Startz
Muse
Everything you say here is consistent with an experiment in which you assign credibility ratings before you see the answer. You have refused to do this.
New telepathy test, the sequel.
- Thread starter Michel H
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy telepathy test
Everything you say here is consistent with an experiment in which you assign credibility ratings before you see the answer. You have refused to do this.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, you don't. Your "credibility ratings" correlate to whether the data are favorable to your belief. They correlate negatively to posts where the credibility is not even a matter of subjective judgment anymore, because you have been told by their authors whether they were intended seriously. You disregard this information and try to accuse the authors of revisionism -- but only in the cases where the data favor your belief.
No. It's blatantly cheating, and the readers who have followed your work have not agreed in the least with your attempts at post hoc data filtration. Quite the contrary, they have recommended methods that make this post hoc review entirely unnecessary, and would completely obviate any need to justify it or convince anyone that it's not improper manipulation of the data. When you refuse to consider such protocols, the readers rightly conclude that it's probably your intention to structure your experiment in a way that gives you opportunities to cheat, and then hope later not to get caught.
You've proven you can't tell serious answers from facetious ones.
No. If you're admitting that your opinion of the tone of answers is just a proxy for the "accuracy" of the answer, then you're just putting a thin smokescreen in front of value-based data culling, hoping to make it look like blind metadata-based culling. Believe me, we can see right through it.
Probably because that's what it was intended to do. And exactly why it's cheating.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I've been using computers for several decades, including ones whose primary storage was magnetic tape. This is the first time I've ever heard of that term used to describe tape leader. I'm not disputing you; I'm just presenting you with a gold star for being able to tell me something that applies to my profession, that I didn't know, and isn't part of your profession. The tapes I still have in my possession don't have any nonmagnetic leader. But the wisdom of winding a fair amount of tape through the drive before starting to write on it is still valid. The few feet of tape at each end of the reel tend to get really beat up with use, and become unsuitable for storing data. They're still magnetic, just physically unable to store data reliably anymore.
I always thought your name was the familiar marketing term: something sold at a loss to attract customer attention to more profitable items.
I assume there is some degree of rejection of this alleged phenomenon within the public, some people seem to be ready to lie about it. One reason is perhaps that many people like the idea that they are "special", but not so much that somebody else is "special". Look at this question (with a bar diagram): https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090713154232AAtUFZK
(I was born in February 1958).
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Assume a sample size of two people (which is about the number of actual answers you get in your Yahoo! experiments). Assume a random chance rate of 25% (which is the chance in a 1-in-4 test). How many trials would you have to run to see a hit rate of 50% with a 95% degree of confidence?
Oh, the same is was true for video and audiotapes. I certainly remember audio cassettes that were marketed as "leaderless." In fact, I found several on Amazon.
And with the death of magnetic tape storage, the first several pages of results on Google for "loss leader" refer to the marketing term.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
No, you absolutely do it to favor "correct" answers. We've noted it and pointed it out to you dozens of times.
If you'd like, you may use the protocol which Loss Leader has been presenting which lets you assign credibility before you know whether an answer is correct or not.
Oh wait, you ran away from that protocol.
Yes, that's why you've been caught with your bias showing so many times.
Interestingly, you run away from any sort of test where you assign credibility before knowing whether the answer is correct or not.
Funny old world, innit?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
How does this not cut both ways? There are many ways to fake telepathy, and some people seem to be willing to lie about that too. A number of your arguments are predicated on people who believe as you do being paragons of virtue, while people who disagree with you -- regardless of the reasons they give -- are dishonest and abusive. When a large part of your methodology promises that you personally will be honest and impartial when judging the responses, we all just sort of giggle a little.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
So did I, but even a standard audio cassette for home use has exactly the same uncoated substrate at each end, usually transparent.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Because you went data mining for any vague thing which you might somehow construe as "support" for your misguided notion.
It was a fad which came and departed for lack of evidence.
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
Also interestingly, Michel actually altered his credibility rating in the one test where he was required to assess credibility prior to knowing who had a correct answer. He assessed them before he knew the results, then did another assessment after.
Funnily enough, his result improved when he did a reassessment after he knew which answers were correct.
He is far too frightened to try a real test, as he is afraid that his belief in his own "talent"* will evaporate if he is properly tested, and as shown here on many occasions that he simply will never perform a test where the odds are not all in his favour, up to and including only liking answers and posts that agree with him, and accusing those people who don't agree with him of either being angry, or being a liar.
It is rather sad in a way - such a wasted life.
Norm
* this is not suggesting that Michel has any talent in telepathy, and it is also sad that it is necessary to put such disclaimers in posts here so that in future, Michel will not yet again take them as vindication or cite that I consider that he has this talent.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Same here. I will point out, though, that Loss Leader doesn't play a musical instrument.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
There hasn't been any of that here. There has been rejection of your dishonest methodology which is a different thing.
Certainly one person has been identified who is ready to lie about it.
Again, one person has been identified who would like to believe that.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
I'm transmitting the answer to you psychically.
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
My apologies, I use a lot of foul language when I transmit.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Michel: these are not serious posts. Like the similar ones you quote so approvingly, they are taking the piss at your expense. Get it now?
I would agree that these posts are not serious. They are also not answers to my test, which is still active as long as it is not closed (Nay_Sayer and fromdownunder have both given good answers in at least one of my tests in the past, but they seem to be in a different mood these days).
I keep reading the target sentence from time to time, so I don't have to tell myself I made a mistake of neglect if suddenly somebody gives an answer.
This kind of joking is acceptable, I think, particularly when Nay_Sayer says:"I use a lot of foul language when I transmit".
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
Yes you have already said this recently, and the test date you cited (August 2013) was the one where I made four successive posts citing the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 as the answer to your test. As I already posted in response to your statement.
Are you really that desperate to prove to yourself that you have the power that you claim that somebody who posted every possible answer to your so called test had a "good" answer?
Which answer of mine that you cited was "good" by your definition? The 1, the 2, the 3 or the 4? All of which were posted within three minutes of each other? So stop lying about what I posted when it is so simple to provide evidence which contradicts what you claimed.
Since you have brought this up twice now, I expect an answer to the bolded question.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12944630&postcount=1450
Your continued failure to accept reality is getting rather sad.
And you still have not responded to this. obviously because you can't:
Show me where either he or Loss Leader said that they thought you had psychic abilities and stop making stuff up that you cannot support.
Norm
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Excellent. Progress at last.
Answers to your tests are even more likely to be facetious than other posts because your tests are a joke. To anyone with the slightest understanding of how such a test would need to be designed to produce reliable results (which describes most of the regular posters here) they are utterly laughable. Laughing at them is therefore the most natural response.
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
Well, you were offered an option to do a realistic test here, rather than a toy test on another site, and you ran away as you always do when reality gets close to your limited comfort zone.
Norm