New telepathy test, the sequel.

[JayUtah]

Let's assume...

No, let's not invent hypotheticals. I'm talking about the tests you've already done, which use different sample pools, different trial probabilities, and different methods of filtering the data. Your past tests are incongruent and therefore cannot be aggregated.

If you would like to propose new tests, using the same protocols and the same sample pools, then you can make a case for aggregation. But that's not what you've done. And as has been belabored, your method is irreproducible. Since you rule on each data point using subjective ad hoc methods, you don't even have one dataset for which a valid statistical model exists.

 

[Michel H]

Given that your eardrums are in your head, this would be an entirely expected place to hear the voices of other people. However, as I understand it, these voices that you hear are not those of people in your vicinity speaking out loud, and being heard by everyone within earshot, but rather a psychic phenomenon, only 'audible' to you.

If I'm following your claims correctly, you hear the voices of some people in your head, while everyone else hears your thoughts in theirs. You say that these things are "completely different". How so?

I have more questions, but they can wait.

What I said was:

I am not claiming I hear the thoughts of others, I claim I (apparently) hear voices of others in my head, which is completely different.

I wanted to emphasize that there is a big difference between hearing the thoughts of someone (which are usually very private) and hearing the voice of the same person talking to you in a psychic/telepathic way (a way which doesn't go through your ears, you can feel that).

 

[JayUtah]

I wanted to emphasize that there is a big difference between hearing the thoughts of someone (which are usually very private) and hearing the voice of the same person talking to you in a psychic/telepathic way (a way which doesn't go through your ears, you can feel that).

This suggests that you've experienced both and can therefore judge the difference between them. Do you claim that you've heard the thoughts of someone else? Do you claim that you've heard the "voice" of someone talking to you telepathically? What evidence can you present that you've experienced either or both of these phenomena in a purely objective way?

 

[p0lka]

One can use the number 12 to get the answer 2, 3, 4 or 5 very easily.

You already claimed you could drop the 1 from 12 to get 2
12=3x4 so there is 3 and 4
2+3=5
So it doesn't matter which number you circled, or even if you circled none. Regardless of any answer given, you could easily twist it into a hit.

Your test and analysis are invalid. You wasted everyone's time again.

I picked all the answers and floated a 'one' at the end just cos.

I pick 3,2,5 and 4, after all 'one' of them is correct.

Apparently I suggested the correct answer, but not in a clear way, which is technically correct.

 

[Michel H]

No, let's not invent hypotheticals. I'm talking about the tests you've already done, which use different sample pools, different trial probabilities, and different methods of filtering the data. Your past tests are incongruent and therefore cannot be aggregated.

If you would like to propose new tests, using the same protocols and the same sample pools, then you can make a case for aggregation. But that's not what you've done. And as has been belabored, your method is irreproducible. Since you rule on each data point using subjective ad hoc methods, you don't even have one dataset for which a valid statistical model exists.

You apparently didn't bother to read the two links that I provided to you. This is very unfortunate. If you had, you would have seen that both tests were four-choice tests. Combining tests in which the number of possibilities are different is technically more difficult, but still possible using a normal or Gaussian approximation.

By the way, posting in this thread, which is about a scientific research, requires some discipline. Study first, comment next.

 

[arthwollipot]

Let me know when you've selected another number.

 

[JayUtah]

You apparently didn't bother to read the two links that I provided to you. This is very unfortunate.

I did. You previously mentioned "dozens and dozens" of tests, for which I see no evidence. If you want to propose "dozens and dozens" of new tests, that's a different matter. If you want to refer to "dozens and dozens" of tests you've previously conducted, then you have to prove they are suitably congruent.

If you had, you would have seen that both tests were four-choice tests.

Different sample pools. Different "error" filtration.

Combining tests in which the number of possibilities are different is technically more difficult, but still possible using a normal or Gaussian approximation.

Different degrees of freedom.

By the way, posting in this thread, which is about a scientific research, requires some discipline. Study first, comment next.

This thread isn't about scientific research. It's about you trying to cobble up some pseudoscience to support your claim that you're a "thought projector." What part of "I do this for a living" was unclear?

 

[junkshop]

What I said was ...

I'm well aware of what you said. I quoted it in the post you are replying to.

I wanted to emphasize that there is a big difference between hearing the thoughts of someone (which are usually very private) and hearing the voice of the same person talking to you in a psychic/telepathic way (a way which doesn't go through your ears, you can feel that).

A follow up question* then, if I may: If (as you claim) we can all hear your thoughts, why do you waste your time posting on the internet?


*I would be very surprised if I were the first to ask this.

 

[Gamolon]

No, I am not claiming I hear the thoughts of others, I claim I (apparently) hear voices of others in my head, which is completely different.

I am genuinely curious about this.

Can you please explain what the difference is between hearing other’s thoughts in your head versus hearing their voices? What would someone have to do differently on their end for you hear their thoughts versus hearing their voices? Can you tell if someone has a male or female voice?

 

[Michel H]

This thread isn't about scientific research. It's about you trying to cobble up some pseudoscience to support your claim that you're a "thought projector."

I got some very positive comments about my work. For example, after I posted my first test analysis:

Totally worth the wait.

.
After the second one:

Hurray.

Congratulations on once again proving telepathy.


I won't complain about my low credibility rating. After all such complaints would be prima facie evidence of my low credibility.


Bravo. I salute you.
Very few people trying to prove the existence of ESP would have the fortitude to come right out and say that. You are the vanguard of the next Golden Age of psychic testing.

If you are ever invited to speak at a conference for psychic powers and phenomena, will you post the dates on this board? I really want to be there when you say, "OK, all you remote viewing folks and precognition folks - I want to say that you've got nothing; so quit wasting our time with something that has no possible mechanism. Now, I'd like to speak about my unimpeachable ESP evidence."

Also:

*Golf clap*

You sir, are very good at what you do. Very, very good.

(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11282539#post11282539).

 

[Startz]

The p-value is the computed probability that the null hypothesis still governed the outcome, but that the outcome appears to confirm the experiment hypothesis.

if we do two independent tests of with p-values p₁ and p₂ then the probability of getting the results is something like
1 - (1-p₁)(1-p₂) isn't it?

I rarely due multiple testing, so maybe I have this wrong.

[Note to reader: I am not suggesting that any of the tests conducted here have even one valid p-value.]

 

[JayUtah]

I got some very positive comments about my work.

Again, you are completely oblivious as to sarcasm. None of what you're doing even remotely qualifies as science.

 

[junkshop]

I got some very positive comments about my work...

Michel, all of those posts were taking the piss. They are not positive comments.

golf clap
1. An exaggeratedly quiet clapping intended as a show of sarcastic support or disdain.

 

[Michel H]

I'm well aware of what you said. I quoted it in the post you are replying to.




A follow up question* then, if I may: If (as you claim) we can all hear your thoughts, why do you waste your time posting on the internet?


*I would be very surprised if I were the first to ask this.

Why?

Why do you do scientific research? (I am a Ph.D. in Physics, so it's my job to do research).

Trying to achieve a better knowledge of the hypothesized phenomenon and a better recognition ... Getting data for a possible paper ...

 

[Michel H]

I am genuinely curious about this.

Can you please explain what the difference is between hearing other’s thoughts in your head versus hearing their voices? What would someone have to do differently on their end for you hear their thoughts versus hearing their voices? Can you tell if someone has a male or female voice?

What would someone have to do differently on their end for you hear their thoughts versus hearing their voices?

I don't this would be possible.

Can you tell if someone has a male or female voice?

With difficulty, because it's not a real voice, with sound waves. But there are some psychological differences.

 

[Myriad]

I can project my thoughts much more effectively. I shall prove it with a scientific test. I've written down and circled a number, in the range of 2 to 12 inclusive. I request that other posters read that number and then post it in this thread.

I contend that you all listen to my potent thoughts often. So this time focus your attention intently, like an antenna. The tenor of the intended result may frighten you, but don't be tentative.

 

[arthwollipot]

I can project my thoughts much more effectively. I shall prove it with a scientific test. I've written down and circled a number, in the range of 2 to 12 inclusive. I request that other posters read that number and then post it in this thread.

I contend that you all listen to my potent thoughts often. So this time focus your attention intently, like an antenna. The tenor of the intended result may frighten you, but don't be tentative.

Nine.

 

[Gamolon]

I don't this would be possible.

Sorry, this didn’t make sense. Let me ask again.

How can you tell the difference between hearing someone’s thoughts versus hearing their voices?

 

[JayUtah]

if we do two independent tests of with p-values p₁ and p₂ then the probability of getting the results is something like
1 - (1-p₁)(1-p₂) isn't it?

I see what you're getting at. If we do Experiment A using the protocol and come up with p₁ < 0.043, and Experiment B using the same protocol and a different subject pool at a different time and place, and come up with p₂ < 0.048, then the probability that both those outcomes were a fluke is, according to your reckoning, p ≈ 0.089. No, that's not really how independent experiments (especially, for example, confirmatory ones) are considered together.

[Note to reader: I am not suggesting that any of the tests conducted here have even one valid p-value.]

I would argue they don't. The statistical models are predicated on Bernoulli trials with outcomes governed entirely by objective observation. When each data point is mulled over, included, excluded, or transformed as needed to produce the final result, the individual trials no longer fit the premise of the model.

 

[junkshop]

... A follow up question* then, if I may: If (as you claim) we can all hear your thoughts, why do you waste your time posting on the internet?

Why?

Yes, that is my question, well spotted.

Why do you do scientific research? (I am a Ph.D. in Physics, so it's my job to do research).

I don't do scientific research. I would suggest that you don't, either.

Trying to achieve a better knowledge of the hypothesized phenomenon and a better recognition ... Getting data for a possible paper ...

Be honest now. You've been at this for years. There's never going to be a paper, is there?