New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Michel H]

Note to everyone: Michel H has a long and consistent history of blatant and explicit cherry-picking in these tests; he will assign a greater credibility to results that agree with his hypothesis and a lower one to those that disagree, then declare the test a success. There is nothing to be gained by anyone from engaging with the process in any way whatsoever.

Dave

It is true that, in my analyses of results, answers are not necessarily on an equal footing, but I would not describe this as "cherry-picking".

This reflects more a legitimate desire to make full use of the information provided by participants.

For exemple, an answer like:

This is a ridiculous test. I answer 33, but I warn you, this has nothing to do with extra-sensory perception.

would be considered as less credible than:

I believe you wrote 75 on your paper.

.

Credibility is in principle not related to the number given (if the target is a number) and people who read the analysis have an opportunity to agree or disagree.

This makes my tests probably much more reliable than those published in parapsychological journal, where authors could probably in many cases easily fake their data, that readers cannot verify.

It should be noted that there is also a possibility of pseudo-skeptics writing absurd and dishonest hostile comments, of which they themselves do not believe the first word, in order to try to sabotage the experiment.

 

[Michel H]

Also to note, please do not humor OP and use sarcasm. While we can pick up on it, OP will not. All the posts quoted are missing the follow up from said posters specifying that they were being sarcastic and those posts were ignored.

I have seen people change their minds, and these posts were not ignored, they were just not included in my opening post here.

See for example this post.

 

[JayUtah]

It is true that, in my analyses of results, answers are not necessarily on an equal footing, but I would not describe this as "cherry-picking".

It is exactly cherry-picking. You assess the "credibility" of the data point while knowing its value.

This reflects more a legitimate desire to make full use of the information provided by participants.

No, it reflects an obvious attempt to filter the results to meet your desired outcome. The only way to avoid that bias is to assess the credibility of the response -- if you think such a thing can even be done -- without knowing what the coded value is in your experiment.

Credibility is in principle not related to the number given (if the target is a number) and people who read the analysis have an opportunity to agree or disagree.

Credibility is a subjective, irreproducible factor. It reflects poor experiment design.

This makes my tests probably much more reliable than those published in parapsychological journal...

False. Introducing a subjective element makes your study less reliable, not more.

It should be noted that there is also a possibility of pseudo-skeptics writing absurd and dishonest hostile comments, of which they themselves do not believe the first word, in order to try to sabotage the experiment.

If you fear that "pseudo-skeptics" will try to sabotage the experiment, then a number of questions leap to mind. First, why you are soliciting subjects in a forum that you seem certain is populated largely by pseudo-skeptics? Why don't you design a protocol that detects and weeds out such sabotage without resorting to your subjective feelings about the answers you get? If this is a true effect, why would sabotage matter? The null hypothesis includes such things as sabotage.

 

[malbui]

Why don't you give this a rest, Michel? You've never demonstrated anything that would even pass for evidence of telepathy in a sealed underground room with no source of light at midnight, you've systematically refused to take on board any suggestions about experimental design, you've dived deep into the idea of the credibility of responses in a desperate attempt to show any kind of effect, and you're congenitally incapable of recognising any sign of sarcasm, irony, wordplay, comedic reference, or simple piss-taking.

Trying to do any kind of "experiment" - I'm cautious about using the word because I'd expect a lot more in respect of experimental design from infant school children - on a forum like this is condemned to failure. It's just not the right platform.

 

[Michel H]

It is exactly cherry-picking. You assess the "credibility" of the data point while knowing its value.



No, it reflects an obvious attempt to filter the results to meet your desired outcome. The only way to avoid that bias is to assess the credibility of the response -- if you think such a thing can even be done -- without knowing what the coded value is in your experiment.



Credibility is a subjective, irreproducible factor. It reflects poor experiment design.



False. Introducing a subjective element makes your study less reliable, not more.



If you fear that "pseudo-skeptics" will try to sabotage the experiment, then a number of questions leap to mind. First, why you are soliciting subjects in a forum that you seem certain is populated largely by pseudo-skeptics? Why don't you design a protocol that detects and weeds out such sabotage without resorting to your subjective feelings about the answers you get? If this is a true effect, why would sabotage matter? The null hypothesis includes such things as sabotage.

.

The only way to avoid that bias is to assess the credibility of the response -- if you think such a thing can even be done -- without knowing what the coded value is in your experiment.

I have attempted such a thing in my early days on this forum. But it was too complicated, and did not produce good results.
I think that you are making the mistake of believing that, because a method is not perfect (it is true that there is a real possibility of bias, this is why participants are invited to constructively criticize the analyses), then it is necessarily of no value. This is not of Science works. In the history of Science, there are many imperfect but influential papers. At the end, people are always free to make up their minds. Their real opinions could, however be very different from the ones they voice on this forum (problem of pseudo-skeptical dishonesty, of people who have a feeling of total impunity to show the worst of humanity).

why you are soliciting subjects in a forum that you seem certain is populated largely by pseudo-skeptics?

You may have noticed that I have not conducted a test on this forum for a long time. However, some good answers and comments have been provided here in the past.

 

[JayUtah]

.I have attempted such a thing in my early days on this forum. But it was too complicated, and did not produce good results.

It did not produce results that confirmed your claim.

I think that you are making the mistake of believing that, because a method is not perfect (it is true that there is a real possibility of bias, this is why participants are invited to constructively criticize the analyses), then it is necessarily of no value.

No. I'm not making a mistake. I'm pointing out the obvious source of uncontrolled bias in your experiment and concluding correctly that it means the results will be of no value.

This is not of Science works.

Avoiding obvious sources of bias is exactly how science works. That is exactly the whole purpose of the scientific method.

At the end, people are always free to make up their minds.

They have made up their minds, whereupon you call them all liars, cheats, and "pseudo-skeptics." Apparently they're not free from being browbeaten by you.

Their real opinions could, however be very different from the ones they voice on this forum...

No, the world does not secretly agree with you.

 

[turingtest]

.


I have attempted such a thing in my early days on this forum. But it was too complicated, and did not produce good results.I think that you are making the mistake of believing that, because a method is not perfect (it is true that there is a real possibility of bias, this is why participants are invited to constructively criticize the analyses), then it is necessarily of no value. This is not of Science works. In the history of Science, there are many imperfect but influential papers. At the end, people are always free to make up their minds. Their real opinions could, however be very different from the ones they voice on this forum (problem of pseudo-skeptical dishonesty, of people who have a feeling of total impunity to show the worst of humanity).

You may have noticed that I have not conducted a test on this forum for a long time. However, some good answers and comments have been provided here in the past.

That is what makes your method cherry-picking- you're aiming for a particular "good" result from your tests, rather than accepting whatever result you get.

 

[p0lka]

I have noted that there still seems to be a lot of skepticism on this forum towards my previous work on telepathy.

A little reminder might be useful:




It seems that some members dismiss as pure sarcasm some posts that do not agree with their more conventional worldview (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_wisdom).

The best evidence is probably the one you provide yourself.

This is why I invite you, once again, to unleash your extra-sensory talents.

I recently wrote (and circled) one of the following four numbers: "2", "3", "4" and "5" on a piece of paper near me.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me which one I wrote.

Hello Michel H, welcome back hope you're doing ok.

 

[Michel H]

They have made up their minds, whereupon you call them all liars, cheats, and "pseudo-skeptics." Apparently they're not free from being browbeaten by you.

Yes, your friend Loss Leader, for example, has finally decided to become reasonable:

... 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. ...

Thank you, Loss Leader, and I am sorry you can no longer participate in this test.

Besides, everybody still does of course have a full right to disagree with my personal conclusions, but there is no right to be dishonest.

What I often sense on this forum is unintelligent arrogance fueled by an impression of impunity.: "Whatever dishonest and nasty comment I write, there will always be five others who will support me, especially if it is very vicious". I have grown weary of this circus, this is why I have toughened up my tone a little bit, as you may have noticed.

 

[Michel H]

Hello Michel H, welcome back hope you're doing ok.

Thank you, p0lka.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, your friend Loss Leader...

You don't understand sarcasm. I'm not going to continue to belabor this with you. No one agrees that you have interpreted his statements correctly.

What I often sense on this forum is unintelligent arrogance...

That may be what you sense, but that's not what's being offered up. You've been given helpful, correct criticism which you have no intention of taking seriously or incorporating into your thinking. You're not being picked on because skeptics are meanies. You're being corrected because you're wrong and the skeptics are right -- and they have explained in suitable detail with suitable evidence why you're wrong.

 

[Pixel42]

Hello Michel H, welcome back hope you're doing ok.

He's been back for a while, calling Loss Leader a liar in another thread.

ETA: those posts have now been moved to this thread

 

[junkshop]

Yes, your friend Loss Leader, for example, has finally decided to become reasonable:

Thank you, Loss Leader, and I am sorry you can no longer participate in this test.

Besides, everybody still does of course have a full right to disagree with my personal conclusions, but there is no right to be dishonest.

What I often sense on this forum is unintelligent arrogance fueled by an impression of impunity.: "Whatever dishonest and nasty comment I write, there will always be five others who will support me, especially if it is very vicious". I have grown weary of this circus, this is why I have toughened up my tone a little bit, as you may have noticed.

Michel, please stop this. Your misrepresentation of a deceased members' position is highly distasteful.

 

[Dave Rogers]

To reiterate: There is nothing to be gained for anyone by engaging in discussion with Michel H. He exhibits a classic case of what R.Mackey defined on this forum as Irreducible Delusion, the possession of a fallacious premise whose validity he refuses to question. In this instance there are several components to the Irreducible Delusion, including that others can communicate telepathically with him and also that the methods by which he seeks to demonstrate this are valid and irrefutable. Any evidence or arguments to the contrary will be rejected. There is no more point discussing the experimental technique than the finding, because Michel H is no less convinced of the latter than the former.

Dave

 

[ynot]

To reiterate: There is nothing to be gained for anyone by engaging in discussion with Michel H. He exhibits a classic case of what R.Mackey defined on this forum as Irreducible Delusion, the possession of a fallacious premise whose validity he refuses to question. In this instance there are several components to the Irreducible Delusion, including that others can communicate telepathically with him and also that the methods by which he seeks to demonstrate this are valid and irrefutable. Any evidence or arguments to the contrary will be rejected. There is no more point discussing the experimental technique than the finding, because Michel H is no less convinced of the latter than the former.

Dave

Nothing to be gained unless one thinks something is to be gained from mocking the afflicted.

 

[Michel H]

Note to everyone: Michel H has a long and consistent history of blatant and explicit cherry-picking in these tests ... There is nothing to be gained by anyone from engaging with the process in any way whatsoever.

To reiterate: There is nothing to be gained for anyone by engaging in discussion with Michel H. ... There is no more point discussing the experimental technique than the finding, because Michel H is no less convinced of the latter than the former.

Is it because you are scared of the possibility that my test might yield some good results that you try so hard to sabotage it with your empty personal attacks, void of any (detailed) argument, Dave Rogers?

The best evidence is probably the one you provide yourself.

This is why I invite you, once again, to unleash your extra-sensory talents.

I recently wrote (and circled) one of the following four numbers: "2", "3", "4" and "5" on a piece of paper near me.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me which one I wrote.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I don't believe this: there is a difference between "it's almost as if", and "it's exactly as if" (which might perhaps be given an ironic interpretation, though it is known that Loss Leader gave the correct answer in his only participation, and he made it clear later he used telepathy).



Also, "English understatement" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_understatement) doesn't apply to Loss Leader, as he was an American lawyer, I believe, and not an Englishman.





If this is true (but I don't think it is), then I invite you to post here the relevant post where he says this.

I'll give you another English idiom you should look up, because it exactly captures what Loss Leader was doing (regardless of his nationality)...
"taking the piss"
Look it up.

 

[Jim_MDP]

What these posts actually show is that Loss Leader changed his mind for a while, as I have already pointed out myself.



But these posts do not show that his remarkable post:



had a sarcastic nature: there is nothing sarcastic in this near-perfect and simple post.



That people change their minds on the delicate issue of telepathy is nothing new or surprising.



I noticed it also with my mother (now deceased because of the coronavirus).



In 1991, right after meeting her father, who had always been benevolent to me (I was his only grandson), she phoned me and said:





But later she changed her mind and, while acknowledging she had told me this, she stated (my mother, not a doctor) than I am a schizophrenic person (and not telepathic) and that I should take some "new generation" medications for the brain, that I did not take because of past bad experiences (that she didn't care about) and lack of confidence.



After my second telepathy test, Ladewig commented:



but he also seemed to change his mind later.



However, once again, please don't make the mistake of believing that, because he "changed his mind", his congratulory post was of a "sarcastic nature". This would be very foolish. There is no reason to doubt that Ladewig was 100% sincere when he praised my work.



Similarly, in 1998, I asked the psychiatrist of the emergency departement of the large hospital near my home (I live near a large university hospital): "If I talked alone in my apartment, could you hear what I say (using telepathy) if you were driving your car on the large road nearby?".



He replied "Yes". But would he reply "yes" again today? I think there is no guarantee he would, he might behave like my mother.



I hear from time to time noises (some coming from the street) which seem "correlated" with what I say or even think (sometimes, people are getting emotional and want to react).



You should realize that some posts made on this forum, or on other forums (Yahoo Answers, doctissimo ...) in various languages are not my only source of information.



I have tried to travel to see if the voices in my head would change when I travel far away, but these plans have had to be mostly canceled because of the pandemic.



I am making these posts with goals of recognition, but also of "public education" (?).

The delusion is strong with this one.

.

.
(and sorry about your mum)

 

[Michel H]

I'll give you another English idiom you should look up, because it exactly captures what Loss Leader was doing (regardless of his nationality)...
"taking the piss"
Look it up.

I know this expression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss) but I don't think this is actually what Loss Leader was doing. Such a behavior would not be typical of his style, with an attention for the people, especially those who are often attacked.

 

[Michel H]

The delusion is strong with this one.

.

.
(and sorry about your mum)

Where do you see "delusion"? Is it because this is not what you were taught at school, or saw on TV?