Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Akhenaten]

Well, nobody can prevent me to retain, in my final (statistical) analysis of the results, only the answers by members of this forum who abided by the recommended protocol.

I don't think anybody gives a hoot what you do with the answers. They're utterly meaningless.

Not least because you didn't even stick to the protocol yourself.

 

[xtifr]

Well, nobody can prevent me to retain, in my final (statistical) analysis of the results, only the answers by members of this forum who abided by the recommended protocol. The fact I got a better result by doing so seems to confirm the validity of credibility ideas I have tried to develop before

You seem to have completely misunderstood the purpose of this test. We already established that this test was not capable of demonstrating anything about anyone's psychic abilities. The sole purpose of this test--the only reason anyone participated--was to do a blind measurement of your credibility rankings. And you failed completely! The fact that you then tried to "fix" your results once the data was visible is completely irrelevant to anyone or anything, and only demonstrates that your ability to learn from your mistakes is extremely limited.

You can retain whatever you want, but your non-blinded conclusions/revisions are utterly meaningless.

 

[fromdownunder]

Well, nobody can prevent me to retain, in my final (statistical) analysis of the results, only the answers by members of this forum who abided by the recommended protocol. The fact I got a better result by doing so seems to confirm the validity of credibility ideas I have tried to develop before: careful people, who take the time necessary to carefully read the opening post, seem to answer better. I think I have already explained in great detail why no MD5 hash was not a disqualifying factor.

So you have reduced the total number of acceptable answers to three, and claim that two of them fit your post-hoc criteria, therefore telepathy. Did you spend all this time doing it just to justify in your own mind that you are right? Do you think that any test with three points is significant? If so, you are beyond help when it comes to the scientific method. Or that you can simply wish away stuff you originally agreed to, and then changed your own criteria after you saw the result?

You do understand that not one person on this thread "heard" your number and that everyone was simply making fun of your "scientific" (BWAHAHAHAHAHA) method.

OK, stay with your delusions, and rationalise them in your own mind as much as you wish. But it would be better if you do not want to make a fool of yourself, to keep them private (i.e., don't make your self congratulating rationalisations public), and not make your idea, and your test more silly than it already looked in the first place.

Norm

 

[TheSapient]

TheSapient, I am a little bit surprised by your comment. If people (as I recommended) send their full answers to Agatha, and also post publicly their answers in this thread, after having replaced their guessed numbers by "xx", then automatically the two texts are almost identical (this fact is already implied by the recommended protocol). However, if I do a more or less similar test again, I think I'll stress the importance of sending to the referee exactly your answer (and not a different one) [unless, of course, I make another change to the protocol, which hopefully will be well understood].

You are surprised that I'm asking why you would wait until after the test is over to create requirements for the participants?

Of course, we all know what will happen if you create another test. You will create a wildly convoluted protocol. Some people were participate. The results will show you do not have telepathic powers. You will then create a new protocol as an excuse to disqualify the people who didn't give you the answers you wanted.

 

[FrederickEason]

What was the point of this test again?

 

[Michel H]

You are surprised that I'm asking why you would wait until after the test is over to create requirements for the participants?

Of course, we all know what will happen if you create another test. You will create a wildly convoluted protocol. Some people were participate. The results will show you do not have telepathic powers. You will then create a new protocol as an excuse to disqualify the people who didn't give you the answers you wanted.

TheSapient, the sentence:

...
It may also be useful (I recommend it) that you send your (full) answer, in the form of a private message, to either Agatha, ...

was part of the opening post of this thread, and was therefore posted before I saw any of the results of this test. When I wrote the initial post (and therefore the protocol) of this test, I frankly didn't even suspect (perhaps because of a lack of imagination) that some people might send to the "helper" a text different from the blinded text (with "xx") they post in the thread. This came as a complete surprise to me, it was unexpected. And I believe this is a violation of the recommended protocol I posted before I knew any result. My goal here is not to please or entertain skeptics. I am not going to alter the results of the test, to make sure they magnificently meet your most skeptical expectations. When I think I see some interesting effects (and this tends to occur rather often, I think), I try to report them fairly and honestly, not to ignore them. Generally speaking, I suspect many of the people here who claim to "represent Science" or to be "guardians of Science" actually have probably very little (if any) real experience of scientific research, and this is a problem, to be constantly taught lessons be people who clearly don't know much about science, but naively believe (perhaps) they know everything because they post on a "skeptical" forum (there have been some good remarks too). One important rule of actual scientific research is that it is necessary to be very careful (not "sloppy" or negligent). In the example of this test, the fact some people posted one message with "xx", and sent another message to Agatha is something that I can certainly not neglect, even if this exasperates or enrages some of you because it raises the hit rate of the test.

 

[Michel H]

What was the point of this test again?

Frederick, I think this little note I have posted previously:

...
Note: I do these tests because I believe I have a particular tendency to (telepathically) communicate my thoughts to others, and I am seeking to prove this through online telepathy experiments.

answers your question.

 

[fromdownunder]

zIn the example of this test the fact some people posted one message with "xx", and sent another message to Agatha is something that I can certainly not neglect, even if this exasperates or enrages some of you because it raises the hit rate of the test.

This was not a test. It was a joke. and everybody, except you understands this.

Norm

 

[Iamme]

I cant believe this thread is into its 5th page now, at the JREF. I could see this on Facebook. They love stuff like this there. They love IQ tests/simple simon guessing games, like......Mary`s father had 5 daughters, named Nana, Nene, Nini, Nono...what was the 5th daughter`s name? Lol

 

[Kid Eager]

TheSapient, the sentence:

was part of the opening post of this thread, and was therefore posted before I saw any of the results of this test. When I wrote the initial post (and therefore the protocol) of this test, I frankly didn't even suspect (perhaps because of a lack of imagination) that some people might send to the "helper" a text different from the blinded text (with "xx") they post in the thread. This came as a complete surprise to me, it was unexpected. And I believe this is a violation of the recommended protocol I posted before I knew any result. My goal here is not to please or entertain skeptics. I am not going to alter the results of the test, to make sure they magnificently meet your most skeptical expectations. When I think I see some interesting effects (and this tends to occur rather often, I think), I try to report them fairly and honestly, not to ignore them. Generally speaking, I suspect many of the people here who claim to "represent Science" or to be "guardians of Science" actually have probably very little (if any) real experience of scientific research, and this is a problem, to be constantly taught lessons be people who clearly don't know much about science, but naively believe (perhaps) they know everything because they post on a "skeptical" forum (there have been some good remarks too). One important rule of actual scientific research is that it is necessary to be very careful (not "sloppy" or negligent). In the example of this test the fact some people posted one message with "xx", and sent another message to Agatha is something that I can certainly not neglect, even if this exasperates or enrages some of you because it raises the hit rate of the test.

The exasperation is at the complete abandonment of anything that resembles a plausible experimental methodology, or reasonable experimental controls.

The above narrative would appear to indicate that you are unwilling or unable to recognise these truths. If you're serious, by all means test it. Properly.

You tell me a page number, line number and word number. I'll walk over to the bookshelf and grab a book at random and PM you with that word and that word only. If you can actually transmit anything telepathically, you can then do so and the responses will be collated.

 

[fromdownunder]

... even if this exasperates or enrages some of you because it raises the hit rate of the test.

So do you seriously believe that a scientific test that has three data points specifically and subjectively suggested by you is valid? Keep digging that hole Alice, eventually you will finish up in Wonderland.

Norm

 

[FrederickEason]

A tally of the guesses:

Post #7   - Ashles        - 3
Post #8   - Jensen        - xx (never revealed)
Post #9   - phunk         - 3
Post #12  - RoboTimbo     - 3
Post #16  - Hokulele      - xx (revealed to be 1)
Post #25  - shemp         - 7
Post #26  - Ladewig       - xx (revealed to be 2)
Post #30  - fromdownunder - xx (never revealed)
Post #33  - Akhenaten     - 2 and 4
Post #41  - superfreddy   - 3
Post #44  - stanfr        - xx (revealed to be 1)
Post #54  - Nay Sayer     - 3
Post #69  - Kid Eager     - xx (revealed to be 4)
Post #94  - fagin         - Roman numeral XX
Post #103 - devnull       - eleventy
Post #120 - femke         - xx (revealed to be 2)
Post #124 - gabeygoat     - xx (revealed to be 4)

So that's 2/17 correct if you count only answers which were exactly 2. 3/17 if you count Akhenaten guessing both 2 and 4. 4/17 if you count "eleventy". 5/17 if you count "Roman numeral XX".

I don't see any psychic ability present.

 

[Hokulele]

Well, nobody can prevent me to retain, in my final (statistical) analysis of the results, only the answers by members of this forum who abided by the recommended protocol. The fact I got a better result by doing so seems to confirm the validity of credibility ideas I have tried to develop before: careful people, who take the time necessary to carefully read the opening post, seem to answer better. I think I have already explained in great detail why no MD5 hash was not a disqualifying factor.

And yet, my incorrect answer had a higher credibility rating than Ladewig's correct answer. How do you explain that?

 

[Michel H]

And yet, my incorrect answer had a higher credibility rating than Ladewig's correct answer. How do you explain that?

Well, Hokulele, I have never claimed that correct answers always have a higher credibility ratings that incorrect ones. I depend of course a lot upon "integrities", "probities", "honesties" of responders (it seems that, in the field of telepathy, these words should generally be written between quotation marks ). Also, I need perhaps to gain more experience, and to better learn to detect, to "smell" correct answers in a high security test, what I am trying to do here (and on other forums) is still very new. Now, if you have decided inside yourself to answer in a very perverse way, there is no way I can overcome or try to "break" this "wall". Experience has taught me that, fairly often (not always) people tend to answer with a degree of honesty (most people are neither completely honest, nor completely dishonest, there is a level of humanity (humaneness) in most of you). Like in real life, people often are aggressive when they lie, friendly when they say the truth. It is possible that, as the test becomes more and more rigorous, people will try to not show any sentiment or emotion in their answer, in a very inhumane attempt to try to hide a (supposedly) real telepathic phenomenon. But people are human beings, not stones, and I don't think failure is a certainty, that success is impossible. I really don't know what the future will bring. And I don't know what I could add to this either , except perhaps to say that your answer was in a sense careful because the answer you sent to Agatha was the answer you posted (with the replacement xx → 1).

 

[Michel H]

A tally of the guesses:

Post #7   - Ashles        - 3
Post #8   - Jensen        - xx (never revealed)
Post #9   - phunk         - 3
Post #12  - RoboTimbo     - 3
Post #16  - Hokulele      - xx (revealed to be 1)
Post #25  - shemp         - 7
Post #26  - Ladewig       - xx (revealed to be 2)
Post #30  - fromdownunder - xx (never revealed)
Post #33  - Akhenaten     - 2 and 4
Post #41  - superfreddy   - 3
Post #44  - stanfr        - xx (revealed to be 1)
Post #54  - Nay Sayer     - 3
Post #69  - Kid Eager     - xx (revealed to be 4)
Post #94  - fagin         - Roman numeral XX
Post #103 - devnull       - eleventy
Post #120 - femke         - xx (revealed to be 2)
Post #124 - gabeygoat     - xx (revealed to be 4)

So that's 2/17 correct if you count only answers which were exactly 2. 3/17 if you count Akhenaten guessing both 2 and 4. 4/17 if you count "eleventy". 5/17 if you count "Roman numeral XX".

I don't see any psychic ability present.

Good, FrederickEason. But, in this "high security" test, answers where the guessed number is posted explicitly are in principle not accepted. People were supposed to replace their guessed numbers by "xx". Always read carefully (at least) the opening post before criticizing a thread.

 

[fromdownunder]

Michel H, why do you think people would need to "lie" about actually hearing the number you mentally sent?

Norm

 

[Michel H]

Michel H, why do you think people would need to "lie" about actually hearing the number you mentally sent?

Norm

Well, perhaps they don't really need to lie, perhaps they just often choose to.

 

[fromdownunder]

Well, perhaps they don't really need to lie, perhaps they just often choose to.

I think that this statement says everything about Michel that needs to be said. All summed up in 14 words.

If "they" chose the right answer they were correct, if "they" chose the wrong answer they were deliberately lying.

Michel, do you even understand how pathetic this argument really is?

Norm

 

[dlorde]

... I suspect many of the people here who claim to "represent Science" or to be "guardians of Science" actually have probably very little (if any) real experience of scientific research, and this is a problem, to be constantly taught lessons be people who clearly don't know much about science, but naively believe (perhaps) they know everything because they post on a "skeptical" forum (there have been some good remarks too). One important rule of actual scientific research is that it is necessary to be very careful (not "sloppy" or negligent).

As someone who does have a career of scientific research behind him, I feel confident in saying that it is you who clearly have no idea of how to conduct an experiment like this. Your approach has been inadequate in every respect, from your description of the phenomenon, the hypothesis to be tested, the experimental design, the protocol, the recruitment of subjects, the data collection, the analysis, the discussion, and the conclusion.

Other than that, it was quite entertaining.

 

[dlorde]

This correct answer rate is much higher than the (approximately) 25% expected from chance alone, and seems to support my telepathy hypothesis (the assumption that I have a propensity to communicate my thoughts to others everywhere on the surface of this planet).

The probability of obtaining a hit rate equal to, or larger than 2/3 (if chance alone is responsible for the results, and assuming a probability of 25% of answering correctly), called the p-value, is equal to: p = 15.6%. This is not statistically significant, because of the smallness of the sample (3 valid answers only).

If it is not statistically significant, then it clearly does not 'seem to' support your telepathy hypothesis.

Let's not forget what you said earlier:

...Keep in mind that (tentative) conclusions are (usually) drawn only after many answers have been given, after a statistical analysis has been done for the large collection of answers.