New telepathy test, the sequel.

[fromdownunder]

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.

Yes, you assigned a credibility rating before you knew whether the member was right or not, then after you knew who was right and wrong you altered your credibility rating for the same answers to make your result more favourable. And even then it was not better than chance.



And of course, you have also sometimes claimed that all the people here do hear the correct answer, but lie to you and deliberately give incorrect answers in their responses.



You have refused every request to perform your test by on line poll because you know what the results will be (not marginally better than chance) and it will not give you a chance to pretend to have some sort of a credibility rating, where you can, and do, claim that all correct answers are credible and that all incorrect answers are not.


You refuse to do a test with, say, a seven figure number which would actually mean something of someboy picked the number because you know you will fail, badly.


Norm

 

[Michel H]

In what way were they “disappointing”?

In spite of the complexity of the system, which probably turned some participants away, the evidence for telepathy which emerged after the final analysis was somewhat feeble and disappointing. After this somewhat disappointing experience (even though it may have had certain merits), I concluded that it was better for me to follow my own path without paying too much attention to "skeptic noise", so to speak, while keeping on listening at the same time.

 

[Michel H]

...
You refuse to do a test with, say, a seven figure number which would actually mean something of someboy picked the number because you know you will fail, badly.
...

Perhaps you meant:

You refuse to do a test with, say, a seven figure number which would actually mean something if somebody picked the number because you know you will fail, badly.

It would be very annoying if the "skeptical conclusion" ("there is no ESP phenomenon") won, while there is actually a very real unusual phenomenon. It would be misleading. This is why it is important to design a test which can bring out any real thing.

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel42, I find your question really somewhat strange.

You asserted that I had been unable to prove that the posts you keep quoting approvingly were meant mockingly and sarcastically. I asked you what that proof would look like to you, in the hope that seriously considering that question would help you understand at least one of the fundamental mistakes you are making. Hope springs eternal, as they say, even though I know this particular case is hopeless.

 

[fromdownunder]

It would be very annoying if the "skeptical conclusion" ("there is no ESP phenomenon") won, while there is actually a very real unusual phenomenon. It would be misleading. This is why it is important to design a test which can bring out any real thing.

But your tests don't show the real thing, because you have to manipulate the result to even reach something that remotely resembles random chance. Your interpretation of peoples words are essential to you, because if you don't make up your own evidence, your whole house of cards falls down.


If you can send a single number, or phrase, you can send a large number. So do it, and when it is reproduced by a member of this Board on this thread, you will have a testable claim with evidence behind it, instead of your nonsensical manipulated four number tests.


But you are too scared to do this, just as you are too scared to even do your four number test by way of a poll. Because you know you will fail.



Norm

 

[steenkh]

It would be very annoying if the "skeptical conclusion" ("there is no ESP phenomenon") won, while there is actually a very real unusual phenomenon. It would be misleading. This is why it is important to design a test which can bring out any real thing.

You make it look like you know that ESP tests will fail when done properly, and this is why you design bad tests on purpose because they can be manipulated to "show" that ESP is real.

 

[abaddon]

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:

Then, he seemed to change his mind:

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

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, we all understood LL's post as sarcasm apart from you. Now you have this to deal with...

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.

 

[Mojo]

In spite of the complexity of the system, which probably turned some participants away, the evidence for telepathy which emerged after the final analysis was somewhat feeble and disappointing. After this somewhat disappointing experience (even though it may have had certain merits), I concluded that it was better for me to follow my own path without paying too much attention to "skeptic noise", so to speak, while keeping on listening at the same time.

There’s nothing wrong with negative results. Ignoring them, or rigging the results to exclude them, is characteristic of pseudoscience.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

From what I can recall, the inability to detect sarcasm is usually accompanied by an inability to detect lying as well. Michel, have you also had trouble with people lying to you?

I actually meant to ask earlier if I need a #3 pencil, by the way. So I lied.

 

[turingtest]

...
It would be very annoying if the "skeptical conclusion" ("there is no ESP phenomenon") won, while there is actually a very real unusual phenomenon. It would be misleading. This is why it is important to design a test which can bring out any real thing.

It's difficult to read this and believe that the person who wrote it is (as, I think, he has claimed to be) an actual scientist (physicist?), with, presumably, an actual understanding of how scientific tests are done. As described, this isn't a test of the phenomenon, it's a test of the tester's faith in it, designed to have only one outcome, a "pass" for the phenomenon and a vindication of the faith; when, of course, any real, objective test would allow for the phenomenon's pass or fail, without regard for the faith.

 

[RoboTimbo]

In spite of the complexity of the system, which probably turned some participants away, the evidence for telepathy which emerged after the final analysis was somewhat feeble and disappointing. After this somewhat disappointing experience (even though it may have had certain merits), I concluded that it was better for me to follow my own path without paying too much attention to "skeptic noise", so to speak, while keeping on listening at the same time.

LOL. You're saying that without your biased "credibility ratings" there wouldn't be any evidence for your telepathy?

Comedy gold.

 

[Mojo]

It's difficult to read this and believe that the person who wrote it is (as, I think, he has claimed to be) an actual scientist (physicist?), with, presumably, an actual understanding of how scientific tests are done. As described, this isn't a test of the phenomenon, it's a test of the tester's faith in it, designed to have only one outcome, a "pass" for the phenomenon and a vindication of the faith; when, of course, any real, objective test would allow for the phenomenon's pass or fail, without regard for the faith.

As pseudoscience, it’s pretty much exemplary.

 

[Humots]

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:

Then, he seemed to change his mind:

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

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).

Here are some other definitions:

Sarcastic humor mocks or ridicules, usually by saying the opposite of what is actually meant. The talent-show judge who rolls his eyes at your dancing, smirks, and says, "You ought to be on Broadway" is a sarcastic person.
(https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sarcastic)

Sarcastic - using remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what you say, in order to hurt someone's feelings or to humorously criticize something.
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sarcastic)

 

[Michel H]

You're saying that without your biased "credibility ratings" there wouldn't be any evidence for your telepathy?

In 2009, I asked the following question on Yahoo Answers:

In your opinion, is it possible to be "telepathic", in the sense that everybody else on this planet knows what the telepathic person thinks and perceives?

The best answer (chosen by voters at the time, not by me) was:

I knew you were going to ask this question, an hour before you posted it.

(Link: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/...mY75lLjty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090601113445AAmVwcl).

I view this as evidence for my assumed telepathy which does not depend on any credibility rating (which might become a target for skeptics).

However, when I was doing my first online telepathy tests, around 2009 too, I was trying to just use methods I had learnt in parapsychology books and articles (I had been a subscriber of the Journal of Parapsychology), and I didn't think then about the idea of separating the answers which sounded serious and friendly from the answers which did not. When I did this (in 2012, for the first time), I found a great improvement, and I am not even sure it would be possible to obtain statistically significant results without this important selection process, which is unfortunately so steadfastly rejected by skeptics, perhaps because they see this method as an unacceptable threat to their "empire of lies" (if I may say so, I hope this is not too rude).

 

[Mojo]

In 2009, I asked the following question on Yahoo Answers:

In your opinion, is it possible to be "telepathic", in the sense that everybody else on this planet knows what the telepathic person thinks and perceives?

The best answer (chosen by voters at the time, not by me) was:

I knew you were going to ask this question, an hour before you posted it.

(Link: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/...mY75lLjty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090601113445AAmVwcl).

I view this as evidence for my assumed telepathy which does not depend on any credibility rating (which might become a target for skeptics).

 

[RoboTimbo]

In 2009, I asked the following question on Yahoo Answers:

The best answer (chosen by voters at the time, not by me) was:

(Link: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/...mY75lLjty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090601113445AAmVwcl).

I view this as evidence for my assumed telepathy which does not depend on any credibility rating (which might become a target for skeptics).

Everyone else views it as your inability to detect sarcasm.

However, when I was doing my first online telepathy tests, around 2009 too, I was trying to just use methods I had learnt in parapsychology books and articles (I had been a subscriber of the Journal of Parapsychology), and I didn't think then about the idea of separating the answers which sounded serious and friendly from the answers which did not. When I did this (in 2012, for the first time), I found a great improvement, and I am not even sure it would be possible to obtain statistically significant results without this important selection process, which is unfortunately so steadfastly rejected by skeptics, perhaps because they see this method as an unacceptable thread to their "empire of lies" (if I may say so, I hope this is not too rude).

As noted, you've already admitted that your laughable "four choice" guessing games get results close to chance so you have to use your dishonestly biased "credibility ratings" to justiy lying to yourself.

 

[Pixel42]

Everyone else views it as your inability to detect sarcasm.

In this case I don't think the intention was to mock, that answer was favoured because it is simply the funniest. It was a good humoured, rather than sarcastic, response to what was to most people an obviously absurd question. The distinction is a subtle one that will be completely lost on Michel, of course, but I think it's worth making.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...(the sources of the generally [not always] hostile voices are presumably other brains, not mine)...

You now claim that you can telepathically receive other thoughts? Not just project your own?

 

[Michel H]

You now claim that you can telepathically receive other thoughts? Not just project your own?

What I "receive" is not exactly "thoughts", it is more exactly "voices", generally from females, it seems. It is of course not the first time that I claim this, as the 2012 posts exhumed by abaddon shows.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What I "receive" is not exactly "thoughts", it is more exactly "voices", generally from females, it seems. It is of course not the first time that I claim this, as the 2012 posts exhumed by abaddon shows.

Good, now we have a testable claim. How are you going to make this one unfalsifiable?