New telepathy test, the sequel.

Michel H said:
I was probably happy when I read, for example...
Click to expand...

And once again you fail to recognize sarcasm.

However, I don't think I should leave without having answered properly all questions.
Click to expand...

Is that honestly what you think you're doing? Mostly you dismiss questions as inappropriate or dishonest -- when you acknowledge their existence at all.
 
Michel H said:
I don't know where you got such an idea. However, credibility analysis is a key aspect of my tests.
Click to expand...

"Credibility analysis" is your most egregious methodological error. As was shown, when you had to decide credibility without being able to see the answers, your results scored no better than chance. It's clear, following that experiment, that you intend to stack the deck in your favor, calling it a "credibility" issue to hide your dishonesty from casual observers.
 
Michel H said:
It seems to me it is normal to use uniformly the last answer given, when several answers are given, I don't think this reflect any bias. There would be legitimate suspicions of dishonesty if the psychic claimant used, for example, sometimes the first answer, sometimes the second one, each time to try to get the best result, but I don't do that.

You first gave "1" as an answer, in a funny and non-credible way, and then you decided to give (finally) the correct answer (4), which was an improvement. I think that I might know a little the ideas that went through your mind (though I cannot be completely sure, of course), and which led you to post this succession 1, 2, 3, 4.

You reflected that it could be nice to give the right answer, and therefore to be one of the winners of the test. However, it bothered you to reveal too much (that's very typical). Then you had an idea, a kind of compromise: why not give the correct answer (4), but as a sequence (1, 2, 3, 4)? In this way, you gave the right answer, but, at the same time, it sounded like a joke, and you did not reveal too much, which could make you feel uncomfortable later, like Loss Leader for example. And then you implemented your plan.
Click to expand...


Why should I have wanted to be some sort of "winner" (what would I win?) and why would I feel uncomfortable? It is really quite simple. I could not hear your "voice". Why are you so afraid of the truth and have to lie to yourself and be scared that you really are not a special little snowflake, to feel good about yourself? I feel fine about myself, and don't have to lie about it.


I know for certain, that had your number not have been 4, you would have found an equally stupid rationalisation as to why my answer was, in your dreams, "good" and "correct". Because that's what you do.


Norm
 
Michel H said:
I don't know where you got such an idea. However, credibility analysis is a key aspect of my tests.
Click to expand...


Except that you refuse to do this "credibility analysis" before you know whether a person has given the correct answer.

You've actually made your own bias a key feature in your silly test design.

You're not being honest in your design or your determination. People tend to lie to themselves to bolster their own egos. Perhaps you need to start with asking yourself why you're lying.
 
JayUtah said:
And once again you fail to recognize sarcasm.
Click to expand...
Decreeing that all the posts that you don't like are "sarcasm that I am unable to understand" comes across as rather simplistic and naïve to me, and I suspect such statements might not be very welcome in a science journal.
 
Michel H said:
I don't know where you got such an idea. However, credibility analysis is a key aspect of my tests.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the dishonest aspect of it that you use to keep your delusion going. If you were being honest, you would admit that you've never gotten better than chance.
 
Michel H said:
Decreeing that all the posts that you don't like are "sarcasm that I am unable to understand" comes across as rather simplistic and naïve to me...
Click to expand...

I don't care how it comes across to you. Everyone on this forum can point to several examples in this thread where you failed to identify sarcasm that was obvious to everyone else. That's actual evidence of your deficit, not just something I'm imagining.

I suspect such statements might not be very welcome in a science journal.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Normal people don't need scientific study in order to recognize sarcasm. And the actual science that gets published in respectable journals doesn't have to deal with sarcasm because the experiments are designed to reject insincere candidates before they have the chance to participate. There is no need in real science for your subjective notion of "credibility analysis."
 
Michel H said:
Well, perhaps they would weep for not having shown due respect to my serious work.
Click to expand...

Your work is getting exactly the respect it deserves on its merits. Your continual insistence that it must somehow still be sound science doesn't address the many valid, detailed reasons that people have given you to show you the errors you're making. When you fail even to acknowledge those answers, call their authors liars, and then respond with such self-centered rubbish as I've quoted, people are naturally going to dismiss you as delusional. It's the verdict you have earned through your behavior.
 
JayUtah said:
Your work is getting exactly the respect it deserves on its merits.
Click to expand...


And you have provided a sentence that Michel will dine out on for years to come as his proof that he is what he claims. Everything else will vanish from his brain and be expunged from history, as your sentence goes into his "little book of quotes to cream over", and the rest of your post vanishes into the ether.


It's what he does.



Norm
 
Startz said:
Michel, I'd like to hear your answer to this question of RoboTimbo.
Click to expand...


As you possibly know, he did one of these once, before he knew the results, in a poll here years ago, and then afterwards changed his mind and reevaluated his credibility ratings after he knew the results, and to improve his score. His earlier "evaluation" was apparently not good enough once he knew which answers were right and which were wrong and he had to change it.

So he will not do it again having already shown here, for everybody to see, that his evaluation skills are worthless..


He has also been asked to do a completely blind poll many times, just using the poll system here, and not requiring anybody to answer at all but just tick a number, and flatly refuses to do this, because he would not be able to manipulate the results and he already realises that they would not be better than chance.


Norm
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
It seems to me it is normal to use uniformly the last answer given, when several answers are given
Click to expand...
And if you had happened to circle 1 on that particular test it would have seemed to you normal to use uniformly the first answer given, when several answers are given.

You always make up whatever justification you need to find correct answers credible and incorrect answers non credible. It is very obvious to everyone else that is what you are doing. This is why your tests are treated with such disdain.

What seems to everyone else normal is to be able to recognize sarcasm and mockery when it is staring you in the face. In this case the fact that the four posts gave the four options in numerical order was a huge clue to what the actual intention was, but you even missed that in your eagerness to manufacture some evidence, however bogus, to justify your delusion.
 
Last edited:
Startz said:
RoboTimbo said:
Then you'd be willing to assign credibility to answers before you know if they are correct?
Click to expand...
Michel, I'd like to hear your answer to this question of RoboTimbo.
Click to expand...
We did two tests, using a more complicated protocol on this forum, from October 21, 2013 to May 4, 2014 but I found the results somewhat disappointing, see:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9572476#post9572476
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9608775#post9608775 (results)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9947510#post9947510
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10004658#post10004658 (results).

In these tests, I had to assign credibilities without knowing whether the answers were correct or not. For the first of these tests, the hit rate for the participants who had complied with the protocol was 2/3=67% (only 3 valid answers were given, this can be compared with 22 valid numerical tests in the previous test), and therefore much higher than chance level (25%). In the second of these more complicated tests, nobody participated correctly.

I am not interested in trying to do one of these tests again.
 
Last edited:
Henceforth I'm using my super psychic forcefield. Michel can no longer transmit to anyone anywhere on earth, in orbit, on the moon or in our solar system as long as I keep this barrier up.

It is impenetrable, unbreakable and I will never undo it.

So you are all free from the tests, Michels thoughts and now he'll have to find a real hobby because this one is over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom