New telepathy test, the sequel.

[sackett]

Delusions of grandeur are old stuff. MikeH at least presents something novel: delusions of modesty.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Describe what would constitute acceptable proof, Michel. Clearly the posters themselves assuring you the comments were meant sarcastically doesn't qualify as you've already rejected at least one such assurance, so what would?

True that.


This is a game that everyone loses.

 

[Michel H]

Describe what would constitute acceptable proof, Michel. Clearly the posters themselves assuring you the comments were meant sarcastically doesn't qualify as you've already rejected at least one such assurance, so what would?

You don't quote any poster who, according to you, assured me their comments were meant "sarcastically", so it is not exactly clear to me what you exactly mean. However, it is possible that what you have in mind are Loss Leader's posts, who seemed to change his mind at some point:
First, a good, correct answer in a test:

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

Then, he seemed to change his mind:

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. I saw no number in my mind and did not even guess a number. I just hit a key.

All of my responses to any of your tests have been lies.

If I were you, I would discard all my responses as not being credible.

Now, the question is: If a moderator of a paranormal forum has no credibility, let alone special credibility, how can any person's credibility be assessed?

And then he seemed to revert back to his initial position:

... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your weak and ordinary mind and pull out the number you were thinking of. You did not feel aggressively towards me back then so your thoughts were very easy to read and you did not change your answer when you knew I was right. ...

Loss Leader seems to have a tendency to enjoy a certain kind of personal humor, but I would not describe him as "sarcastic". Wordnet 3.0 gives the definition:
sarcastic - expressing or expressive of ridicule that wounds.
(https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sarcastic).

 

[Michel H]

If you think that everyone means exactly what they say, then why do you assign credibility ratings to answers?

It must be a way for you to "dismiss evidence that you don't like". Your "four chioice" tests are laughable and your "credibility ratings" prove your dishonesty about it.

An example of a credible answer was the correct:

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

, while an example of a non-credible one was:

4, because drawing a circle around it makes it look like a cool Fantastic Four logo.

(highlighting by me). It was incorrect.

In Beerina's case, the lack of credibility of his answer was fairly obvious, I think. Obviously, when I present the results of a test with a credibility analysis, posters in the thread always get the right to object to one or some of the credibility assessments, if they believe the analysis has somehow been biased. This might lead to a revision of some credibility ratings, if the analysis was conducted with credibility ratings.

 

[Pixel42]

You didn't answer the question, Michel. What would constitute proof that the posters you keep quoting as support were actually mocking you if them explicitly telling you so (and yes, I was thinking of Loss Leader) isn't sufficient?

 

[RoboTimbo]

An example of a credible answer was the correct:

, while an example of a non-credible one was:
(highlighting by me). It was incorrect.

In Beerina's case, the lack of credibility of his answer was fairly obvious, I think. Obviously, when I present the results of a test with a credibility analysis, posters in the thread always get the right to object to one or some of the credibility assessments, if they believe the analysis has somehow been biased. This might lead to a revision of some credibility ratings, if the analysis was conducted with credibility ratings.

Exactly. You assign high credibility to correct answers and low credibility to incorrect answers. You will never submit to an honest test because you will never be honest with yourself. You will continue to dishonestly play your "four choice" guessing game and assign your dishonest "credibility ratings". It's laughable. You are receiving mockery because of your continued dishonesty.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

Do I need a #2 pencil for this? Is it scantron?

 

[Jim_MDP]

Michael, your sarcasm meter is utterly broken. Whether you are unable, or unwilling, to recognize it when you read it, I can't say.
But perhaps it would help to start slowly, and just maybe recalibrate the instrument.
An example...

Do I need a #2 pencil for this? Is it scantron?

This post of Duval's, is sarcasm. Just like every, EVERY, example of support or agreeement you repeatedly quote as though they were felow believers. The most recent you post and repeat are among the most obvious I've evere seen. Yet they seem to sail over your head every time.

I'm glad I've never followed this train wreck of a thread, as it's obvious you are beyond rational debate... or just having a laugh.

 

[Michel H]

You didn't answer the question, Michel. What would constitute proof that the posters you keep quoting as support were actually mocking you if them explicitly telling you so (and yes, I was thinking of Loss Leader) isn't sufficient?

Pixel42, I find your question really somewhat strange. On this forum, my goal is really more to demonstrate with good certainty that I am really telepathic (plus possibly some issues of public concern), and not to prove, after two long months of debate, that somebody once really did "mock" me.
I actually don't think that Loss Leader really mocked me when he wrote the second post mentioned above:

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. I saw no number in my mind and did not even guess a number. I just hit a key.

All of my responses to any of your tests have been lies.

If I were you, I would discard all my responses as not being credible.

Now, the question is: If a moderator of a paranormal forum has no credibility, let alone special credibility, how can any person's credibility be assessed?

I did not feel mocked or ridiculed after reading this post, I felt LL was humble.

 

[Michel H]

...
This post of Duval's, is sarcasm. ...

Really? I thought he was just suggesting a new test in a funny way.

 

[Giordano]

I have my own views that I have previously expressed but I would like to bring them forward again for posters perhaps new to Michel H’s posts. These are based on what he himself has posted in the past.

1. I believe Michel H is very intelligent.

2. He has posted that he believes that his thoughts can influence the thoughts of others. Even to the point of feeling responsible for some of the bad things that have occurred in the world. I believe he sincerely believes this just as we believe our brain influences the words we type on our computers. It does not seem a delusion to him; it is fully part of his reality.

3. This idea is a common symptom of schizophrenics; however Michel H does not attribute his ability to any mental disorder and I am not going to judge in a post.

4. He has posted he has sought medical advice and help in this regard but still believes point 2.

5.Internet posters telling him this is a delusion will not cause him to change his views because they are as “real” to him as your reality when on a keyboard. And posted suggestions for him to “check out” his views with professionals I and others have proposed have been responded to with point 3.

6. I don’t know why his tests are designed such that they are statistically useless. I think that he has posted that he hopes is wrong about his “ability.” Maybe he doesn’t want a definitive answer.

7. He doesn’t get sarcasm.

8. After some initial efforts to assist him (although not participating in his tests) I’ve avoided his thread because I don’t know how to be useful to him and I don’t want to risk being hurtful.

9. Michel H: I hope I captured your views correctly. I don’t think you influence other people’s thoughts but I respect you and wish you the very best!

 

[Michel H]

Exactly. You assign high credibility to correct answers and low credibility to incorrect answers. You will never submit to an honest test because you will never be honest with yourself. You will continue to dishonestly play your "four choice" guessing game and assign your dishonest "credibility ratings". It's laughable. You are receiving mockery because of your continued dishonesty.

Your vision is simplistic, RoboTimbo, and you didn't seem to read carefully my post #1224. I'll nevertheless try to give you two other (hypothetical) examples:

I believe you wrote "2" on your piece of paper, I might know it because you seem to be "telepathic".

Credible.

I think you wrote a 3 because I am the flying spaghetti monster.

Non-credible.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your vision is simplistic, RoboTimbo, and you didn't seem to read carefully my post #1224. I'll nevertheless try to give you two other (hypothetical) examples:


Credible.


Non-credible.

In your made up example, is #3 the correct answer?

 

[Michel H]

I have my own views that I have previously expressed but I would like to bring them forward again for posters perhaps new to Michel H’s posts. These are based on what he himself has posted in the past.

1. I believe Michel H is very intelligent.

2. He has posted that he believes that his thoughts can influence the thoughts of others. Even to the point of feeling responsible for some of the bad things that have occurred in the world. I believe he sincerely believes this just as we believe our brain influences the words we type on our computers. It does not seem a delusion to him; it is fully part of his reality.

3. This idea is a common symptom of schizophrenics; however Michel H does not attribute his ability to any mental disorder and I am not going to judge in a post.

4. He has posted he has sought medical advice and help in this regard but still believes point 2.

5.Internet posters telling him this is a delusion will not cause him to change his views because they are as “real” to him as your reality when on a keyboard. And posted suggestions for him to “check out” his views with professionals I and others have proposed have been responded to with point 3.

6. I don’t know why his tests are designed such that they are statistically useless. I think that he has posted that he hopes is wrong about his “ability.” Maybe he doesn’t want a definitive answer.

7. He doesn’t get sarcasm.

8. After some initial efforts to assist him (although not participating in his tests) I’ve avoided his thread because I don’t know how to be useful to him and I don’t want to risk being hurtful.

9. Michel H: I hope I captured your views correctly. I don’t think you influence other people’s thoughts but I respect you and wish you the very best!

I think that your description has some limited merits, Giordano, though points 1 and 7 are, in my opinion, contradictory. You said:

I think that he has posted that he hopes is wrong about his “ability.”

Perhaps you meant:

I think that he has posted that he hopes he is wrong about his “ability.”

I'm increasingly eager to see Michel's analysis of why I chose my number, right or wrong. I'm sure it will be illuminating.

 

[Michel H]

In your made up example, is #3 the correct answer?

This question is actually irrelevant for determining credibilities (whether the number, in a number-guessing test, is correct or not does not change anything about credibilities).

 

[RoboTimbo]

This question is actually irrelevant for determining credibilities (whether their number, in a number-guessing test, is correct or not does not change anything about credibilities).

That is your dishonesty speaking. The actual fact is that you do know whether an answer is correct or not before you assign your biased credibility rating.

 

[Michel H]

That is your dishonesty speaking. The actual fact is that you do know whether an answer is correct or not before you assign your biased credibility rating.

It is true that I usually assign a credibility rating while knowing whether the answer is correct or not. This is why, in my system, people get a right to object if they feel my carefully assigned credibility may have been somewhat biased.

For a while, on this forum, after objections from members, we decided to try to conduct a test using a system where I had to assign credibilities "blindly", without knowing if the answers were correct or not. But the system was complex, and the results, somewhat disappointing. This is why I decided to revert back to the simpler system, in which I often try nowadays to add a little "social element", containing a possible suggestion for what I view as human progress.

 

[Mojo]

It is true that I usually assign a credibility rating while knowing whether the answer is correct or not. This is why, in my system, people get a right to object if they feel my carefully assigned credibility may have been somewhat biased.

For a while, on this forum, after objections from members, we decided to try to conduct a test using a system where I had to assign credibilities "blindly", without knowing if the answers were correct or not. But the system was complex, and the results, somewhat disappointing.

In what way were they “disappointing”?

 

[Loss Leader]

Note that a novelty of this test, compared to some tests I did on this forum years ago, is that it tried to have, let us say, a "social orientation", trying to be kind of a "guiding light" for humanity

This is actually not a novelty of this round of testing. You have always worked as hard as possible to make your tests as far at odds with repeatable, falsifiable scientific testing as possible. You have done this so that you could, after the fact, manipulate the results so as to fit your preconceptions.

Adding some sort of "social orientation" just brings your test farther out of alignment with scientific norms. If you were to conduct a proper experiment, you would want to remove all forms of bias (including any pro or anti-social element) in both those taking the test and those evaluating it.

All comments helpful to improve these kinds of test, or their analyses, are welcome. Please remain polite.

1. You have too few choices to run a proper test.

2. You had far too few participants to draw any statistically significant conclusion.

3. You didn't blind the answer process. You, knowing the right answer, chose which responses to include and exclude.

4. You continue to consider irrelevant data that pollutes your answer set, once again considering words and phrases accompanying the answers instead of just taking the data as given.

5. Even from the irrelevant accompanying words from the same person, you cherry pick which of those you consider. You very much highlight that the person says he knew he was psychic while very much ignoring that, before you told him he was right, he declared himself not to be psychic.

6. Even with all of your cherry picking answers and attaching some bizarre truth value to how nice people were to you, you still got responses that were worse than chance.

7. Despite numerous offers to help you run a proper test, you have refused. You have instead turned to Yahoo! Answers to run yet another unscientific study.

8. You consider how many "helpful answers" someone has on Yahoo! in weighing their response, despite having no idea how someone amasses "helpful answers" or even if their answers were actually helpful.

9. No matter what I or anyone else writes here or anywhere else, you will continue to find evidence that confirms your preconceptions about your mental abilities while dismissing anything that challenges them.

10. Do I really need a tenth objection?

 

[Loss Leader]

However, it is possible that what you have in mind are Loss Leader's posts, who seemed to change his mind at some point:
First, a good, correct answer in a test:

Geed gravy, one sentence I wrote sarcastically in 2013 is going to follow me for the rest of my life. They'll probably put it on my tombstone.