Are you psychic? Boundary Institute's Free GotPsi Tests

[Roger Ramjets]

i am sure their are few here that have rv in them and know it can be done

I have rv in me and know it can be done - only problem is the results are exactly the same as guessing.

So here is my rv of the online 'test'

The picture is of an invisible dragon flapping it's wings and breathing fire while riding a motorcycle - just like the one in my garage.

It's a hit!

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I may be psychic, I do keep getting this projection of the #3 I wonder why that is?

 

[George 152]

It came back with a four letter word..
SCAM

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Since this test seems to be quite time consuming I've created a quicker web app to apply my own patented psychic powers test which is instant, at least as accurate as the linked one and doesn't require you to hand over any details. To stop the government getting thei hands on this powerful tool I've disguised it as the spoiler button, just concentrate on the question really hard and click the button.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

I hope everyone appreciates this great time saver.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Since this test seems to be quite time consuming I've created a quicker web app to apply my own patented psychic powers test which is instant, at least as accurate as the linked one and doesn't require you to hand over any details. To stop the government getting thei hands on this powerful tool I've disguised it as the spoiler button, just concentrate on the question really hard and click the button.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

I hope everyone appreciates this great time saver.

But. But. I knew you were going to say that!

 

[Drs_Res]

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

Nope, still not.

Question: Am I psychic?

You might think you are.... but NO.

Question: Am I psychic?

Nope.

Question: Am I psychic?

No way.

Question: Am I psychic?

Did you get the previous 9 questions right? Well then, maybe you are.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

Nope, still not.

Question: Am I psychic?

You might think you are.... but NO.

Question: Am I psychic?

Nope.

Question: Am I psychic?

No way.

Question: Am I psychic?

Did you get the previous 9 questions right? Well then, maybe you are.

Now you've broken the Internet what do you propose to do next?

 

[Michel H]

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

No. No you're not.

Question: Am I psychic?

Nope, still not.

Question: Am I psychic?

You might think you are.... but NO.

Question: Am I psychic?

Nope.

Question: Am I psychic?

No way.

Question: Am I psychic?

Did you get the previous 9 questions right? Well then, maybe you are.

It's easier to read your post:

Question: Am I psychic?
...
Did you get the previous 9 questions right? Well then, maybe you are.

by clicking on the Quote button (this way we don't have to click on all the Spoilers). True psychicness seems to be well hidden, no question about that.

 

[EHocking]

...True psychicness seems to be well hidden, no question about that.

So well hidden as to never to have been observed.

 

[Michel H]

So well hidden as to never to have been observed.

I believe I have (probably) observed it many times. For example, in one of my tests:

I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.

His number was correct.

 

[Loss Leader]

I believe I have (probably) observed it many times. For example, in one of my tests:

His number was correct.

The fact is, as I have explained over and over, I was joking. I did not see any number not receive your thoughts.

The fact is that your self-confessed mental illness makes it impossible for you to I understand this.

The fact is that, as you yourself have explained, your family is very worried about you. You should ask them for help today.

 

[Michel H]

The fact is, as I have explained over and over, I was joking. I did not see any number not nor receive your thoughts.

The fact is that your self-confessed mental illness makes it impossible for you to I understand this.

The fact is that, as you yourself have explained, your family is very worried about you. You should ask them for help today.

I think that you are an intelligent man who probably did correctly perceive my number then, and that you are probably lying about it now (not then, now). This opinion seems to be confirmed by what happened when you proposed a telepathy test right after me in April 2015, the target of your test was evidently correlated to the target of my own test.
There seems, however, to be considerable reluctance to admit my apparent "telepathy" (that, by the way, my mother once admitted too; but she, like you, "changed her mind" later).

 

[EHocking]

I believe I have (probably) observed it many times. For example, in one of my tests:

OK, so you actually think you've observed it once (as per your example). Not many times.

His number was correct.

Even though he admitted it was a joke.
How many people responded to this "test"?
What is the probability of guessing correctly from 4 choices?
What is the probability of guessing correctly from 4 choices in multiple trials?

Have you calculated any of the above and then considered your "observation" regarding the "results" given in your post?

 

[Michel H]

OK, so you actually think you've observed it once (as per your example). Not many times.Even though he admitted it was a joke.
How many people responded to this "test"?
What is the probability of guessing correctly from 4 choices?
What is the probability of guessing correctly from 4 choices in multiple trials?

Have you calculated any of the above and then considered your "observation" regarding the "results" given in your post?

Loss Leader (who is a moderator) gave this (good) answer:

I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.

in a telepathy test that I started on this forum on August 22, 2013:

Hi, I would like to invite you to participate in a (new) simple telepathy test. ...

,
and whose results I presented on September 26, 2013, about a month later:

I would like now to present the results, and an analysis, of this second test on this forum. ...

The goal of the test was to try to telepathically divine a number equal to 1, 2, 3 or 4 I had written and circled on my paper.
Another high quality answer provided during this test was:

4

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

In the analysis, I did a credibility, and a statistical analysis of all answers so far (not just LL's one), and calculated a p-value:

... It may be interesting to introduce a credibility threshold, equal to CR=5, for exemple. Then, GregInAustin's answer (CR=2) is eliminated, and I obtain 3+4 = 7 ("strongly") credible answers for the two tests (on this forum, so far), all of which are numerically correct. The probability for this is equal to p = (1/4)⁷ = 6.10 x 10^-5 (assuming a 25% probability of answering correctly, for each answer). This is of course highly significant, but there are uncertainties related to the fact I assign credibilities while knowing if the answers are correct or not. ...

 

[EHocking]

Loss Leader (who is a moderator) gave this (good) answer:

in a telepathy test that I started on this forum on August 22, 2013:
,
and whose results I presented on September 26, 2013, about a month later:

The goal of the test was to try to telepathically divine a number equal to 1, 2, 3 or 4 I had written and circled on my paper.
Another high quality answer provided during this test was:

In the analysis, I did a credibility, and a statistical analysis of all answers so far (not just LL's one), and calculated a p-value:

OK.
NONE of that answered the relevant questions.

I'll try again.

How many tests have you started here?
How many people responded to each of your tests?
Which numbers did they guess for each test? - include successes and failures.

 

[Michel H]

OK.
NONE of that answered the relevant questions.

I'll try again.

How many tests have you started here?
How many people responded to each of your tests?
Which numbers did they guess for each test? - include successes and failures.

I think I may have done of the order of ten tests on this forum until now (seriously, not by putting my bare feet on the desk ...). While I did obtain some interesting results in the latest tests (and some good posts were posted by forum members), I generally found that both motivation and quality declined after the first two tests, so my analysis:

I would like now to present the results, and an analysis, of this second test on this forum. ...

, mentioned above, probably represents the best that I was able to achieve in telepathy-testing on this forum (until now, at least). I invite you to study it carefully, even if this requires putting your slippers on and changing your avatar.
Some simple, easy to understand evidence was kindly provided by Daylightstar:

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. All of them.
...

 

[EHocking]

I think I may have done of the order of ten tests on this forum until now (seriously, not by putting my bare feet on the desk ...). While I did obtain some interesting results in the latest tests (and some good posts were posted by forum members), I generally found that both motivation and quality declined after the first two tests, so my analysis:

In other words, you reject 80% (all tests after the first two) because they disagree with your preconception.

, mentioned above, probably represents the best that I was able to achieve in telepathy-testing on this forum (until now, at least). I invite you to study it carefully, even if this requires putting your slippers on and changing your avatar.

So, in your own words, the results of the first two test were as would be expected by chance - 25%.

the percentage of correct answers is 5/(6+5+6+5) = 5/22 = 22.7%. In the previous test, the rate of correct answers was equal to 3/13 = 23.1%​

The "analysis" that you then apply to the results has no bearing in probability, statistics or any mathematical field - it is merely numerology, and a rather sad attempt to force your results to fit your beliefs.
The other 80% of your data was even worse so you rejected it.

 

[Michel H]

In other words, you reject 80% (all tests after the first two) because they disagree with your preconception.
So, in your own words, the results of the first two test were as would be expected by chance - 25%.

the percentage of correct answers is 5/(6+5+6+5) = 5/22 = 22.7%. In the previous test, the rate of correct answers was equal to 3/13 = 23.1%​

The "analysis" that you then apply to the results has no bearing in probability, statistics or any mathematical field - it is merely numerology, and a rather sad attempt to force your results to fit your beliefs.
The other 80% of your data was even worse so you rejected it.

While the results of my first two tests on this forum were good, I think, they were not so good that I could afford analyzing them by just counting up how many answers were right, how many were wrong, and calculating percentages.

As I have explained, I had to do assess "credibilities", for each reply. For example, if someone replies: "I know for a fact that you wrote a 4", and the next person answers:" Tis is a ridiculus ******* "test", I can only use a die. I sai 3", I would assign a positive credibility rating to the first person, and a negative credibility rating to the next person. In this way, it is possible to greatly improve the results, in a reasonably objective way.

Similarly, the results of my latest tests on this forum, which provided relatively low quality evidence, needed that type of credibility analysis.

 

[EHocking]

While the results of my first two tests on this forum were good, I think, they were not so good that I could afford analyzing them by just counting up how many answers were right, how many were wrong, and calculating percentages.

Uh, that's all you can do.

The guess is either correct or not.
... and it is only a guess, since Psi (or whatever you wish to label it) does not exist.

As I have explained, I had to do assess "credibilities", for each reply. For example, if someone replies: "I know for a fact that you wrote a 4", and the next person answers:" Tis is a ridiculus ******* "test", I can only use a die. I sai 3", I would assign a positive credibility rating to the first person, and a negative credibility rating to the next person. In this way, it is possible to greatly improve the results, in a reasonably objective way.

Similarly, the results of my latest tests on this forum, which provided relatively low quality evidence, needed that type of credibility analysis.

It doesn't work in a casino nor for the lottery, so it doesn't work here either.

Weighting a wrong guess and calling it 100% correct is just lying to yourself.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Some simple, easy to understand evidence was kindly provided by Daylightstar:

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. All of them.
...

My full post being:

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. All of them.

As per usual, he has externally expressed thoughts and private thoughts.
The private thoughts, which to me are as clear as the externally expressed thoughts make it crystal clear that his whole schtick about his mother is almost entirely untrue, apart from the urging to take medication.

Michel H, I can literally hear the cognitive dissonance grind in your mind.

And of course:

All of that is sarcasm, Michel H. All of it.
I do not hear your thoughts, I can not hear your thoughts, there is no mechanism for such to be possible.

You not detecting strong sarcasm is your problem. You want to fit and construe everything into your telepathy delusion.

You are simply defining your psychiatric problem as a telepathy problem.
You have no telepathy problem, Michel H, you have a decades old un-remedied psychiatric problem.

Going along with your number guessing game is a bad thing because it keeps you from getting the appropriate attention.