New telepathy test, the sequel.

[abaddon]

A related assertion, "Our surveys have internal consistency checks," was similarly cryptic and also hearsay. But this alludes to a very common practice in psychometric and sociometric instruments. Very often those questionnaires will ask a series of questions that are worded differently but actually address the same underlying phenomenon. It is expected that a sincere response will be consistent across all the congruent questions. This is meant to preclude the subject's attempt to fudge the test in one way or another. It allows the researcher to score an individual's set of responses for internal consistency, and allows inconsistent data to be rejected. Keep in mind this is not consistency as reckoned against some desired outcome, but consistency as reckoned between questions designed to discover the same thing.

Bingo. I participate in surveys, simply because I want to know what they might be interested in. What is at the forefront of attention. The reputable ones ask questions with an agenda. Not a political agenda, an agenda to weed out the inconsistent. The upfront screening questions are at a gross level designed to eliminate the obvious liars. If one answers by various inquiries that one has no kids/1 kid/2 kids/am a kid then the screening questions are there to eliminate such an unreliable source. And that is a gross example. It all gets WAY more subtle than such blunt instruments.

 

[marting]

Most advocates of the paranormal who come here to explain to us silly sceptics how close minded we're being by not accepting the reality of dowsing/astrology/mediums/homeopathy/whatever are heavily emotionally invested in their chosen belief. Yes, they are also usually profoundly ignorant of the scientific method and why it had to be invented - most have never even heard of cognitive biases - but it's their emotional investment which is almost always the greatest barrier to helping them to understand the mistake that they are making. Their belief has become part of their identity, so pointing out its irrationality (let alone mocking it, irresistable as that often is) is seen as a personal attack.

I doubt we've ever had a poster here whose emotional investment in their particular belief is greater than Michel's, for reasons we all understand and cannot discuss. He seems to have abandoned this thread again but we all know that he will probably be back for another try in a month or a year, and that we will again feel obliged to respond. We can only hope he eventually gets the help he clearly needs and deserves, despite his continuing refusal to accept ours.

I learned long ago the power of cognitive bias in distorting my own perceptions. One sees what one wants to see by default and that can lead one down rabbit holes.

As an engineer working on new design approaches, I learned early to most question new insights. In what ways could I be wrong or misguided? How can I best validate things as early as possible. I focused on questioning things I wanted to be true. Saved a lot of time and made me more productive.

 

[Michel H]

Whereas I take it one step further than you. The fact that every paranormal claim that has been properly investigated has been found to be false is sufficient reason, for me, to make the assumption that every paranormal claim when properly investigated will be found to be false. I expend no intellectual energy on whether this assumption may be wrong, or even on equivocating and hedging my bets. There are no paranormal effects, and I invite anyone to demonstrate that I am wrong about that. No-one has succeeded so far.

In one of my telepathy tests, Loss Leader, a well-respected moderator of what was then the forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation, replied:

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

His answer was correct.

Not paranormal?

 

[theprestige]

In one of my telepathy tests, Loss Leader, a well-respected moderator of what was then the forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation, replied:

His answer was correct.

Not paranormal?

Not well enough controlled to be taken seriously.

 

[arthwollipot]

In one of my telepathy tests, Loss Leader, a well-respected moderator of what was then the forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation, replied:

His answer was correct.

Not paranormal?

I don't have enough information to say. Was it statistically significant? What range was Loss Leader picking from? Were they blinded? What were the protocols?

Let me repeat: All paranormal claims that have been properly investigated have turned out to be false. One contextless anecdote does not constitute proper investigation.

 

[Michel H]

I don't have enough information to say. Was it statistically significant? What range was Loss Leader picking from? Were they blinded? What were the protocols?

Let me repeat: All paranormal claims that have been properly investigated have turned out to be false. One contextless anecdote does not constitute proper investigation.

I can provide a little more context.

This is the opening post of the test: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9444439#post9444439.

And the results may be found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9516155#post9516155.

It was concluded that the test was successful (a statistical analysis was made, and a MD5 hash generator was used). In the analysis, I had exploited the often observed fact that correct answers sound more serious and friendly that the incorrect ones.

I am still doing these kinds of tests, from time to time (but less often than before), and they are generally successful (though not always great).

For example, my latest test (in French) may be found here: https://forum.doctissimo.fr/psychol...ation/test-telepathie-ecrit-sujet_58437_1.htm.

People had to guess which word I had written, out of four possibilities, the correct word was "printemps".

And the end of the test, two people commented:

Evidemment, cela ne compte plus, mais oui, j'avais vu printemps aussi...
Of course, this doesn't count any more, but yes, I had seen "printemps" too...

bonjour moi j'ai le mot printemps qui est ressorti
Hello, me I had the word "printemps" which stood out

 

[Pixel42]

In one of my telepathy tests, Loss Leader, a well-respected moderator of what was then the forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation, replied:

His answer was correct.

Not paranormal?

No.

Loss Leader made it abundantly clear to you that he was being sarcastic, and that the fact that he had written down and was looking at the correct number out of the four available was just that one in four chance happening exactly as often as expected. None of your tests here ever produced a result significantly better than chance before you fiddled the data by excluding wrong answers because you believed those giving them were deliberately lying about being unable to hear your thoughts.

On the sole occasion that your silly test was conducted with proper protocols (i.e. when you were prevented from fiddling the data) the result was again the expected chance result.

Believing everybody can hear your thoughts is a symptom of schizophrenia. Being unable to detect sarcasm is a symptom of schizophrenia. You have shared with us that you are a diagnosed schizophrenic who chooses not to take medication. End of story.

 

[Michel H]

No.

Loss Leader made it abundantly clear to you that he was being sarcastic, and that the fact that he had written down and was looking at the correct number out of the four available was just that one in four chance happening exactly as often as expected.

A few things that Loss Leader actually posted about my tests:

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

(23 August 2013. This was a correct answer, as proved by the MD5 hash, which prevented me from changing the target number. This was the only participation of Loss Leader, a member of the mod team, in my tests, his total hit rate remains therefore equal to 100%, not 25%)

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?

(9th October 2014. In this post, he claims he was actually lying, but his last sentence, seen in context (click to see post in context), casts a serious doubt about this claim)

... 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. ...

(12th November 2017. Here he appears to confirm the serious and genuine nature of his participation in one of my tests, though in a humorous fashion)

 

[theprestige]

(12th November 2017. Here he appears to confirm the serious and genuine nature of his participation in one of my tests, though in a humorous fashion)

There's no way you can possibly imagine that LossLeader's claim of telepathic shenanigans is serious and genuine.

 

[junkshop]

A few things that Loss Leader actually posted about my tests:

(23 August 2013. This was a correct answer, as proved by the MD5 hash, which prevented me from changing the target number. This was the only participation of Loss Leader, a member of the mod team, in my tests, his total hit rate remains therefore equal to 100%, not 25%)


(9th October 2014. In this post, he claims he was actually lying, but his last sentence, seen in context (click to see post in context), casts a serious doubt about this claim)


(12th November 2017. Here he appears to confirm the serious and genuine nature of his participation in one of my tests, though in a humorous fashion)

Michel,
Given that LossLeader is no longer here to respond to your contentious interpretations of your correspondence with him, it is in pretty ******* poor taste to use his posts as 'evidence' for your arguments. Please don't do this again.

 

[theprestige]

Plus you've been riding this merry go round long enough to know you'll have to do better than that. Even if you were up against actual credulous saps, you'd probably have to do better than that. What good is your telepathy, if this is the best case you can make for it?

 

[Pixel42]

There's no way you can possibly imagine that LossLeader's claim of telepathic shenanigans is serious and genuine.

You'd think not, but apparently the inability to detect obvious sarcasm is common in schizophrenics.

Michel,
Given that LossLeader is no longer here to respond to your contentious interpretations of your correspondence with him, it is in pretty ******* poor taste to use his posts as 'evidence' for your arguments. Please don't do this again.

Seconded.

Loss Leader was one of several posters who replied sarcastically to Michel's posts about his telepathy "tests" before realising why it was an inappropriate response. He later went out of his way to make his intentions clear, and calling him a liar after his death is unacceptable.

 

[Michel H]

You'd think not, but apparently the inability to detect obvious sarcasm is common in schizophrenics.



Seconded.

Loss Leader was one of several posters who replied sarcastically to Michel's posts about his telepathy "tests" before realising why it was an inappropriate response. He later went out of his way to make his intentions clear, and calling him a liar after his death is unacceptable.

I didn't call Loss Leader a liar. I have respect for him, I view him (perhaps I am wrong, I don't know, I try to remain open to all possibilities) as a kind of ethical giant, more ethical and intelligent than many posters here even if he wasn't perfect. He was also more gentle than many. Were he still alive, I don't think he would be really upset because his contributions are still mentioned. This is typical of all good science works: they are mentioned and used even long after their authors have passed away.

Since you have mentioned his death, I should perhaps say how he mentioned himself his own death (or one of the ways he mentioned it) on the last day of 2019:

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.

Here he did use the word "sarcastic", which implies a certain idea of contempt. But he added:

They'll probably put it on my tombstone.

which expresses an opposite idea; one can again sense (for those who bother to read him carefully) a will to be ambiguous.

Once again (for those who are interested in facts): Loss Leader, mod on the famous Randi forum, gave the right answer in 2013 with a "spectacular" comment, this was rigorously confirmed by the use of a MD5 hash, and he confirmed that he had given the correct answer in 2017. He also did make some probably deliberately ambiguous comments, something that calwaterbear, who said (in a different test):

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

, didn't do.

It would seem that many people are dishonest about a certain ESP phenomenon. When you study it, you apparently find out (at least) two paranormal phenomena: first, the unusual ESP phenomenon, which leads people to say strange things, and then frequent dishonesty.

So you get two paranormal phenomena for the price of one, so to speak.

 

[Pixel42]

I didn't call Loss Leader a liar.

He made it abundantly clear several times that the posts you are still quoting as if they were serious were made sarcastically. He was laughing at how absurd your "telepathy test" was, something everyone else understood from the moment he made them. By refusing to believe him you most certainly are calling him a liar. Knock it off.

 

[Michel H]

Michel,
Given that LossLeader is no longer here to respond to your contentious interpretations of your correspondence with him, it is in pretty ******* poor taste to use his posts as 'evidence' for your arguments. Please don't do this again.

I shall keep on doing it as long as I feel it is useful and necessary for defending the truth.

Using the work of deceased people (for example Isaac Newton) is a well known feature of scientific research, and should be done without unjustified shame.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Using the work of deceased people (for example Isaac Newton) is a well known feature of scientific research, and should be done without unjustified shame.

Conversely, quote mining of deceased people is one of the staple techniques of pseudoscience, and that is quite obviously what you're doing here.

Dave

 

[Michel H]

Conversely, quote mining of deceased people is one of the staple techniques of pseudoscience, and that is quite obviously what you're doing here.

Dave

I have tried to be balanced, I don't think I omitted anything essential. I included some stuff which is admittedly not best from my viewpoint, with attention for details.

When you read my posts, you see Loss Leader again as he really was (and not always approving).

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have tried to be balanced, [...]

No you haven't. You've shown flagrant bias throughout.

Dave

 

[Warp12]

I have tried to be balanced, I don't think I omitted anything essential. I included some stuff which is admittedly not best from my viewpoint, with attention for details.

When you read my posts, you see Loss Leader again as he really was (and not always approving).

Let me be objective on this. I know nothing of the former board member you are quoting, besides what you have posted.

That being said, the comments were clearly sarcastic in nature. This is blindingly obvious.

 

[Michel H]

Let me be objective on this. I know nothing of the former board member you are quoting, besides what you have posted.

That being said, the comments were clearly sarcastic in nature. This is blindingly obvious.

I don't find anything sarcastic in the post:

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

for example (unless you have perhaps "decided" telepathy does not and cannot exist, which is not the best attitude for studying ESP).

Another simple example: after he had given a correct answer in one of my tests, cullennz (who was in New Zealand while I am in Belgium) said:

Think it's pretty simple.

I'm psychic and chose to read Michael H's mind.
Took me a while as the signal was weak

(the post is in AAH, date is 13th September 2016)

This was quickly interpreted by some members (and the mod team) as meaning that "I am an idiot because my intellectuel signal is weak", but I don't think this is was cullennz meant. I do not see any irony there, and I accept the idea that my alleged telepathic signal is weak, in view of the large distance.