Merged Telepathy test: which number did I write?

[Anerystos]

Pssh. No need to jump to drugs as a theory. That would actually be fairly low on my list of likely explanations, for that matter. After all, the research would tend to be based on stories and myths that were likely made up or only loosely based in reality as well as being filtered through a rather arbitrary lens.

Nah. I still go with the illicit substance theory, and that there are three classes of dragons.

"Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. … The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, non-existent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way."

- Stanislaw Lem, The Cyberiad



I once tried to explain to my grandson why I had to be careful how I arranged my weyr, because if you put the wrong dragons next to each other there was trouble. They would fight, and if you woke up in the middle of the night you could hear them. The fairy dragon tried to maintain order, but the look on her face said it all. To placate her I had to put some of the more aggressive ones into hibernation. (And so on … )

Not surprisingly he looked at me as if I was completely barking. I think he is still convinced that Granddad is off his trolley.

I'll have to explain it to Bon-Bon - she thinks that Granddad is wonderful (misguided child that she is). We'll have the social workers round if she goes to nursery and tells them that:

(1) Granddad drinks beer;

(2) Granddad has a collection of dragons who fight at night.

Mind you, there are the two green ones who got married. (13/2/1999) (Or as the certificate says, 13/2/199.) (Dragons are a long lived species.)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You don't have to worry about y, Aridas. One important thing to understand is that, if there are, for exemple, 40 numerical answers (1, 2, 3 or 4), we can expect about 10 1's, 10 2's, 10 3's and 10 4's, when there is no telepathy. If there are strong telepathic effects, these numbers may change, and a probability calculation (calculation of the so-called p-value) might be done.

Michel, there's no reasonable grounds to expect strong telepathic effects.

Nobody who searches for telepathic effects had ever found any. So if you cling to imagining such effects exist at all, they would have to be weaker than any previous experiments were capable of detecting. So you are going to need a large and carefully conducted experiment to detect anything other than random variation or bias in the experimenter or their subjects.

 

[Ladewig]

or, what I'd do, choose something else, like colors (red, blue, green), objects (ball, lamp, cup), or letters (J, K, L).

I have no evidence, but I somewhat suspect that even those lists might produce biased answers depending on the age and culture of the humans making selections. Especial if the number of respondents is less than 40.

 

[elbe]

I have no evidence, but I somewhat suspect that even those lists might produce biased answers depending on the age and culture of the humans making selections. Especial if the number of respondents is less than 40.

I don't think any of them would be perfect, just my best guesses given the limited nature of the proposed test. Conscious and unconscious bias are difficult to weed out, but if even a little bit of effort is put into it you can probably try to flatten the distribution out more than the proposed number set.

 

[Aridas]

Nah. I still go with the illicit substance theory, and that there are three classes of dragons.

"Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. … The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, non-existent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way."

- Stanislaw Lem, The Cyberiad

Sounds like an amusing story, if not supportive of the illicit substances theory by what you've said. Still, I respect your right to your opinion, even if I do wonder how creatures like Komodo Dragon fit in.

Mind you, there are the two green ones who got married. (13/2/1999) (Or as the certificate says, 13/2/199.) (Dragons are a long lived species.)

Congratulations to those two. May they never have cause to fight at night with the rest.

 

[Ladewig]

I don't think any of them would be perfect, just my best guesses given the limited nature of the proposed test. Conscious and unconscious bias are difficult to weed out, but if even a little bit of effort is put into it you can probably try to flatten the distribution out more than the proposed number set.

Agreed.
I would be hard pressed to think of set that would have a less even distribution than letting humans choosing numbers from 1 to 4.

 

[barefootgoddess]

Telepathy Test

When I saw the post the number that came to mind was 5.

Then I read your parameters for it 1-2-3-4 and 2 was the number that popped into my head two days ago-as I had to wait the two days for my account to be validated.

And now here it is the second day and the number that sticks in my head is 4.
Maybe not sticks as much as comes to mind.

Now the people picking a number one through four is more of a guess for them than a sign of telepathy. And the parameters you used are more to test remote viewing rather than telepathy because since you posted your test I'm fairly sure you have gone about your daily life and not thought of the number-my finial answer was 4 by the way-consistently throughout that time. If someone guesses which number you have circled and repeated occasionally throughout-because you never said how long you were going to attempt this telepathy test-I'd think it was more a precog/remote viewing test than telepathy since the chances of someone posting their answer at the exact moment your thinking are slim.

 

[AdMan]

When I saw the post the number that came to mind was 5.

Then I read your parameters for it 1-2-3-4 and 2 was the number that popped into my head two days ago-as I had to wait the two days for my account to be validated.

And now here it is the second day and the number that sticks in my head is 4.
Maybe not sticks as much as comes to mind.

Now the people picking a number one through four is more of a guess for them than a sign of telepathy. And the parameters you used are more to test remote viewing rather than telepathy because since you posted your test I'm fairly sure you have gone about your daily life and not thought of the number-my finial answer was 4 by the way-consistently throughout that time. If someone guesses which number you have circled and repeated occasionally throughout-because you never said how long you were going to attempt this telepathy test-I'd think it was more a precog/remote viewing test than telepathy since the chances of someone posting their answer at the exact moment your thinking are slim.

No, it's bull ****.

 

[fromdownunder]

No, it's bull ****.

Yet I suspect that at some point in the near future we will get a complete analysis from Michel H (again) proving that he is right and the other 7 Billion people on the planet are wrong about his particular take on telepathy, along with torturous explanations about what numbers he discarded and which ones he agreed were "genuine". Again, just like last time, he will pick and choose to confirm his bias.

Norm

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm increasingly eager to see Michel's analysis of why I chose my number, right or wrong. I'm sure it will be illuminating.

 

[Femke]

I pick 1.
Far upthread, in the previous test, I guessed right, and was therefore judged to be genuine. So I must be right now, mustn't I?

 

[welshdean]

So Michel, when is the big reveal?

 

[Michel H]

So Michel, when is the big reveal?

Not sure yet, welshdean. And I am not sure it's "big" either . You may let the thread "sleep" for a while, no problem.

 

[IXP]

I keep getting interference from the countless Michel_Hes in alternate universes who are peforming this test at the same time. I think the most common number that we guess will be the one represented in more universes, not the one the Michel_H in this universe wrote down.

IXP

 

[Ladewig]

Not sure yet, welshdean. And I am not sure it's "big" either . You may let the thread "sleep" for a while, no problem.

Yes.

May this thread rest in gentle sleep.

The gentle sleep of the ages.

 

[dafydd]

So Michel, when is the big reveal?

Never. Yawn.

 

[Agatha]

So Michel, when is the big reveal?

When enough people have guessed the 'right' answer.

 

[freedy]

Having ploughed through this tedious thread, a second test is not necessary, as the results from test 1 clearly showed a HIGHER than average result.

3/13 chose the number 3 = 23.08%.

However, there were not FOUR answers but FIVE. Remember the “I don’t know”!

Random guesses would have resulted in a 20% success rate.

So 23% is a clear sign of telepathy/remote reading/specialness/whateverness.
No need to go again after a massive win like that. Send the money to Michel you sceptics!

 

[Michel H]

Having ploughed through this tedious thread, a second test is not necessary, as the results from test 1 clearly showed a HIGHER than average result.

3/13 chose the number 3 = 23.08%.

However, there were not FOUR answers but FIVE. Remember the “I don’t know”!

Random guesses would have resulted in a 20% success rate.

So 23% is a clear sign of telepathy/remote reading/specialness/whateverness.
No need to go again after a massive win like that. Send the money to Michel you sceptics!

freedy, the number to guess was "4", not "3". Should I consider your post as just a comment, or as an answer to the test (an implicit vote for "3") ?

I decided to give the correct answer after about 9 days, I think this was long enough, I am a little skeptical about (more) quality answers after such a long time, I don't want to keep you waiting for too long.

It's possible that I present an analysis of the results later (similar to what I did before, in post #177), unless perhaps there is no interest whatsoever.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

freedy, the number to guess was "4", not "3". Should I consider your post as just a comment, or as an answer to the test (an implicit vote for "3") ?

I decided to give the correct answer after about 9 days, I think this was long enough, I am a little skeptical about (more) quality answers after such a long time, I don't want to keep you waiting for too long. It's possible that I present an analysis of the results later (similar to what I did before, in post #177), unless perhaps there is no interest whatsoever.

Is it because you couldn't interpret the results in a such a way that it fit with your OP?

Maybe next time have us guess a number between 1-1