New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Dave Rogers]

No.

Michel will now claim that as a success if the word was "Macron" because "no" is the last two letters of "Macron" in reverse order. Or, he'll claim it as a success of the word is "nervous" because the letters n and o are in the word in the correct order. Or, he will claim it as a success if the word is "Trump" be cause the word "no" is present in the name "Donald" in reverse order. Or, he'll claim it as a success if the word is "fire", because "no" backwards is "on" which is closely associated with the word "fire" when things are described as "on fire". Or, if the word is "victory", he'll claim it as a deliberate attempt to pretend that you're not receiving his thoughts even though you are, because "victory" is the only word in the five that's not obviously connected with the word "no", so you've carefully picked a response that's associated with all the choices except the one you secretly know to be correct.

Dave

 

[Michel H]

No.

Words charged with emotion automatically disqualify your nonsense non-test.

RoboTimbo, you are welcome to "explain" what a meaningful test would be like, in your opinion.

Besides, don't you think that, had I asked again:"Did I write 1, 2, 3 or 4?", such a test might be viewed as a little boring and uninteresting by members?

 

[John Jones]

RoboTimbo, you are welcome to "explain" what a meaningful test would be like, in your opinion.

Besides, don't you think that, had I asked again:"Did I write 1, 2, 3 or 4?", such a test might be viewed as a little boring and uninteresting by members?

Every test you come up with is boring and uninteresting because you always torture the responses to make them appear to support telepathy. For example, you'll find the letters to make up your desired answer in this paragraph, but scrambled, so my post will become a positive response when I don't even remember what the choices were.

 

[Michel H]

Michel will now claim that as a success if the word was "Macron" because "no" is the last two letters of "Macron" in reverse order. Or, he'll claim it as a success of the word is "nervous" because the letters n and o are in the word in the correct order. Or, he will claim it as a success if the word is "Trump" be cause the word "no" is present in the name "Donald" in reverse order. Or, he'll claim it as a success if the word is "fire", because "no" backwards is "on" which is closely associated with the word "fire" when things are described as "on fire". Or, if the word is "victory", he'll claim it as a deliberate attempt to pretend that you're not receiving his thoughts even though you are, because "victory" is the only word in the five that's not obviously connected with the word "no", so you've carefully picked a response that's associated with all the choices except the one you secretly know to be correct.

Dave

Dave Rogers, the correct answer of this test is "fire" (the fifth word in the list of possible choices), and I find no clear evidence that you knew this, from reading your post.

However, I just completed a closely related test (to this one) on the French Yahoo Answers site: https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20170513192840AARBM6p , where the correct answer was "5".

Four credible answers were given, two of which (50%) were correct (50% is of course much larger than the approximately 20% of pure random chance).

The person who gave the correct answer was SAINTMARC (you can probably easily figure out what such a name might mean regarding credibility). This Yahoo member commented, right after I chose his answer as the best: "Je le savais !! ..." (this means "I knew it!! ...")

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

RoboTimbo, you are welcome to "explain" what a meaningful test would be like, in your opinion.

You've been told this. Broadcast your telephone number, as hard as you can. Your telephone number and the desire for anybody who is genuinely interested to call you and start their phone conversation with a code phrase (something nobody would say without prompting like "yellow apes fish for smilies"). You don't even need to announce on sites like this that you're doing it.

If you've genuinely got telepathic abilities then someone will phone you. Then you'll have someone who not only can really hear you, but who you know genuinely wants to participate in your tests. From that point on it will be trivial of you to contact various sceptic groups and win their paranormal challenge prizes. People on this board will help you to do this.

If nobody contacts you then you know that either nobody can hear you or nobody is willing to participate. Either way, you don't ever need to do any tests other than that one. There is no reason for you not to do this test. There is no reason to do any other test.

 

[Hokulele]

RoboTimbo, you are welcome to "explain" what a meaningful test would be like, in your opinion.

A test in which you do not evaluate the answers, but simply accept the values posted. Credibility means nothing when it is used to discard answers you do not like.

 

[Michel H]

A test in which you do not evaluate the answers, but simply accept the values posted. Credibility means nothing when it is used to discard answers you do not like.

Unfortunately, such a "robotic" method is not well suited to human psychology (even if the statistical methods used are excellent, this is usually not enough). I noticed this once again a few hours ago when I made my analysis of the test in French I mentioned in post #661.

For example, one of the members responded (incorrectly): "the 3 being your favorite number", an unclear answer and a "textbook example" of a non-credible answer (as if I was going to use systematically my so-called "favorite number" as a ESP target, almost incredible isn't it? In actuality, I used my usual random number generator).

 

[Hokulele]

Unfortunately, such a "robotic" method is not well suited to human psychology ...

You are wrong, and you aren't testing human psychology, but telepathy. This is why no one in this thread takes you seriously any more.

 

[abaddon]

Unfortunately, such a "robotic" method is not well suited to human psychology (even if the statistical methods used are excellent, this is usually not enough). I noticed this one again a few hours ago when I made my analysis of the test in French I mentioned in post #661.

For example, one of the members responded (incorrectly): "the 3 being your favorite number", an unclear answer and a "textbook example" of a non-credible answer (as if I was going to use systematically my so-called "favorite number" as a ESP target, almost incredible isn't it? In actuality, I used my usual random number generator).

The only win to be had here is that you seek whatever help best suits you. Nobody hears your thoughts. Not here, not on any of the other websites you frequent, wherever they are, nowhere. There is nothing you can do about that. Sorry.

 

[p0lka]

Michel will now claim that as a success if the word was "Macron" because "no" is the last two letters of "Macron" in reverse order. Or, he'll claim it as a success of the word is "nervous" because the letters n and o are in the word in the correct order. Or, he will claim it as a success if the word is "Trump" be cause the word "no" is present in the name "Donald" in reverse order. Or, he'll claim it as a success if the word is "fire", because "no" backwards is "on" which is closely associated with the word "fire" when things are described as "on fire". Or, if the word is "victory", he'll claim it as a deliberate attempt to pretend that you're not receiving his thoughts even though you are, because "victory" is the only word in the five that's not obviously connected with the word "no", so you've carefully picked a response that's associated with all the choices except the one you secretly know to be correct.

Dave

Wow, Its like you can predict the future..

 

[Dave Rogers]

Four credible answers were given, two of which (50%) were correct (50% is of course much larger than the approximately 20% of pure random chance).

But when you (a) sort answers by a subjective determination of credibility in full knowledge of the correct answer and (b) accept correct answers even when you've judged them not to be credible (as you have here on many occasions), pure random chance has little relevance to your cherry-picked results. You've been told this over and over again, and you'll no doubt pretend not to hear yet again this time.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboTimbo, you are welcome to "explain" what a meaningful test would be like, in your opinion.

Besides, don't you think that, had I asked again:"Did I write 1, 2, 3 or 4?", such a test might be viewed as a little boring and uninteresting by members?

If I were to give you a protocol for a meaningful test, would you use it and accept the results without interpretation?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

If I were to give you a protocol for a meaningful test, would you use it and accept the results without interpretation?

No, It's been tried and suggested before.

 

[Kid Eager]

No, It's been tried and suggested before.

Yes - the one below caused Michel to contrive a bunch of very lame reasons why it couldn't possible work, including and excuse to the effect that "there are too many words". Basically, he refused to play on the level playing field set out.

Here is my Telepathy Test:

Below are 100 words. I will randomly select a word and tell Michel what that word is via PM. He will circle that word 4 times and stare at it. I will invite responses.

Here are the 100 words, in groups of 5x2:

_______________________________________

kneecap furious partner absolve canter
because december bridge banana dissolve

wander petunia echo zombie gigantic
archer binary charter elongated disruptive

foghorn gaggle history individual joinery
kindly latitude mandate nobody opera

platform quorum rattle statue tabernacle
uncle vibration watercress yearning zither

apricot baffle cabbage debated everywhere
flightless gateway hardly iconic jester

knowledge lovely missile noticed optimism
percolate quantity reversal substitute throbbing

unconscious vertigo whaling yesterday zygote
adversary barricade capable decking envelope

foccacia generator hoping imaginary jelly
kingdom lacerate morbidly nagging opposite

pardon quince ruminate sandstone toffee
universal vermilion workmanship yacht zoology

alphabet beneath challenger cardinal deliberate
fulminate gathering haberdashery paperless attachment
__________________________________________

Next step is to choose a word at random.

But first: So far so good?

 

[fromdownunder]

If I were to give you a protocol for a meaningful test, would you use it and accept the results without interpretation?

No, for a reason not already given above. Michel has flatly stated more than once that anybody who does not give a correct answer is lying.

Norm

 

[Darat]

Michel will now claim that as a success if the word was "Macron" because "no" is the last two letters of "Macron" in reverse order. Or, he'll claim it as a success of the word is "nervous" because the letters n and o are in the word in the correct order. Or, he will claim it as a success if the word is "Trump" be cause the word "no" is present in the name "Donald" in reverse order. Or, he'll claim it as a success if the word is "fire", because "no" backwards is "on" which is closely associated with the word "fire" when things are described as "on fire". Or, if the word is "victory", he'll claim it as a deliberate attempt to pretend that you're not receiving his thoughts even though you are, because "victory" is the only word in the five that's not obviously connected with the word "no", so you've carefully picked a response that's associated with all the choices except the one you secretly know to be correct.

Dave

Well I don't know if it proves telepathy but you seem to be uncannily accurate about all this....

 

[abaddon]

Dave Rogers, the correct answer of this test is "fire" (the fifth word in the list of possible choices), and I find no clear evidence that you knew this, from reading your post.

However, I just completed a closely related test (to this one) on the French Yahoo Answers site: https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20170513192840AARBM6p , where the correct answer was "5".

Four credible answers were given, two of which (50%) were correct (50% is of course much larger than the approximately 20% of pure random chance).

The person who gave the correct answer was SAINTMARC (you can probably easily figure out what such a name might mean regarding credibility). This Yahoo member commented, right after I chose his answer as the best: "Je le savais !! ..." (this means "I knew it!! ...")

Actually, I just checked that thread.

You scored 20% as expected.

 

[Michel H]

Dave Rogers, the correct answer of this test is "fire" (the fifth word in the list of possible choices), and I find no clear evidence that you knew this, from reading your post.

However, I just completed a closely related test (to this one) on the French Yahoo Answers site: https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20170513192840AARBM6p , where the correct answer was "5".

Four credible answers were given, two of which (50%) were correct (50% is of course much larger than the approximately 20% of pure random chance).

The person who gave the correct answer was SAINTMARC (you can probably easily figure out what such a name might mean regarding credibility). This Yahoo member commented, right after I chose his answer as the best: "Je le savais !! ..." (this means "I knew it!! ...")

Error correction: the highlighted phrase should be replaced by "The person who gave the best correct answer was SAINTMARC ..."
(feel free to point out any error).

Actually, I just checked that thread.

You scored 20% as expected.

Ten people answered (here, it's in French!) and 8 people gave valid answers (equal to one of the five numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). So, even without the important credibility filter, the hit rate was 2/8 = 25%, not 20%.

With the credibility filter on, the hit rate rises to 50% (not 100% !). I have explained in post #664 why lejofrapit's answer is not credible.

SAINTMARC, the person who got the best answer in my test, has a best answer rate on Yahoo of 25%. The (known) best answer rate of other members who have participated in the test are: lejofrapit: 5%, Yô: 7%, Blondin: 10%, Cousine Itt: 11%, rene: 1%, Alexandre: 14%, and Nanard: 7%.

The fact that good member SAINTMARC said "I knew it!!" right after the end of the test is an important and valuable testimony, which is reminiscent of other testimonies, obtained even on this forum, for example:

... I do indeed have ESP, and know for a fact that he wrote 2!

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. ...

Some members have offered suggestions for "better tests" (according to them). I read these suggestions very carefully, of course. An obvious problem I have on this forum is that nobody seems to want to participate in my tests any more. So, if one of your suggestions could fix that problem, it could perhaps be useful. However, I believe that a good test should be:
- simple, not unnecessarily hard and complicated
- protect the claimant's privacy (and also the privacy of participants)
- if possible, somewhat interesting, not boring
If you want to design a test which meets all of these requirements, there are not that many possibilities left, in my opinion.

 

[Dave Rogers]

However, I believe that a good test should be:
- simple, not unnecessarily hard and complicated
- protect the claimant's privacy (and also the privacy of participants)
- if possible, somewhat interesting, not boring

Everyone on this forum would, I think, add that a good test should be objective, rather than including an element of subjectivity which boils down to you simply rejecting any answers you don't like. It should also include some realistic statistical analysis of the results - for example, it might be conducted by someone capable of understanding that 2 hits in 8 answers is statistically indistinguishable from a 20% hit rate, a piece of simple arithmetic so trivial that anyone unable to comprehend it may need to revise for his next blood test.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

If I were to give you a protocol for a meaningful test, would you use it and accept the results without interpretation?

You didn't answer this, Michel. You seemed to be receptive to suggestions for a meaningful test. Has anything changed that you no longer want input on a protocol?