Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We all know the answer is 3. This forum is full of telepaths

3, it is 3, remember 3, write down 3

Ashles and Phunk already guessed right. Don't be on the wrong side of history. Jump on the 3 bandwagon. 3, it is 3. Go 3
 
So how many people will need to be right for their guesses to be better than by chance alone? I'm not that great with statistics so I don't know how to work that one out but I assume it's reasonably high.
 
4a4a8a7580d4b195da065aefb5d40671

I don't know what the point of the XX is if im sending an encrypted response...
 
PM me with your actual guess/response/whatever, stanfr.
 
stanfr said:
4a4a8a7580d4b195da065aefb5d40671

I don't know what the point of the XX is if im sending an encrypted response...
Click to expand...
stanfr, I cannot rate the credibility of your answer if all you give me is a hash.
The credibility analysis is an important part of my method (see my previous threads). Also, please send your full, unencrypted answer to Agatha.
 
Akhenaten said:
It's not much use coming up with these various methods to create an illusion of integrity when all you're going to do is use that idiotic "credibility scale" to declare invalid anyone's guesses that you don't like.

Why would we even be bothered with the possibility of you tampering with your chosen number when we already consider it most likely that there will be an even spread between all four numbers anyway?

There's no need for you to resort to subterfuge when it's just as easy and far more effective for you to blatantly reject all the misses and just count the hits.
Click to expand...


That is why he is trying a different method, one where he cannot see our answer before he does his analysis. That is the whole point of the "xx" in our responses.

Granted, this is still not a true scientific test, but it is far better than what he was doing earlier, and I do encourage people to post answers, if for no other reason than he can see the difference between his analysis when he knows whether or not we guessed correctly, and when he cannot. I "predict" that his credibility ratings will no longer correlate with correctness, which in and of itself will demonstrate to Michel *why* his previous method was baloney.

Well, sure there are other reasons too, but ... baby steps!
 
Akhenaten said:
I'm getting equally strong impressions of "2" and "4" so should I submit something like xx,xx or should I split it into separate posts?

Also, when will my hash be delivered?
Click to expand...
The fact you're getting impressions of two of my four valid numbers in this test is quite interesting, Akhenaten. However, in the method I am currently using, partial hits are completely ignored. So, if you want to answer validly in this test, you will have to make a choice: either "2", or "4", but not 50% of "2" and 50% of "4".

After you've made your decision, you should post a sentence like this (for exemple):
"I was not sure, but my final choice is xx."
and send your actual (with no "xx"), full answer to Agatha.

Ideally, you should also post a MD5 hash of a complicated sentence containing your number, so that this number is fixed for ever (can no longer be changed), and you cannot cheat by changing your number after I have posted my target number. You will have to have this hash computed for you, for exemple on either of these websites:
http://www.md5hashgenerator.com/
http://www.miraclesalad.com/webtools/md5.php .

If you have some difficulties with these hashes, let me know, and I'll try to help (or other members maybe).
 
After reading these threads, I still don't understand why this test uses just four numbers and a quality assessment of the responses. Surely it would be easier, and more convincing, to write down a number from a very large set (e.g. from 1-100000000000). Post the hash, and let people post whatever number comes to them.

If you do have to use the test as it is, why not find willing participants, explain the test to them, and then start the test. Simply posting a thread just seems to confuse the issue with so many people talking and joking about it. There isn't even a criteria for which answers will be accepted as legitimate.
 
TheSapient said:
After reading these threads, I still don't understand why this test uses just four numbers and a quality assessment of the responses. Surely it would be easier, and more convincing, to write down a number from a very large set (e.g. from 1-100000000000). Post the hash, and let people post whatever number comes to them.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts - there's a 25% chance (1 in 4) of guessing the number anyway. I'd advise the OP (Michel) to use a very large spread of numbers as you suggested to reduce the chances of a correct guess by chance alone.
 
Michel has taken note of some of our previous criticisms, and this blinding of the responses is the result. His assessment of the responses for 'credibility' is something unscientific but he seems to be wedded to it, and when it was pointed out that he may (consciously or unconsciously) downgrading incorrect answers and upgrading correct ones, this protocol was designed.

It will not prove telepathy, and it's not intended to be scientific. In the event that Michel's number is correctly identified by more people than expected by chance, perhaps Michel will consider trying again with a greater spread of numbers.

My thought is that sometimes it's better to lead someone out of an irrational mindset step by tiny step rather than try to push them too fast.

I've had three PMs so far, please do send me any more responses.

Michel, how many responses do you hope to get before you start assessing the replies?
 
Agatha said:
... In the event that Michel's number is correctly identified by more people than expected by chance, perhaps Michel will consider trying again with a greater spread of numbers.
...
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, why not? The number four in "four possibilities of choice" is not sacred.
 
Agatha said:
...
Michel, how many responses do you hope to get before you start assessing the replies?
Click to expand...
Well, I can already reflect about how credible {the valid answers I have received so far} are now (remember, in this protocol, I normally see immediately the answers with "xx"). If you have stanfr's answer (or any answer other than Hokulele's and Ladewig's ones), please post it now, with the number replaced by "xx".

When should I stop this test (by giving the "correct" number)? I don't know, I am afraid this protocol may seem too complicated for many people, I am not getting many valid answers, some good advice is always welcome (but perhaps less than good answers ;) ). Perhaps five or six valid answers would be a good number, but this is maybe somewhat unrealistic, I don't know. Perhaps some here might be concerned that one of their cherished "skeptical dogmas" might be badly damaged if they answer too well...And it's not indispensible to be an incredible genius to deliberately answer badly (or not answer at all)...
 
Hokulele said:
That is why he is trying a different method, one where he cannot see our answer before he does his analysis. That is the whole point of the "xx" in our responses.

Granted, this is still not a true scientific test, but it is far better than what he was doing earlier, and I do encourage people to post answers, if for no other reason than he can see the difference between his analysis when he knows whether or not we guessed correctly, and when he cannot. I "predict" that his credibility ratings will no longer correlate with correctness, which in and of itself will demonstrate to Michel *why* his previous method was baloney.

Well, sure there are other reasons too, but ... baby steps!
Click to expand...


Thanks for that. I seem to have missed the significance of the "xx" thing in amongst all the gobbledygook.

I will indeed send in a number, but I won't be stuffing around with that hash nonsense.

Cheers, Leilani.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom