New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Gamolon]

From the statistical analysis,

Let's discuss something.

Let's say you and I were doing a series of tests where you concentrated on a number from 1 to 10 and I wrote down a number.

We did this 100 times.

What criteria would I use in order to know if the number I thought of was sent by you or if I thought of it myself? Would the number come into my head as if I was silently reading a book? Would it be your particular voice telling me a number?

If telepathy really exists between you and another subject, you wouldn't have to tell them ANY parameters as to what you'd be projecting. You'd think of whatever, and they'd get it. Just like talking to someone., but telepathically.

Also, what was the purpose of you setting a boundary pertaining to what number you'd be trying to project telepathically (1, 2, 3, or 4)? Why was this necessary?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9444439&postcount=260

 

[Gamolon]

I think there is no way I can know this with certainty,

Oh it's there.

You just don't want to do it because you're afraid of the results.

 

[Pixel42]

So keep it going. Pick another number.

Even if you do get him to do enough runs for the result to be statistically significant and it's no better than chance, which of course it would be because no-one can hear his thoughts, he will "reason" that you gave him one correct answer to lead him on and then deliberately gave three wrong ones for every right one to produce the same result as chance. So every answer other than the first one will be deemed not credible.

Remember that he's already convinced everyone can hear his thoughts. He's not testing that hypothesis, he's trying to cleverly trick us into inadvertently confirming it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Michel H,

[...]

What is it you actually expect to achieve?

I really think it's what I said upthread, that Michel believes he can back the whole world into a corner and force everyone else in it to confess because the lie has been exposed.

Dave

 

[Gamolon]

Remember that he's already convinced everyone can hear his thoughts.

This is the problem I have.

He cannot define what someone receiving thoughts telepathically is like. How does he know that someone has received his thoughts versus them thinking something on their own?

Even with the test he did. How does he know that someone picked 4 as their number because he projected that to them or if it was wat they picked on their own?

 

[JayUtah]

To agree to the test is to agree to the protocol, and to agree to the protocol is to agree to Michel's ad hoc manipulation of the data that ensures he can't lose.

And if a discussion regarding the propriety of the method is always just going to end with Michel insinuating he's just that much smarter than everyone else and can't possibly be doing bad science, then there is really no intrinsic value to the conversation. He just becomes yet another chew toy.

 

[Gamolon]

From the statistical analysis, I knew that strong telepathy effects were apparently taking place during the first tests I conducted on this forum (back then, people were curious and interested, the forum was also more active, and I got many answers).

So it seems reasonable that gabeygoat's answer was obtained through telepathy, but still I can't be 100% sure about this.

You're not answering my question Michel.

I mean I can "sing songs" in my head with the appropriate artist's voice or my own (terrible) voice. I can "repeat" certain lines from cartoons and "hear" Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck say them. I can picture things in my mind. All at random.

How does someone know they are getting thought projection telepathically from you (or anyone) versus them thinking something themselves?

 

[Pixel42]

This is the problem I have.

He cannot define what someone receiving thoughts telepathically is like. How does he know that someone has received his thoughts versus them thinking something on their own?

Even with the test he did. How does he know that someone picked 4 as their number because he projected that to them or if it was wat they picked on their own?

Someone who was genuinely trying to find out whether telepathy was possible might well use a test protocol where person A tried to "project" a particular number whilst person B tried to "receive" it. The idea is that if telepathy was taking place (in some way not necessarily obvious to the participants) the first number that came into the receiver's head would be the one the projector was concentrating on more often than would be expected by chance. After each run they would compare the numbers they'd each written down and see if the "receiver" had guessed right. Do enough runs and you'll have enough data for the result to be statistically significant. It's a valid test protocol, in theory. Michel H perverted version of it is not valid, for reasons which are obvious to everyone but him.

 

[turingtest]

This is the problem I have.

He cannot define what someone receiving thoughts telepathically is like. How does he know that someone has received his thoughts versus them thinking something on their own?

Even with the test he did. How does he know that someone picked 4 as their number because he projected that to them or if it was wat they picked on their own?

That is a really good question; it's one I asked of Michel way back in 2014:

Michel? Any chance of you addressing this?

Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Michel, what objective method are you using to distinguish, in your statistical analysis, between people who are actually receiving your number, and those who are simply guessing correctly at it? After all, if you assume that all (or any part) of the correct responses are received from your transmissions, and not wild guesses, then aren't you just assuming what you need to prove?

Surely you would accept that, human nature being what it is, some folks who are responding with numbers are simply guessing at your target? And, further, that given your ridiculously small sample set and the law of averages, some of those guesses will be correct ones? Without an objective way to distinguish between those who are receiving from you your target number, and those who are only stabbing in the dark at it, your test is meaningless. And if you refuse to recognize, or allow for, the distinction, then you're just assuming whatever it is you're trying to prove by the test- so, again, it's a worthless test (except insofar as it may have any worth to you subjectively).

His answer, those seven years ago, was this:

Well, on the one hand, I can look at comments that people provide with their answers. And, on the other hand, I can use standard tools provided by the statistical science, to try to assess whether any apparent result is statistically significant, by calculating the p-value.

...and I suspect his answer now wouldn't be any better. After all, if you're assessing answers based on "comments that people provide with their answers," you're using a subjective method that makes the objective stats completely meaningless; his one hand isn't working with the other, it's breaking the fingers on it to make it useless.

 

[Gamolon]

That is a really good question; it's one I asked of Michel way back in 2014:


His answer, those seven years ago, was this:

...and I suspect his answer now wouldn't be any better. After all, if you're assessing answers based on "comments that people provide with their answers," you're using a subjective method that makes the objective stats completely meaningless; his one hand isn't working with the other, it's breaking the fingers on it to make it useless.

If Michel finds a person who can hear his thoughts, this should be 100% successful every time. Michel should be able to project a thought (number, animal, object, etc.), without telling the recipient what he is going to project, and they should get it right.

I’m trying to understand why Michel needs to let people know what he’s going to be thinking about.

I also want to know what it characteristics about person’s comments in regards to their answer during a test that “tells” him that their answer was definitely a result of his projection to them.

 

[p0lka]

I don't think that Loss Leader ever complained about his credibility rating in my test.

He did say, for a while (and in a deliberately ambiguous way), that his correct answer:

was just a random lie.

This reflects a very common phenomenon of telepathy rejection.

However, he later retracted himself and said:


The proper way to evaluate an answer like:

is certainly not to say "telepathy doesn't exist and therefore this answer is crazy and non-credible". This answer was clear, polite, and in line with my observations of being a special thought broadcaster (as my mother, a good friend and a psychiatrist told me). So I had no reason to reject it. It turned out that it was also correct.

So far I think all current or previous "figures of authority" (Loss Leader and Arthwollipot) have a hit rate equal to 100% in my tests.

The highlighted is an issue I think.
All results are results,
picking the one's you like and discarding the one's you don't does not seem very 'science methody' to me.

 

[p0lka]

If Michel finds a person who can hear his thoughts, this should be 100% successful every time. Michel should be able to project a thought (number, animal, object, etc.), without telling the recipient what he is going to project, and they should get it right.

I’m trying to understand why Michel needs to let people know what he’s going to be thinking about.

I also want to know what it characteristics about person’s comments in regards to their answer during a test that “tells” him that their answer was definitely a result of his projection to them.

I think Michel thinks that everyone is lying about reading Michels mind, as in, when they get it wrong they knew the answer but are lying.

 

[Dave Rogers]

All results are results, picking the one's you like and discarding the one's you don't does not seem very 'science methody' to me.

Literally everyone agrees with you, yet Michel continually claims that nobody does. It's one of the lesser delusions he needs to support his primary one.

Dave

 

[Michel H]

Your data is based on your opinion regarding someone being sincere or not with their answer.

How is that science?

Let's try to keep it simple.

When I see Loss Leader's answer:

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

, I say "no problem", because I believe (based on testimonies and other elements) that telepathy is probably real and that I am probably a strong telepathic sender.

Kid Eager answered, in the same test:

It's becoming clear now.

I see a chariot. No, sorry - it's oregano....

Running around the oregano I see figures. They're small and have orange hair. Could be the number 6 coated in felt, but it's hard to be sure.

All this is happening on the surface of a king-sized bed, floating in a sea of banana custard.

You are therefore thinking of the number 1.

(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9445222#post9445222).

Here Kid Eager claims that, because he sees a king-sized bed floating in a sea of banana custard and some other stuff, I thought number 1 in my test.

This is not a rational and reasonable argument, even by assuming that telepathy does exist.

So I declared Kid Eager's answer non-credible.

These are simple and reasonable opinions in an ESP research, so they are scientific.

Now, my interesting and new discovery is that, if and only if I limit my statistical analysis to the subset of credible answers (credibility being evaluated by using fairly obvious arguments that most reasonable people can understand, and not just me), then I tend to find statistically significant results in my telepathy experiment (good hit rate and p-value).

But I still cannot say in a totally sure way whether an individual answerer used telepathy or just random guessed, I can only speculate on that.

Sometimes, in my test, I find credible answers that are actually incorrect. If I was just cheating by "deciding" that all incorrect answers are not credible, I would never find answers that are both credible and incorrect.

Why does your test have to have boundary parameters as to what your test subjects should be focusing on? If someone was truly receptive to your thought projection, you would be able to concentrate on anything and see if your test subjects got that particular projected thought. Any number, object, etc., would suffice, without telling them anything.

Doing a successful telepathy test is difficult, there are some conditions which must be met. One of these is that the test should preferably not be too difficult, otherwise people won't cooperate. This is why I limit, in my tests, the number of possible correct answers. But this doesn't of course mean that my apparent telepathic property can only transmit numbers in the range 1-4.

Of interest (from another forum):

Hey! I got it right. Thanks Michel H for this little experiment. It's funny what you said about guessing the number 1. It's a number I would also typically avoid. But this time, I believe I did see you writing it on a page, so that's why I went with it, despite my knee-jerk reluctance.

Thanks again.

(http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1423682&postcount=23 )

 

[Michel H]

Michel H,

What is the end-game here?

Clearly, you are convinced of your telepathic abilities, so there is nothing more for you to accomplish in that regard. Clearly, too, all but one of the members here are equally convinced of your lack of telepathic abilities, so there is nothing more you are able to accomplish there.

What is it you actually expect to achieve?

I would like to see (gradually) a better public acceptance of my apparent telepathic property. I see this as a normal part of scientific and social progress.

 

[Lothian]

I would like to see (gradually) a better public acceptance of my apparent telepathic property. I see this as a normal part of scientific and social progress.

If you had any telepathic abilities there would be rapid acceptance.
That is how science tends to work and why cold fusion, free energy machines and psychic crap struggles to make an impact but Covid drugs have had no difficulties.

 

[Gamolon]

Doing a successful telepathy test is difficult, there are some conditions which must be met. One of these is that the test should preferably not be too difficult, otherwise people won't cooperate.

You have this "difficulty condition" because telling people what the parameters are AND making it a small selection set, gives you more of a chance to get the answers you want.

Then add in your "opinion" on what's credible or not.

This is not scientific. Unless you change the way you're testing, you'll never get anywhere.

 

[JayUtah]

Let's try to keep it simple.

Except that you don't. "Credibility tests" are not simplifications, they're complications. There are much better ways to collect the kind of data you think you need. When those methods are employed, your claimed ability vanishes.

When I see Loss Leader's answer ... I say "no problem", because I believe...

This is subjective judgment. It makes your experiment irreproducible and therefore of no scientific value.

...(based on testimonies and other elements) that telepathy is probably real and that I am probably a strong telepathic sender.

This is experimenter bias. It makes your experiment irreproducible and therefore of no scientific value.

These are simple and reasonable opinions in an ESP research, so they are scientific.

No, they aren't. And no they aren't. In your eagerness to transfer your scientific expertise from physics to the completely unrelated empirical world of human-subject research, you seem to think your critics here are completely unaware of prior art in parapsychology research. You seem to think you can just foist whatever terms you contrive, and that the unwashed masses won't have any basis for detecting fraud. You do little to hide your contempt for your critics, and your belief that they are inexperienced and uninformed.

You admit you've never published in this field. You aren't the expert here. You don't know what constitutes a credible protocol. You don't know how to collect data properly. It's obvious you care little for the opinions of most of the participants in this forum on these points. So the challenge then becomes to publish. Submit your findings to the larger scientific community and see whether the people here are right.

Now, my interesting and new discovery is that, if and only if I limit my statistical analysis to the subset of credible answers...

Your protocol conflates credibility with desirability because you are the (biased) person applying judgment, and you know whether a particular answer helps or hinders your desired outcome. This isn't any sort of new and promising methodology. It's just textbook cherry-picking. The reason no one has done this before is because it's obvious cheating.

You wear your bias on your sleeve. You firmly believe you project your thoughts to others, and you get downright nasty when people suggest you don't. An experiment that confirms your beliefs only when you design it to include a step that relies upon your judgment has no power to convince scientifically-minded people. The outcome correlates to whether you get to apply your home-grown method, not to any proper experimental variable. That's a dead giveaway that the method is really intended to skew the results to a desirable outcome.

But I still cannot say in a totally sure way whether an individual answerer used telepathy or just random guessed, I can only speculate on that.

This is ad hoc judgment. It makes your experiment irreproducible and therefore of no scientific value.

Sometimes, in my test, I find credible answers that are actually incorrect. If I was just cheating by "deciding" that all incorrect answers are not credible, I would never find answers that are both credible and incorrect.

Unless you thought that by admitting some wrong answers, you would escape detection. The guy who wins every hand in blackjack gets kicked out of the casino.

You've been puttering around with this for something like eight years on this forum alone. Time's up. Publish your results in the appropriate peer-reviewed journal or give up. Put up or shut up.

 

[JayUtah]

I would like to see (gradually) a better public acceptance of my apparent telepathic property. I see this as a normal part of scientific and social progress.

That may be your larger end game in life, but the question was what your end game was here in this forum.

It's clear you have little but contempt for your critics here. When they corner you with questions you can't answer, you just brush them off, tell them they aren't intellectually capable of understanding your genius, and soldier blissfully onward.

It's clear you're not going to get any further cooperation in gathering meaningful data from the participants here. We're all on to you.

How does your participation in this forum advance the cause of achieving greater public acceptance of the gifts you claim?

In the larger sense, scientific acceptance of your claims requires you to submit to the standards that already prevail in the relevant disciplines. Those standards are not ad hoc guardrails designed to maintain some predetermined status quo. They are stringent standards arrived at through sad experience with people trying to cheat their way along by such means as rigging experiments so that they cannot fail. As much as you would like to believe otherwise, science is on to you too.

What you're going to face outside this forum is a fury of mockery from the scientific community that makes our analysis here pale in comparison. And I think that's why you don't publish. It's easy to hop from forum to forum filled with anonymous contributors you can easily brush off. It's easy to convince yourself that you're the lone genius in a crowd of entrenched skeptics unwilling to accept your claims for some imaginary ideological reason. If you have to make your way in the real scientific world, you can't just write off the criticism as easily. You can't call them stupid.

So you're here because it lets you bask in the ambiguity over the objective strength of your claims. You can rail against those mean "pseudo skeptics" and comfort yourself with the unproven belief that your genius would be recognized by a greater elite.

I say prove it. Publish or perish.

 

[jsfisher]

I would like to see (gradually) a better public acceptance of my apparent telepathic property. I see this as a normal part of scientific and social progress.

Well, you have made no progress in that regard here. We are in a continual loop of "am so" from you and "are not" from everyone else with the approach you cling to. Perhaps, just maybe, if you really want a better public acceptance you need to cater more to the public's expectation of what are acceptable protocols.