:
(1)... Only reason is because envisioning a 1 with a circle around it got the song lyrics stuck in my head: "one is the loneliest number..." Tried to get that out of my head and free associate but the song lyrics are stuck. Thanks! lol ...I am about 33.3% confident.

Ian Gordon answered:
3

low confidence.

EDIT: I'll change my confidence rating to "low-to-average confidence" - that would be more accurate.

wpb said:
2. Not confident.

Pat

and Slorri said:
I will say number 2, on a paper with lots of lip-marks on it. (lips)
Without confidence, neutral.

I find the answers given by perandre and Ian Gordon credible, but not the replies of Hurmanetar, wpb and Slorri.

Link: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/new-telepathy-test-which-number-did-i-write.2103/


On this forum, two valid numerical answers were given:

Number 1. I feel it strongly. Now if you'll pardon me, I must spend a penny.

and (jsfisher's answer consists of 2 parts)

...
It seems to me that associating a {numerical answer to my test} with urination indicates some level of aggressivity. Therefore, I give this answer a credibility rating (between -10 and 10) equal to CR=-5 (negative).
...

From this, we can now conclude 1 was not the number circled and contemplated.

Then again, I've been thinking number 2 all along. This whole thread reeks of number 2. It's number 2, isn't it?

jsfisher, should I understand that you are answering "2" in my test (or not)?

I am definitely sense number 2, so yes.

For reasons already explained (in posts #2110 and #2120), I found neither of these answers (by oody and jsfisher) credible.

It seems that, in British and Australian informal English, "spending a penny", means "going to the toilet" (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/spend+a+penny), and "number 1" may mean "peeing" or "urinating" in some contexts (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070704183822AA0VbQq, http://www.internetslang.com/NUMBER_201-meaning-definition.asp) [and I am glad this was explained to me by some forum members]

In the case of oody's answer for example, associating an answer with an act of peeing or urinating, with a human excrement, may seem inappropriate (in the case of a quality answer), and is not a good sign regarding that answer.
In addition, oody said:

...Now if you'll pardon me, ...

He seemed to request being pardoned (or excused), as if he had done something wrong, this also suggests this answer is not reliable.

So, on all three sites (Yahoo, Skeptiko and International Skeptiks), I received 10 valid numerical answers (3 on Yahoo, 5 on Skeptiko and 2 here), out of which 5 were correct, the hit rate is therefore equal to 50%, which is higher than the about 33% from pure chance alone (p₊ = 21%, not statistically significant).
If I limit the statistical analysis to the answers which were found to be credible (i.e. perceived as reasonably friendly and serious, in a way which can be understood by all), I get 4 correct answers within a set of 4 credible answers, with a hit rate equal to 100% (p₊ = 1/81 = 1.23%, statistically significant).

So this new test seems to confirm (to me at least) that I am an (involuntary) "global telepath", who involuntarily sends at least some of his thoughts into the minds of other people.

 

[abaddon]

No, just no.

From the yahoo thread Dr. NG says

I don't know and wouldn't tell you if I did.. You've run this test at least 100 times and never disclosed the results, I'm done.
https://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_...

Clearly, you intend to keep on doing this until you randomly get a result you like, and it won't be too difficult given your demonstrated proclivity for warping anything to fit your ill conceived notion.

On skeptico, user Chris asked...

Actually, being a bit serious, at one stage didn't you do the credibility ratings blind to the answers? There wouldn't be anything wrong with that, but what you've done above is just silly (and I'd suspect you were pulling our legs, except that other people have posted weirder things here).

To which you responded...

Yes, that's correct. But I found that the results were less good with the complicated method (with blinding). And I believe there is no big difficulty assessing answers, even when you know whether they are correct or not (this just creates a small uncertainty). This is done in a respectful way for the participants, of course.

Confirming that you will absolutely reject results you do not like simply because you don't like them.

This is not science. It isn't even telepathy. It goes far beyond wrong.

 

[abaddon]

In the case of oody's answer for example, associating an answer with an act of peeing or urinating, with a human excrement, may seem inappropriate (in the case of a quality answer), and is not a good sign regarding that answer.
In addition, oody said:

...Now if you'll pardon me, ...

He seemed to request being pardoned (or excused), as if he had done something wrong, this also suggests this answer is not reliable.

And once again, english idiom utterly escapes you. "Pardon me" is a linguistic filler and social lubricant. If someone tried to skip past you in a queue, you could say...

Hey, I was here first!

or you could say

Pardon me, but I believe I arrived before you.

Which would be a whole lot less confrontational. It certainly would not constitute an apology for being first in line, nor an admission that one wasn't first in line simply a less confrontational way of making the point. Social lubricant. Get it?

 

[ComfySlippers]

I have no intention of looking at "Yahoo Answers". I thought kids stopped doing that in 2001.
Do I interpret Michel's gibberish correctly?
If he has a 33% hit rate on his "guess a whole number between 1 and 3, this means he's telepathic?
...and that he's still allowed to filter the answers he doesn't like because of his silly Credibility Rating system?
The brain baffles.

 

[dlorde]

So, on all three sites (Yahoo, Skeptiko and International Skeptiks), I received 10 valid numerical answers (3 on Yahoo, 5 on Skeptiko and 2 here), out of which 5 were correct, the hit rate is therefore equal to 50%, which is higher than the about 33% from pure chance alone (p₊ = 21%, not statistically significant).
If I limit the statistical analysis to the answers which were found to be credible (i.e. perceived as reasonably friendly and serious, in a way which can be understood by all), I get 4 correct answers within a set of 4 credible answers, with a hit rate equal to 100% (p₊ = 1/81 = 1.23%, statistically significant).

So, not statistically significant unless you reject the answers that are wrong

p.s. please show your working for the statistical calculations and the confidence level.