New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Pixel42]

I clicked on calwaterbear's post, it's from the first test back in 2012 and there are loads of answers, not a single one of which is serious. Not. One. Single. One. Some of them are hilarious.

 

[Rincewind]

Hi Michel.

I am genuinely curious.

If I was to respond to your four possibilities by saying that I really have no idea what you selected - and that's genuine - what you would do with my statement?

How you would deal with that?

 

[Michel H]

Hi Michel.

I am genuinely curious.

If I was to respond to your four possibilities by saying that I really have no idea what you selected - and that's genuine - what you would do with my statement?

How you would deal with that?

I have now just closed the test: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200104183837AA6iinm that I mentioned in post #1409, so this test is now closed on this forum too.

This test is now about a week old, and it is my experience that usually people don't give good answers to old tests.

"I don't know" can be a legitimate answer in a telepathy test (even if it is not mentioned explicitly), but I must of course consider the possibility that you might be lying (it is perhaps curious that you mentioned the possibility of answering in a certain way shortly after I closed the test on Yahoo), see for example this (interesting) post:

For the record, I was lying ...

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?

It seems that lying is unfortunately a very common occurrence in this business of Michel H's assumed telepathy, it's not pretty.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It seems that lying is unfortunately a very common occurrence in this business of Michel H's assumed telepathy, it's not pretty.

This has a high credibility rating.

LOL.

 

[JayUtah]

...but I must of course consider the possibility that you might be lying...

No, you don't -- in a properly designed test. It's simply non-data. Speculating about why it's non-data is irrelevant to the test.

It seems that lying is unfortunately a very common occurrence in this business of Michel H's assumed telepathy, it's not pretty.

In that case, only to test your claimed ability to detect fake answers. A test you failed. That's significant because you have identified that claimed ability as an important part of your experiment.

Sorry, no one is buying your well-poisoning.

 

[Loss Leader]

One of the things I can read is, for example, this post:

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

The answer given (2) was correct. This is an example of a serious-sounding (or credible) post, which gave the correct answer. Everybody can see that credible answers tend to be correct.

Actually, you're being dishonest yourself about both what calwaterbear's post meant in context and what you're interpreting it as now, some eight years later.

The string of quotes were there:

As I DO have ESP, the answer is unequivocably 3.

As I DO have ESP, the answer is unequivocably 3.

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

So, another person claimed to have ESP and calwaterbear then did the same thing but guessed another number. In that test, did you consider RandomElement's post credible. Did you count his as a miss? Or did you discard his answer entirely?

It should also be noted that many other people in that test claimed to have ESP and guessed your number was Pi to a million digits, 5, i, the word "boobies" on a calculator, and many others. These were all answers, but I assume you discarded them rather than counting them as wrong.

But that's not even the worst part. Calwaterbear said that he had ESP - not you, but him. He was very clear about it in a statement that you've already said was credible.

So if he, by your own standard that you applied, truthfully answered your question, how can you take it as evidence that you have ESP? He truthfully said he possessed this power, yet you've counted him as showing that you had any power. That's a lie on your part. You are lying about the plain meaning of his words.

Not only did you fail to see his sarcasm in context of a long list of joke answers, but you failed to correctly interpret words that were clear on their face.

Either way, you're the one lying. You're either lying about the meaning of his post in context, or you're lying about the very words he wrote. One way or the other, they do not in any way support your preconceived notion that you have telepathy.

Now you're going to make some bizarre explanation of how people are afraid to admit you're telepathic so they claim that they have the power and not you. But in that case, you're interpreting words to have different meanings than the ones that are plainly attested. And your interpretation of an answer as something other than what it says is inherently dishonest. It's like the pollster who asks whether someone is going to vote for Sanders or Biden, the person says Biden, and then the polster scores it for Sanders because "that's probably what he meant."

Face the plain facts - if you count calwaterbear's answer as a hit, you are a liar.

 

[Pixel42]

I noticed that the string of joke answers also included a poster (welshdean) who did exactly what Ladewig did in a later test - posted four consecutive posts giving all four answers in numerical order. As the correct answer in this case was 2, Michel could not use the "last number given should be taken" excuse to choose it so I scrolled forward to see how he treated them. He eventually listed what he said were all the 1, 2, 3 and 4 answers and gave the most ridiculous justifications for denying the credibility of all except the three (including calwaterbear's) that guessed correctly, but he completely ignored all four of welshdean's answers. A blatant example of his double standard.

I noticed one of the three posters whose correct guesses he gave a high credibility rating (dlorde) immediately posted to make clear in the most forthright terms that he'd been taking the piss. I searched the thread for more posts by calwaterbear but there were none, and he stopped visiting the site years ago, so we can't get his opinion. I didn't check for other posts by the third correct poster, I might do that later.

The idea that anyone capable of detecting sarcasm, let alone the editors of a scientific journal, would respond to this test with anything other than incredulous laughter is as hilarious as all the answers.

 

[Pixel42]

OK, the third correct poster was Femke, and she made many more posts in the thread trying to explain that her answer was not serious. Here's the post giving her answer:

2
(the number of goals in the ladies hockey final last night)

Yay, another number-pickin' thread!

This is the first post she made after Michel awarded it a high credibility rating because it happened to be the right answer:

I am pleased with your kind words, however, you are reading more in my post than intended. "Yay" was an expression of playfulness, I just came from the epic Olympic thread by PeaceCrusader, where every post is preceded by an original and intriguing number (if you have a few days to kill, it is a recommended read). I just seized the opportunity of inserting yet another number relating to the OS.

However, I am not impressed with your mangling of the data. If you take all posts with numbers, you'll get a success rate of approximately 25%, which is exactly as predicted by chance alone. Boosting success rate by discarding the wrong answers because of a flippant remark, a nasty avatar or a scary name is not scientific.
According to that logic, you should disregard my answer too, because my remark was not intended as showing anticipation for a next test.

Femke

This is her next post. I haven't bothered to insert the comments from Michel to which she is responding, but I'm sure you can guess.

Seriously?
And yet you see nothing wrong with cherry picking the answers to end up with only the answers that show a positive result? My promotor would have laughed me off Leiden University if I'd done that in my thesis.

Exactly! You do not know what I was thinking. Yet you expanded on what I was thinking in your appreciation of my correct guess.
Maybe I had a few too many Doms and my finger hit 2 instead of the 4 I intended. Maybe I am really telepathic and am modest about it. Maybe I was just goofing around because I did not take it seriously.

You do not know that, and that is why you should not rely on tests like these to establish telepathy. This should have been mentioned in the classes about proper scientific test design, and data set handling.

Thank you, just know that I (like most posters in this thread) do not believe that you've proven anything here, apart from your misunderstanding of the scientific method.

Please tell me you were joking?

Femke

 

[JayUtah]

The idea that anyone capable of detecting sarcasm, let alone the editors of a scientific journal, would respond to this test with anything other than incredulous laughter is as hilarious as all the answers.

It's not too strong a statement to say that Michel is trying to "scientifically" do anti-science. While the description he gives of how he evaluates responses for credibility gives off a whiff of sciency-sounding wording, it's just inherently unscientific. It obviously doesn't fool anyone here, but Michel seems to think we're all either liars or stupid or both. So he has a handy excuse for ignoring people here. But he says he wants to publish. Does he really think he can bluster his way around professionals?

 

[Loss Leader]

So he has a handy excuse for ignoring people here. But he says he wants to publish. Does he really think he can bluster his way around professionals?

Who cares? This thread is for Michel to conduct tests here. He has vehemently refused to do so. He says it would be too complicated. It wouldn't. It would take me no time at all to fix up a new anonymous poll thread where voters could give a little writing sample for him to judge their credibility. He says his way is simpler, which encourages people to participate - except they don't participate. His Yahoo! Answers polls get maybe four responses and most of those refuse to guess.

 

[abaddon]

Who cares? This thread is for Michel to conduct tests here. He has vehemently refused to do so. He says it would be too complicated. It wouldn't. It would take me no time at all to fix up a new anonymous poll thread where voters could give a little writing sample for him to judge their credibility. He says his way is simpler, which encourages people to participate - except they don't participate. His Yahoo! Answers polls get maybe four responses and most of those refuse to guess.

Frankly, I am not even certain whether or not we should be entertaining this nonsense any more. I oscillate both ways.

Are we somehow enabling? Or somehow helping? I really don't know.

 

[Pixel42]

If there's one thing that's clear after all these years it's that we cannot help Michel. He can only help himself. And he is clearly never going to do so. We can only speculate as to the reason.

 

[abaddon]

If there's one thing that's clear after all these years it's that we cannot help Michel. He can only help himself. And he is clearly never going to do so. We can only speculate as to the reason.

And credit where due. You have more than once suggested, even flat out stated, that we should withdraw. And I have agreed. None of us are qualified to deal with the OP's trajectory.

Yet here we are like moths to the candle.

Personally, I think two things are happening. 1. Empathy. Who would not want to assist someone in a very distressed state? I know that I would reach out. Or at least make the attempt.

2. Recognition. We can't fix this. We are not suitably equipped. But if we back out now, there will follow a declaration of victory. We all know it. and cannot allow that.

As for 1. how far does empathy extend? If the intended simply hurls insults, should it not stop at some point?

As for 2. Are we really so fragile that any loon can hurl accusations and hurt us? I think not.

The record stands on it's own merit. Time to step away. We are not helping.

 

[Startz]

And credit where due. You have more than once suggested, even flat out stated, that we should withdraw. And I have agreed. None of us are qualified to deal with the OP's trajectory.

Yet here we are like moths to the candle.

Personally, I think two things are happening. 1. Empathy. Who would not want to assist someone in a very distressed state? I know that I would reach out. Or at least make the attempt.

2. Recognition. We can't fix this. We are not suitably equipped. But if we back out now, there will follow a declaration of victory. We all know it. and cannot allow that.

In regard to (2), would it help if someone were to craft a statement something like "Because Michel has declined to engage in a discussion of a serious test, I have decided to not respond further"

Maybe something better worded that everyone could use.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't think any such statement is either needed nor useful. Yes, if we stop indulging him, he'll claim victory. And that claim will be just as evidently wrong as all the other claims he's made in this thread that are evidently wrong. Anyone who has read enough of the thread will see the evidence. Anyone who hasn't read the thread -- well, why do we care about the opinions of people who haven't see the evidence?

 

[JayUtah]

Who cares? This thread is for Michel to conduct tests here. He has vehemently refused to do so.

Which, by strict interpretation, makes everything except the conduct of a test off-topic. Since he's vehemently refusing to use the thread for what he originally intended, and apparently never will, and since the various side topics that have arisen don't interest him (except as a launch pad for his amusing boasts), we should probably call it a day.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Frankly, I am not even certain whether or not we should be entertaining this nonsense any more. I oscillate both ways.

Are we somehow enabling? Or somehow helping? I really don't know.

No, I'm convinced that engaging isn't helping.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

If there's one thing that's clear after all these years it's that we cannot help Michel. He can only help himself. And he is clearly never going to do so. We can only speculate as to the reason.

Desperate need of attention, of which he should not be getting.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

In regard to (2), would it help if someone were to craft a statement something like "Because Michel has declined to engage in a discussion of a serious test, I have decided to not respond further"

Maybe something better worded that everyone could use.

I like this idea. Here is my attempt:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Michel H, The following statement is without sarcasm, vitriol or malice.

Numerous people over the course of many years have tried to have rational conversations with you about your claims of having ESP, However, You are unable or unwilling to use proper testing to verify this.

You have taken incorrect and sarcastic guesses to your tests and have made them fit to your liking.

You have shown no progress since your first post in understanding the inherent flaws in your thinking and tests.

It is abundantly clear no amount of further discussion with you will yield a different result, thusly it is a waste of our time and your time. I earnestly wish you well in this endeavor but will no longer engage in it. -


Open to suggestions.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Another day goes by and yet, with all the loony things posted on social media about Brexit, still nobody appears to have asked if one consequence will be their no longer having to hear somebody's thoughts in French.

It's as if there was no such phenomenon. Makes one think.