New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Michel H]

...
Do you agree you are unable to write any form of scientific paper as your "tests" are all flawed and you call all your sample groups liars as they don't admit to hearing your telepathy?

Certainly not. A draft of a scientific paper written by me would be somewhat similar to the analyses of tests I have already posted here (or elsewhere), plus an introduction, explaining things I have probably already said here, plus perhaps a few others. And I am not saying that everybody is lying. For example, I am not saying that calwaterbear lied when he said:

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

In addition, in real life, you have to learn to get used to a situation where people lie sometimes, and say the truth at other times. I have developed my credibility method precisely to deal with such situations.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have developed my credibility method precisely to deal with such situations.

Yes, you dishonestly assign high credibility to correct answers and low credibility to wrong ones. As I said, it isn't your fault, you can't help it and don't know any better.

 

[Michel H]

There is no confusion. Your claim stands as this: Everyone in the world can read your thoughts, but lie about doing so.

Is this a correct interpretation of your claim? Yes or No?

No, I don't think so (see post #1021).

 

[Pixel42]

The only difference between this forum and the ones where Michel is getting a few less critical responses to his tests is that there are more posters here with a good knowledge of the scientific method and basic critical thinking skills.

 

[John Jones]

Certainly not. A draft of a scientific paper written by me would be somewhat similar to the analyses of tests I have already posted here (or elsewhere), plus an introduction, explaining things I have probably already said here, plus perhaps a few others. And I am not saying that everybody is lying. For example, I am not saying that calwaterbear lied when he said:[...]

Jesus H Christ! Now everybody in the whole world is lying about not reading your mind except calwaterbear and a few others who mostly jerked-off your lunatic delusions with sarcastic comments.

Publish away, my delusional, schizophrenic friend. I recommend the Journal of Irreproducible Results, or the old National Lampoon magazine if it were still around.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

And I am not saying that everybody is lying.

Yes you did. Link us to all the people who say they can continuously hear your telepathy. That's a big fat zero isn't it? You claimed everyone is lying.

Do you remember how you stunned all the dogs in the world by thinking "Dogs can't read"? When I asked you how you could know that all dogs were stunned, unless all the dogs around the world were sending you back telepathic messages.....you ran away.

Can you hear the voices of half a billion dogs in your head? It must be very noisy in your head.

You change your claims to according to which forum you are trolling. We all know that.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

A draft of a scientific paper written by me would be somewhat similar to the analyses of tests I have already posted here ... plus an introduction,

Write down that introduction.

You can't can you. It won't make any sense and you will then have to deal with your schizophrenia.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But, assume you do a telepathy test on Yahoo Answers, Skeptiko or Spiritual Forums. Would you expect to get replies and comments similar to those I am getting?

Yes, of course, that's exactly what I would expect; a mixture of sincere claims by the delusional that their personal guesses were somehow influenced by your thoughts, and sarcastic claims from people who are well aware that there is no such thing as telepathy but find your constant hectoring sufficiently irritating to want to mock you, all completely randomly distributed across the range of possible answers. Keeping the number of options down to four is a mechanism for ensuring that a significant number of these responses match the number you've decided is correct, and we know that you will then invent excuses to discount the remainder. I think any of us could easily reproduce that process.

Dave

 

[Pixel42]

Impatience and sarcasm from the knowledgeable and sceptical, encouragement from the ignorant and gullible, with more of the former on a sceptical forum and more of the latter on other forums - yep, exactly what i would expect.

 

[abaddon]

This is easy to say, of course (you don't even have to adapt such a stereotyped response to the nature of the evidence provided). But, assume you do a telepathy test on Yahoo Answers, Skeptiko or Spiritual Forums. Would you expect to get replies and comments similar to those I am getting?

If I were to perform such a test anywhere, I would accept ALL answers, for starters. What I would not do under any circumstance is invent a delusional method for ignoring answers I didn't like.

 

[calebprime]

If I were to perform such a test anywhere, I would accept ALL answers, for starters. What I would not do under any circumstance is invent a delusional method for ignoring answers I didn't like.

Your way of doing things would be much better than the way Michel has been doing them.

I say this without being sarcastic or even ironic.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... In addition, in real life, you have to learn to get used to a situation where people lie sometimes, and say the truth at other times. I have developed my credibility method precisely to deal with such situations.

You also need to know that sometimes people will say the opposite of what they really mean, yet they are not lying. The difference between lying and sarcastically pretending to support an absurd claim is that in the latter case there is no intention to deceive.

Of course, this may cause a problem if you find it unusually difficult to perceive what the writer expects us to understand they think is absurd. On this forum you can take it for granted that everyone thinks telepathy is nonsense unless they have made it abundantly clear that they suspect it is real.

Your 'credibility method' appears to be nothing more than confirmation bias. It allows you to resolve confusion, but only by providing answers which support your current views rather than correct answers.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, I don't think so (see post #1021).

If everyone can read your thoughts, you shouldn't need to post your thoughts on a discussion forum, should you?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

If everyone can read your thoughts, you shouldn't need to post your thoughts on a discussion forum, should you?

Someone genuinely believed that everyone can hear their thoughts could prove their sincerity by posting their credit card details, after all they would believe that everyone in the world would know them already.

 

[Michel H]

Yes, you dishonestly assign high credibility to correct answers and low credibility to wrong ones. As I said, it isn't your fault, you can't help it and don't know any better.

No, my credibility ratings do not depend (at least, in principle, but this is an essential principle) on whether the answer is correct or not. For example, in this recent test: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171101174543AAtaHf3 , Yahoo member John (one of the smartest on Yahoo) replied:

I'm going with (1). Disclaimer: I did not use telepathy.

This is, I believe, a clear example of a non-credible answer, because he said "I did not use telepathy.". Note that it is also incorrect (the correct answer was "text (3)", not "text (1)"). This is an example of the correlation I usually observe: incorrect answers tend to be non-credible and vice versa non-credible answers tend to be incorrect.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, my credibility ratings do not depend (at least, in principle, but this is an essential principle) on whether the answer is correct or not.

LOL. One of these is not like the other.

This is an example of the correlation I usually observe: incorrect answers tend to be non-credible and vice versa non-credible answers tend to be incorrect.

 

[calebprime]

Again, you misunderstand: He didn't mean you always commit that error.

He meant that you often commit that error.

the corrected accusation that you should respond to is:

wait, under construction, I've made a mistake.


eta:

Your credibility ratings bias your results

This is the minimal form of what you have to respond to, so it is what you should respond to.

It is true.

It is right.

Also, anyone with common sense wouldn't need this kind of thing explained to them. It's very, very strange.

 

[TheSapient]

No, my credibility ratings do not depend (at least, in principle, but this is an essential principle) on whether the answer is correct or not. For example, in this recent test: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171101174543AAtaHf3 , Yahoo member John (one of the smartest on Yahoo) replied:

This is, I believe, a clear example of a non-credible answer, because he said "I did not use telepathy.". Note that it is also incorrect (the correct answer was "text (3)", not "text (1)"). This is an example of the correlation I usually observe: incorrect answers tend to be non-credible and vice versa non-credible answers tend to be incorrect.

Your credibility ratings are entirely dependent on whether an answer is correct. This is why you can't write a protocol for your system before employing it. This is why the protocols you make up as you go don't apply to future answers. You will dismiss an incorrect answer on the grounds that it was too short. only to accept shorter, correct answers, later.

Remember that you once tried to demonstrate that your credibility ratings were not answer dependent by having the answers encrypted until after you had declared them credible or not. Then, once the answers were decrypted, and it was clear how badly you failed, you simply changed you credibility ratings.

Everything in your experimental design revolves around you fudging results to get to the conclusion you want. You don't have a statistically robust design because you know how badly you would fare. You created your credibility "system" to compensate for your continual failure.

And, yes, I understand that you don't really post your tests to learn anything. I get that it helps quiet your illness. Maybe it is foolish of us to think that openly discussing your failures will encourage you to seek help. But you are the one who puts us in the position where we have to choose whether to encourage your delusions, try to help you, or to pretend you are not here at all.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This is, I believe, a clear example of a non-credible answer, because he said "I did not use telepathy." ...

No, I disagree. You have no reason to believe that he would be consciously aware of receiving a message telepathically. Indeed I am pretty sure I recall in previous tests you have asked people to answer whether or not they were aware of receiving a message. So his claim not to have used telepathy is no reason at all to reject his answer.

What do you wish to achieve with your tests? Plainly not to convince yourself, since you began from a position of total conviction. To convince us, then? You can see perfectly well that nobody here accepts your method and, as a physicist yourself, I'm sure you would similarly reject any experiment so open to bias and cheating were it not an experiment testing your particular idée fixe. So why do you persist with this useless method?

 

[abaddon]

No, my credibility ratings do not depend (at least, in principle, but this is an essential principle) on whether the answer is correct or not. For example, in this recent test: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171101174543AAtaHf3 , Yahoo member John (one of the smartest on Yahoo) replied:

This is, I believe, a clear example of a non-credible answer, because he said "I did not use telepathy.". Note that it is also incorrect (the correct answer was "text (3)", not "text (1)"). This is an example of the correlation I usually observe: incorrect answers tend to be non-credible and vice versa non-credible answers tend to be incorrect.

No, that is a prime example of you tossing an answer you did not like right under the bus.

Furthermore, one must look at the question as framed by you, I give you...

Hi, I invite you to participate in a telepathy test about a recent event which might demonstrate a remarkable ability of your mind and of your brain.

I recently wrote (fully or only partly) and surrounded one of the short texts below (chosen with the help of a random number generator) on a sheet of paper:
(1) New York struck by a new terror attack.
(2) President T. said he ordered Homeland Security to step up his "extreme vetting" program.
(3) Will this work? The Uzbek attacker came to the US seven years ago.
(4) A better method (in my opinion) should be more based on history and psychology. Halting US military operations around the world against the "Islamic State" and Al Qaeda and ordering Israel to finally comply with UN security council resolutions would perhaps be an encouraging first step towards intelligence and decency, after the illegal US invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, and of Irak in 2003.

I ask you to say here which text I wrote.

Can you not see the problem with that? Let alone that you are unable to spell "Iraq"?

On top of that you got a mere two answers. The one you cited and one other. Why were you afraid to cite the other answer you received? I know exactly why.

For anyone interested, here is the reply that Michel chose to ignore...

My precognitive abilities tell me that nobody is going to bother to answer your question. You are a young liberal who doesn't believe such things as telepathy exist.

I expect you to give me best answer if I am right.

So far, three TD's and I am right. Nobody has given you an answer. (Making up answers doesn't count).

That's right, nobody buys your baloney anywhere.