Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?
- Thread starter Michel H
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy telepathy test
- Status
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
As far as I can see, you have three "legitimate" answers on this thread in three pages. Don't you even understand that most people treat your "scientific test" as the joke that it is?
Please devise a real test and try again.
Norm
gabeygoat
Master Poster
I'm gonna guess xx
not sure what im doing
not sure what im doing
Femke
Goddess of the Glowing Sunsets
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 466
You are right that this test is not what Michel thinks it is, but I was going to treat it as a test for his credibility rating: I'm interested in how Michel will rate the answers, independent of their being the right guess or not. And, more importantly (Michel, are you listening?), whether the resulting non-correlation to the guess might get him to re-evaluate his opinion of his credibility rating.
So, I really hope that more posters will submit a guess, because I am curious.
Thank you for your answers, it is perhaps time now to think about concluding this test.
The hash of a {complicated sentence containing my target number} I gave in post #38 above was:
4f956837e6022c4eb5a30fc05c52c7a4
The corresponding sentence was:
The number I wrote and circled for this test is 2 .... dfdvfevdf yugyug zefsdvc rextsyugf.
So, my target number was a 2.
I received seven valid answers in this test (answers with "xx" and at least a sentence, and with no (target) number explicitly given; answers with no MD5 hash will be considered still valid): those by Hokulele, Ladewig, stanfr, Kid Eager, fagin, Femke and gabeygoat. I would like now to examine them in turn, in order to assign them "credibility ratings".
1) Hokulele wrote:
Hokulele said "The first number that came to my attention is xx". So, it seems natural to turn our attention to the first post in this thread, which is my opening post:
This is both good news and bad news. Good news, because it seems to suggest, in a simple way, a real telepathic effect. But bad news also, because I am facing again now the problem I was facing in my unblinded telepathy tests, namely the problem of judging objectively the credibility of an answer when you know that it is numerically correct (except that here I don't really know the number Hokulele chose; it just seems to be 2). I'll try to solve this difficulty again by just trying to ignore this uncertain knowledge, and using other reasons to determine the CR (credibility rating). Giving a high credibility to an answer because you know it's (numerically) correct (or probably correct) would of course makes the credibility analysis of the test meaningless: the idea of such a credibility analysis is to try to show that answers which sound reliable/unreliable are indeed (numerically) correct/incorrect. Nobody needs to "learn" that correct/incorrect answers are indeed correct/incorrect; this, we already all know. But aren't there other elements one can use in Hokulele's answer to assess its credibility?
Her answer: "The first number that came to my attention is xx, so that is my choice for this test." does not make her answer credible, in my opinion, in a telepathy test, where the thing that matters is what you (telepathically) perceive, not the first number which "comes to your attention". Hokulele's answer is written using a rather formal style, which is odd here (and which I even find slightly arrogant
, which is not favorable for credibility). Telepathic perception is probably mostly an involuntary process, something you mostly cannot control, it's not like "giving (visual) attention" to an image.
But she also said later 'I "predict" that his credibility ratings will no longer correlate with correctness'. This does suggest that she wrote a (numerically) correct answer, with a not credible answer (she most probably realizes her answer is not credible), so that the usual correlation is lost (her answer does not seem credible; if the frequent correlation must be lost, one should expect it to be numerically correct). This an argument I believe I can use because it has nothing to do with my doubtful knowledge of her writing 2.
So, instead of giving a negative credibility, I finally choose: CR = 0 (I note also she gave no MD5 hash). I prefer to not give a positive credibility to an answer which explains a number choice by "a first number coming to attention" (as if she had seen it).
2) Ladewig said:
CR=-5
3) stanfr said:
and also:
CR=-5
4) Kid Eager said:
CR=-5.
Note: Btw, crazy sounding answers are not necessarily a problem in this test, in which a certain amount of lying is in fact allowed. If your answer is numerically incorrect, but at the same time, obviously not credible, I will think that you have made a valuable contribution to the test.
5) fagin answered:
However, the full, original and unmasked (with no "xx") answer:
2
Which I think is 20.
(for exemple) is incorrect (this answer would also be incorrect if "2" was replaced by "1", or "3", or "4"). This is a weakness of this answer. Also, no hash given.
CR = -4.
6) Femke answered:
7) gabeygoat answered:
CR = 0.
Several people also seem to have suggested in various ways that the target number might be "2" in this thread. I think it may be useful to acknowledge these things, because they may be some evidence for telepathy, and also they may have a good influence on other answerers (although some people might say that "this is not serious").
For example, Akhenaten (who is in Australia) said, in a fairly credible sounding way:
I also note that Iamme posted two consecutive texts in this thread (posts #73 and #74). His post #74, a modified version of his post #73, was posted only 10 minutes after post #73, when post #73 could still have been edited.
Seven minutes after fagin posted:
devnull said:
"3" was several times explicitly answered (in violation of this thread's protocol); I didn't find any of these answers credible.
I have now posted all "credibility ratings" for the seven valid answers of this test, so I now ask Agatha to post the full answers (or the "guessed" numbers); I'll send her a message about this. Hokulele, Ladewig, stanfr, Kid Eager, fagin, Femke and gabeygoat are also invited to post or verify their full answers, or their numbers. I also ask stanfr to post the text which led to his MD5 hash of post #44.
The hash of a {complicated sentence containing my target number} I gave in post #38 above was:
4f956837e6022c4eb5a30fc05c52c7a4
The corresponding sentence was:
The number I wrote and circled for this test is 2 .... dfdvfevdf yugyug zefsdvc rextsyugf.
So, my target number was a 2.
I received seven valid answers in this test (answers with "xx" and at least a sentence, and with no (target) number explicitly given; answers with no MD5 hash will be considered still valid): those by Hokulele, Ladewig, stanfr, Kid Eager, fagin, Femke and gabeygoat. I would like now to examine them in turn, in order to assign them "credibility ratings".
1) Hokulele wrote:
She seemed to appreciate the improvement in my new protocol (see e.g. her post #13 ). Actually, she was the first member who proposed a blinded protocol on this forum, and she reacted violently (I don't this word is excessive) after I presented an analysis of my second (unblinded) test. She was perhaps disappointed when she realized I had not followed (right away) her blinding suggestion. She also said, about the present test:
.
Hokulele said "The first number that came to my attention is xx". So, it seems natural to turn our attention to the first post in this thread, which is my opening post:
The first number of this post is a 2. So, it seems Hokulele has "suggested" the correct answer to this test.
This is both good news and bad news. Good news, because it seems to suggest, in a simple way, a real telepathic effect. But bad news also, because I am facing again now the problem I was facing in my unblinded telepathy tests, namely the problem of judging objectively the credibility of an answer when you know that it is numerically correct (except that here I don't really know the number Hokulele chose; it just seems to be 2). I'll try to solve this difficulty again by just trying to ignore this uncertain knowledge, and using other reasons to determine the CR (credibility rating). Giving a high credibility to an answer because you know it's (numerically) correct (or probably correct) would of course makes the credibility analysis of the test meaningless: the idea of such a credibility analysis is to try to show that answers which sound reliable/unreliable are indeed (numerically) correct/incorrect. Nobody needs to "learn" that correct/incorrect answers are indeed correct/incorrect; this, we already all know. But aren't there other elements one can use in Hokulele's answer to assess its credibility?
Her answer: "The first number that came to my attention is xx, so that is my choice for this test." does not make her answer credible, in my opinion, in a telepathy test, where the thing that matters is what you (telepathically) perceive, not the first number which "comes to your attention". Hokulele's answer is written using a rather formal style, which is odd here (and which I even find slightly arrogant
, which is not favorable for credibility). Telepathic perception is probably mostly an involuntary process, something you mostly cannot control, it's not like "giving (visual) attention" to an image.But she also said later 'I "predict" that his credibility ratings will no longer correlate with correctness'. This does suggest that she wrote a (numerically) correct answer, with a not credible answer (she most probably realizes her answer is not credible), so that the usual correlation is lost (her answer does not seem credible; if the frequent correlation must be lost, one should expect it to be numerically correct). This an argument I believe I can use because it has nothing to do with my doubtful knowledge of her writing 2.
So, instead of giving a negative credibility, I finally choose: CR = 0 (I note also she gave no MD5 hash). I prefer to not give a positive credibility to an answer which explains a number choice by "a first number coming to attention" (as if she had seen it).
2) Ladewig said:
This answer suggests more (an active) "remote viewing", than telepathy.
CR=-5
3) stanfr said:
,
and also:
This answer is somewhat critical, and aggressive. It contains a spelling error: he wrote "mentailism" instead of "mentalism". His idea of using "##", instead of "xx", is interesting though, since "#" is a symbol for "number" in English (although I personally still prefer somewhat "xx"), I do not think this should decrease his credibility. This answerer is the only one who posted a MD5 hash (although his first answer, with the hash, was problematic because the (target) number did not seem to appear in it).
CR=-5
4) Kid Eager said:
His first sentence contains a spelling error ("partcipated"), and is incorrect, although it is related to a comment I really made (see here): his answer (in my previous test) was not credible, but valid. His second sentence sounds crazy again (like in the previous test).
CR=-5.
Note: Btw, crazy sounding answers are not necessarily a problem in this test, in which a certain amount of lying is in fact allowed. If your answer is numerically incorrect, but at the same time, obviously not credible, I will think that you have made a valuable contribution to the test.
5) fagin answered:
This answer was interesting because it made me realize (after an explanation given by forum member Ladewig) that xx is the lower-case Roman number for 20.
However, the full, original and unmasked (with no "xx") answer:
2
Which I think is 20.
(for exemple) is incorrect (this answer would also be incorrect if "2" was replaced by "1", or "3", or "4"). This is a weakness of this answer. Also, no hash given.
CR = -4.
6) Femke answered:
and added later:
Her first post seems credible to me (I was thinking giving this answer CR = 5, after I saw only the first post). However, in her second post, she said she expected an absence of correlation between credibility and (numerical) correctness. This leads me to suspect she may not have answered correctly. So, finally, I give this answer: CR = 0.
7) gabeygoat answered:
This answerer seems to have doubts, his punctuation is a little negligent. This answer seems neither quite reliable, nor obviously very unreliable.
CR = 0.
Several people also seem to have suggested in various ways that the target number might be "2" in this thread. I think it may be useful to acknowledge these things, because they may be some evidence for telepathy, and also they may have a good influence on other answerers (although some people might say that "this is not serious").
For example, Akhenaten (who is in Australia) said, in a fairly credible sounding way:
and, later:
"20" is obviously closely related to "2" (but not to 1, or 3, or 4).
I also note that Iamme posted two consecutive texts in this thread (posts #73 and #74). His post #74, a modified version of his post #73, was posted only 10 minutes after post #73, when post #73 could still have been edited.
Seven minutes after fagin posted:
(as said before, "20" is obviously simply related to "2"), Iamme posted:
. This also suggests Iamme knew the correct answer was a "2".
devnull said:
"eleventy" is obviously related to "11", which contains two "1" digits.
"3" was several times explicitly answered (in violation of this thread's protocol); I didn't find any of these answers credible.
I have now posted all "credibility ratings" for the seven valid answers of this test, so I now ask Agatha to post the full answers (or the "guessed" numbers); I'll send her a message about this. Hokulele, Ladewig, stanfr, Kid Eager, fagin, Femke and gabeygoat are also invited to post or verify their full answers, or their numbers. I also ask stanfr to post the text which led to his MD5 hash of post #44.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
So in all Michel has made the astounding discovery that you can get to any number by adding other numbers in various ways, I give this test a CR rating of absolute zero.
I predicted you would fail, I was correct.
Last edited:
I beg your pardon, I have just rechecked and I've actually received seven responses.
Unblinding the guesses:
Hokulele: CR=0
Hokulele's actual answer: "The first number that came to my attention is 1, so that is my choice for this test."
Ladewig: CR=-5
Ladewig's actual answer: "I concentrated on the assigned task and an image of a brightly lit piece of paper appeared, the circled number on it was 2."
stanfr: CR=-5
stanfr's actual answer: "I like number 1 cause it's the first thing I thought of."
Kid Eager: CR=-5
Kid Eager's actual answer: "Please note number 4 for moi!"
fagin: CR=-4
fagin did not send me his/her guess.
Femke: CR=0
Femke's actual answer: "I think you wrote 2 in your circle."
gabeygoat: CR=0
gabeygoat's actual answer: "guessed 4 de4f022d0deba6911bedf9a0350256aa"
I did receive one more answer, from NaySayer. As Michel hasn't assessed NaySayer's response(s) in this thread for credibility, I will not post this answer to the thread.
Of the six answers which have both a credibility rating and a corresponding answer sent to me, two picked the right answer. 25% chance is 1.5, so this is not outwith the number expected by chance. The right answers were given a credibility rating of respectively -5 and 0.
No participant in this second test, whether their answer was correct or not, was given a credibility rating of greater than zero. One right and two wrong answers were given the highest credibility rating of zero.
In the first test, when Michel had unblinded answers to assess, all the correct answers were given credibility ratings of 8. Wrong answers were given credibility ratings of between -10 and -1; no person giving a wrong answer received a positive credibility rating.
I think it is obvious that in the previous test, Michel's knowledge of the accuracy of the answer affected the credibility rating he gave. In this test, he was far more cautious about credibility ratings ranging from -5 to 0, whereas in the first test he used a scale of -10 to 8.
If Michel assesses NaySayer's response(s) in the thread and then I unblind NaySayer's answer, that will change the number of responses from six to seven. The percentage of correct and incorrect answers will perforce change too.
I hope Michel will learn two things from this thread; firstly that he is far from unbiased in his credibility ratings, and secondly that as far as the results revealed so far, once again the correct answers are no more than would be expected by chance. Nothing in this thread or the other has suggested any evidence for telepathy.
The post-facto attempts to turn some jokes or non-answers into correct ones, while discarding all the incorrect answers, is another example of bias.
Unblinding the guesses:
Hokulele: CR=0
Hokulele's actual answer: "The first number that came to my attention is 1, so that is my choice for this test."
Ladewig: CR=-5
Ladewig's actual answer: "I concentrated on the assigned task and an image of a brightly lit piece of paper appeared, the circled number on it was 2."
stanfr: CR=-5
stanfr's actual answer: "I like number 1 cause it's the first thing I thought of."
Kid Eager: CR=-5
Kid Eager's actual answer: "Please note number 4 for moi!"
fagin: CR=-4
fagin did not send me his/her guess.
Femke: CR=0
Femke's actual answer: "I think you wrote 2 in your circle."
gabeygoat: CR=0
gabeygoat's actual answer: "guessed 4 de4f022d0deba6911bedf9a0350256aa"
I did receive one more answer, from NaySayer. As Michel hasn't assessed NaySayer's response(s) in this thread for credibility, I will not post this answer to the thread.
Of the six answers which have both a credibility rating and a corresponding answer sent to me, two picked the right answer. 25% chance is 1.5, so this is not outwith the number expected by chance. The right answers were given a credibility rating of respectively -5 and 0.
No participant in this second test, whether their answer was correct or not, was given a credibility rating of greater than zero. One right and two wrong answers were given the highest credibility rating of zero.
In the first test, when Michel had unblinded answers to assess, all the correct answers were given credibility ratings of 8. Wrong answers were given credibility ratings of between -10 and -1; no person giving a wrong answer received a positive credibility rating.
I think it is obvious that in the previous test, Michel's knowledge of the accuracy of the answer affected the credibility rating he gave. In this test, he was far more cautious about credibility ratings ranging from -5 to 0, whereas in the first test he used a scale of -10 to 8.
If Michel assesses NaySayer's response(s) in the thread and then I unblind NaySayer's answer, that will change the number of responses from six to seven. The percentage of correct and incorrect answers will perforce change too.
I hope Michel will learn two things from this thread; firstly that he is far from unbiased in his credibility ratings, and secondly that as far as the results revealed so far, once again the correct answers are no more than would be expected by chance. Nothing in this thread or the other has suggested any evidence for telepathy.
The post-facto attempts to turn some jokes or non-answers into correct ones, while discarding all the incorrect answers, is another example of bias.
Last edited:
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
I admit my first response to the op was a bit snarky, Mostly out of frustration. But I did pm an earnest guess.
Anyway, Michel is engaging in what I call "The Number 23 Fallacy" [So named after the movie in which if you add numbers or subtract them in a certain way you always get the number 23] (This may be called something else) I still don't know how 11 counts as #2 instead of #1
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
I'd just like to comment that Michel's explanations for his credibility ratings were far more surreal than I could possibly have imagined, so well done there...
But I have to disqualify him for moving the experimental goalposts by including thread posts in the assessments other than the posts required by the protocol. This is cherry picking data from outside the experiment, which is obviously a Bad Thing. Not that it makes the slightest difference in this case, of course.
GIGO.
But I have to disqualify him for moving the experimental goalposts by including thread posts in the assessments other than the posts required by the protocol. This is cherry picking data from outside the experiment, which is obviously a Bad Thing. Not that it makes the slightest difference in this case, of course.
GIGO.
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Because I live on Planet XX I leaped confidently to the end of the thread, whereupon I boldly assert my vote. The number is surely XX, which is as we speak being narrowed down to a single digit, probably approaching X. In fact, I'm confident that my actual answer will be so amazingly close to XX that it will not skew the poll's scientific validity one single bit to go ahead and count it as correct.
Not counted as a 1 (neither eleventy nor 11 are valid answers in this test), but it is true that 11 is also closely related to 1, since it contains two 1s, and I might perhaps have mentioned it at the end of a qualitative analysis. I don't find the relationship between 11 and 3 (or 4) so obvious, even though the binary number 11 is equal to decimal 3 (but this doesn't seem so obvious to me).
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
So in short those answers don't conform to your bias.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
It ought to be obvious. 11 is one more than the number base in every base. It is closely related to 1 in the way a 2x4 is closely related to a house.
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
OK, let me take an example. I ask you to guess a one-digit number, equal to 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9. The target (produced by the random number generator) is 1. After a week, I get only two answers: one is "A", and the other one is "11". I might point out that, although both answers are invalid, they're nevertheless both related to "1" (and not "5" for example). Perhaps, if I want to do a serious telepathy project, I must say this.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
What a steaming pile of pseudoscientific nonsense.
Michel, I suggest you pick up and read a basic book on science before you try your hand at any more "experiments" and continue making a fool of yourself.
You have obviously zero understanding of the scientific method or basic statistics, and your test and its results are absolutely worthless.
- Status