Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Akhenaten]

Neither of which have anything to do with Michel's claim(s).

The validity of the test protocol has nothing to do with the claim that is being tested. Or are you of the opinion that the claim must be proven before it can be tested?

No, I'm of the opinion that neither math or science have anything to do with Michel's claim(s).

Which is why I wrote exactly that.

Please try to follow the discussion.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So is there anybody here who is willing to admit that they chose their number because they "heard" the transmission?

 

[ComfySlippers]

So skeptics know telepathy exists but are determined to cover it up?

Funniest thing ever

 

[ComfySlippers]

Why the discussion?

It's silly.

 

[Agatha]

I should note all the posters here that simply suck at math. I posted a simple math problem up thread to see if there was even one other poster that was capable of doing the statistical analysis for the protocol of the OP. There were simply no takers. The only attempt at analysis in this thread came from Michel who correctly noted that of the 6 proper responses to the test, 3 were given a 0 CR (Michel saying the they did not hear the answer and are just guessing). The other three were given a negative CR (Michel saying that they did hear the answer but were lying consciously or unconsciously). Michel correctly assessed that 2 out of those three were lying. Hitting 66% on the first try scared the hell out of the so called skeptics here and they immediately took to attacking the CR of the protocol in the OP rather than accept that the OP was demonstrating an ability that they don't understand.

You have evidence that those people were lying? That's rather a grave charge to make.

 

[TheSapient]

No. People in another forum would know about math and science.

In my job in bioinfomatics, I work with a lot people who know about "math and science". I work with some of the top ecologists in the world on a daily basis. I like to think I know a thing or two myself. You, we would not even hire as an intern. For example,

An ability to read minds that is just .001% better than chance is still a paranormal ability that would turn science on it's head and qualify to win the MDC if properly demonstrated. You are claiming above to know about these things so what is the best testing strategy to use to demonstrate such an ability? Show your math so that we may verify your answer.

No one who has any experience with experimental design would suggest there is a "best testing strategy". You would want a testing strategy that was sufficient, or perhaps optimal within given constraints.

And then there is the way you run away from questions, intentionally misrepresent what people are saying, and so on. These are traits that are looked down upon. A scientist may not like to be grilled, but generally accepts that it is a way to hammer out flaws in their thinking.

 

[Ladewig]

I went back and read the first 5 pages.

I cannot find any aspect of this test useful enough to use in future tests. Every single element of how Michel ran the test should be discarded. In fact, this thread is a textbook example of what NOT to do when testing telepathy.

 

[abaddon]

I went back and read the first 5 pages.

I cannot find any aspect of this test useful enough to use in future tests. Every single element of how Michel ran the test should be discarded. In fact, this thread is a textbook example of what NOT to do when testing telepathy.

Pretty much. At this point we have the absent Michel who hears voices urging self harm, and Dan O. unabashedly egging him on. It's grim.

 

[xtifr]

Would you care to take that discussion to the science and math forum where you will be properly embarrassed in front of many more posters that really do know what they are talking about? Maybe you should review the posts up to #127 in this thread. Only Emily Cat came close to suggesting there was a valid criticism for the test and that was just dealing with the small sample size which statistical analysis would catch in the OP's test as it stands.

How about post #19: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9574105&postcount=19

Post #20: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9574125&postcount=20

Post #24: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9575802&postcount=24

Post #31: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9576340&postcount=31

Post #32: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9576345&postcount=32

Post #37: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9577142&postcount=37

Post #39: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9577252&postcount=39

Post #47: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9577252&postcount=39
("Granted, this is not a true scientific test...")

Post #51: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9577795&postcount=51
("It will not prove telepathy, and it's not intended to be scientific.")

I didn't even get halfway to #127, and I think I've already found plenty of examples that destroy your claim that it was only when Michel hit 66% (which didn't happen, btw) that people got scared. The protocol was treated as a joke by numerous participants from the very beginning.

If you go back to Michel's previous thread, you'll see even more objections that were not even slightly addressed in this test. (IOW, you're lacking context.)

Furthermore, once again, Michel never hit 66% (out of three guesses). He got 33% (out of three "credible" guesses), then changed which guesses he thought were credible after the answers were revealed and the test was officially over. All your blather won't change that. And I note that you avoided addressing Michel's own violation of the protocol in your response to my last post. Care to take a whack at the important issue instead of the side issues you chose to focus on? Why is it ok for Michel to violate the protocol, but no-one else?

 

[abaddon]

How about post #19: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9574105&postcount=19

Post #20: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9574125&postcount=20

Post #24: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9575802&postcount=24

Post #31: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9576340&postcount=31

Post #32: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9576345&postcount=32

Post #37: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9577142&postcount=37

Post #39: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9577252&postcount=39

Post #47: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9577252&postcount=39
("Granted, this is not a true scientific test...")

Post #51: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9577795&postcount=51
("It will not prove telepathy, and it's not intended to be scientific.")

I didn't even get halfway to #127, and I think I've already found plenty of examples that destroy your claim that it was only when Michel hit 66% (which didn't happen, btw) that people got scared. The protocol was treated as a joke by numerous participants from the very beginning.

If you go back to Michel's previous thread, you'll see even more objections that were not even slightly addressed in this test. (IOW, you're lacking context.)

Furthermore, once again, Michel never hit 66% (out of three guesses). He got 33% (out of three "credible" guesses), then changed which guesses he thought were credible after the answers were revealed and the test was officially over. All your blather won't change that. And I note that you avoided addressing Michel's own violation of the protocol in your response to my last post. Care to take a whack at the important issue instead of the side issues you chose to focus on? Why is it ok for Michel to violate the protocol, but no-one else?

Oh, please. Don't confuse the issue with facts we can all go back and verify for ourselves. So nekultury.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5
Please try to follow the discussion.

Once again perfectly picking up my transmission of the #5


I can conclude I am a better psychic than Michel.

 

[Dan O.]

You have evidence that those people were lying? That's rather a grave charge to make.

No Agatha. Can you at least try to read what I said. I make no argument as to Michel's ability. That is to be left to the test. To do otherwise is to show prejudice. You placed yourself as a neutral observer. If you entered this thread prejudiced against Michel's ability then your service in conducting the test is suspect and cannot be trusted. It seems that Michel err'd in allowing the MD5 portion of the protocol to be abandoned.

 

[kid meatball]

No Agatha. Can you at least try to read what I said. I make no argument as to Michel's ability. That is to be left to the test. To do otherwise is to show prejudice. You placed yourself as a neutral observer. If you entered this thread prejudiced against Michel's ability then your service in conducting the test is suspect and cannot be trusted. It seems that Michel err'd in allowing the MD5 portion of the protocol to be abandoned.

Did the 2 out of three admit to lying? I'm not sure they did, so how do you know Michel was right?

 

[AdMan]

No Agatha. Can you at least try to read what I said. I make no argument as to Michel's ability. That is to be left to the test. To do otherwise is to show prejudice. You placed yourself as a neutral observer. If you entered this thread prejudiced against Michel's ability then your service in conducting the test is suspect and cannot be trusted. It seems that Michel err'd in allowing the MD5 portion of the protocol to be abandoned.

You're trying to play a game here which might be fun for you, but one of your "playthings" is a poster who could potentially benefit from consulting a doctor, which you are apparently trying to dissuade him of.

I really find it hard to understand your motivation or what you think you are gaining from your games. And you apparently have no care what effect your posts may have on others. It's actually way beyond trolling and moving on to possible intentional damage.

 

[Dan O.]

The OP repeats one of the choices (4) at least eleven times in describing the test. This alone is sufficient to introduce enough potential bias to invalidate the test (if it wasn't bad enough already).

Someone didn't read how the target number was being selected.

Why only four choices? This alone invalidates the test.

This is just a stupid argument.

My point exactly - the cards are not the methodology.

The methodology you propose limits everybody to 4 choices, and the distribution of the results within those four choices will be indistinguishable from random distribution, even if there were some telepathy involved.

Now if you wrote one number per hour, and had people respond to that number within the hour, and repeat for several days, a meaningful set of data may emerge.

At least the kid gets partial redemption.

^ Yeah, what the kid said.

Any coincidental "correct" answers can be claimed as "proof" that Michael and/or the guesser are telepathic.

This test fails IMHO.

Somebody should explain the protocol to Orphia.

Right I see. It's still not very rigorous though and due to the small sample size flukes will result in a large scale error anyway. And people don't choose numbers randomly either which is a bit of a problem but that's the way the cookie crumbles unfortunately. I would advise the OP to use something like a number between 0 and infinity to reduce the odds of flukes causing a large error.

Those well-versed in statistics might want to clear that up a bit as I'm not very succinct at explaining it, sorry.

At least he knows his limitations.

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.

And there is the attack on the CR. Do you not realize that this rating is nothing more than allowing gamblers to vary there bed. Statistical analysis of the results can still be performed, assuming one understands statistics.

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?

But how do you claim Agaitha is criticizing the protocol?

("It will not prove telepathy, and it's not intended to be scientific.")

Ah, yes. It's the old 'Nothing can be proven' argument.

I didn't even get halfway to #127, and I think I've already found plenty of examples that destroy your claim that it was only when Michel hit 66% (which didn't happen, btw) that people got scared. The protocol was treated as a joke by numerous participants from the very beginning.

Perhaps the participants failed to notice that this is not the humor section. In my opinion they should all be yellow carded and given suspensions for uncivil behavior. Apparently though the mods disagree and thus treat the entire forum as a joke.

If you go back to Michel's previous thread, you'll see even more objections that were not even slightly addressed in this test. (IOW, you're lacking context.)

I did scan the other thread. The posters behavior there is no better than it is here.

Furthermore, once again, Michel never hit 66% (out of three guesses). He got 33% (out of three "credible" guesses), then changed which guesses he thought were credible after the answers were revealed and the test was officially over. All your blather won't change that. And I note that you avoided addressing Michel's own violation of the protocol in your response to my last post. Care to take a whack at the important issue instead of the side issues you chose to focus on? Why is it ok for Michel to violate the protocol, but no-one else?

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Michel presented his CR according to the OP before the numbers were revealed and then after the numbers were revealed He presented an analysis of the results without changing anything. If anyone else here could do the math they could have done the analysis instead. It's a pity that there was no one else up to the task. I've tested you a couple of times. Failures every time. So sad.

 

[AdMan]

Michel presented his CR according to the OP before the numbers were revealed and then after the numbers were revealed He presented an analysis of the results without changing anything. If anyone else here could do the math they could have done the analysis instead. It's a pity that there was no one else up to the task. I've tested you a couple of times. Failures every time. So sad.

You are lying or you are very confused.

Have you forgotten about Michel's "credibility ratings" which he manipulated after the fact? They enabled him to get to the answers he wanted.

You see that too, Dan. O. Why you pretend not to is your own game.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

​

Someone didn't read how the target number was being selected.

​

This is just a stupid argument.

​

At least the kid gets partial redemption.

​

Somebody should explain the protocol to Orphia.

​

At least he knows his limitations.

​

And there is the attack on the CR. Do you not realize that this rating is nothing more than allowing gamblers to vary there bed. Statistical analysis of the results can still be performed, assuming one understands statistics.

​

But how do you claim Agaitha is criticizing the protocol?



Ah, yes. It's the old 'Nothing can be proven' argument.





Perhaps the participants failed to notice that this is not the humor section. In my opinion they should all be yellow carded and given suspensions for uncivil behavior. Apparently though the mods disagree and thus treat the entire forum as a joke.





I did scan the other thread. The posters behavior there is no better than it is here.





You simply don't know what you are talking about. Michel presented his CR according to the OP before the numbers were revealed and then after the numbers were revealed He presented an analysis of the results without changing anything. If anyone else here could do the math they could have done the analysis instead. It's a pity that there was no one else up to the task. I've tested you a couple of times. Failures every time. So sad.

S S A A B A P Y

19,19,1,2,1,16,25

19+19+1+2+1+16+25=83

8-3 is yep you guessed it my transmitted #5

my next prediction is the #8

 

[TheSapient]

You are lying or you are very confused.

Have you forgotten about Michel's "credibility ratings" which he manipulated after the fact? They enabled him to get to the answers he wanted.

You see that too, Dan. O. Why you pretend not to is your own game.

Dan O. doesn't see anything wrong with changing the protocols of a test after the test is over, because he is a REAL mathamascientist. Not like you people with your knowledge and standards.

 

[Dan O.]

You're trying to play a game here which might be fun for you, but one of your "playthings" is a poster who could potentially benefit from consulting a doctor, which you are apparently trying to dissuade him of.

I really find it hard to understand your motivation or what you think you are gaining from your games. And you apparently have no care what effect your posts may have on others. It's actually way beyond trolling and moving on to possible intentional damage.

You demonstrate in your argument that you are ignorant of the fact that Michel has been seeing a real doctor. He doesnt need someone calling him names and applying labels to him. He is searching for answers and he needs someone that will honestly listen to him and help him find facts. Did you read that paper I linked to earlier about hearing voices? Are you still as ignorant about that subject as the medical field was until quite recently?

I am not playing games. I try to answer truthfully where I can. I also choose to ignore the majority of the off topic uncivil disruptive posts. Why do you insist on calling me a troll? Is it because I refuse to join the mob mentality that pervades this thread? Is your prejudice coloring your view of my posts?

 

[AdMan]

You demonstrate in your argument that you are ignorant of the fact that Michel has been seeing a real doctor.

I missed where Michel said he is currently seeing a doctor. Can you link to where he said that?

I am not playing games. I try to answer truthfully where I can. I also choose to ignore the majority of the off topic uncivil disruptive posts. Why do you insist on calling me a troll? Is it because I refuse to join the mob mentality that pervades this thread? Is your prejudice coloring your view of my posts?

I think you are playing games. Or are you actually receiving or have received Michel's thoughts? Because as you know he believes he is telepathic and we all receive his thoughts, it's just some of us for some reason pretend we don't.

If you don't receive his thoughts, why don't you just tell him so, like others have? Why do you instead decide to feed his irrational belief that he actually is telepathic and that the voices he hears telling him to hurt himself are real and coming from the outside his mind too? How, in any way, can that help him? Why do you insist that it doesn't make sense for him look to medicine to help explain what he is experiencing?

I really do think you care more about the games you are playing in this forum than trying to do what's best for another human being. Shame on you.