Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Dan O.]

It is worse than that, even. He has stated there is no one in his life who will honestly admit they can here his projected thoughts or report them accurately. The question is, then, why he believes he is telepathic when he can't, under any circumstances, do better than expected by pure chance.

You are so wrong. What's worse is that we have already discussed this within this very thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

You are so wrong.

There is another possibility that you really, really need to consider.

What's worse is that we have already discussed this within this very thread.

I don't know what you think it's worse than, but in any case the result of the discussion of which you speak is conclusively that Michel is unable to demonstrate any telepathic ability.

You haven't got this confused with some other thread have you?

 

[abaddon]

You are so wrong. What's worse is that we have already discussed this within this very thread.

Yes. Yes, we have. As a result of which we can safely conclude that no telepathic ability has been demonstrated or even hinted at. There has been nothing, zip, nada, rien du tout. Tumbleweeds are passing by.

 

[Dan O.]

There is another possibility that you really, really need to consider.

And what is that?

I don't know what you think it's worse than, but in any case the result of the discussion of which you speak is conclusively that Michel is unable to demonstrate any telepathic ability.

The explicitly stated claim, only a few posts back in this very thread, which i was responding to was: "he can't, under any circumstances, do better than expected by pure chance". This was discussed earlier and it was pointed out that one of the problems with the current test protocol was that it was possible to do better than pure chance without any paranormal intervention.

You haven't got this confused with some other thread have you?

Nope.

 

[TheSapient]

You are so wrong. What's worse is that we have already discussed this within this very thread.

I don't see why it should matter that you dumped your error-filled thoughts in this thread.

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.

LOL

 

[Dan O.]

That was indeed a particularly funny joke. Did you follow the thread far enough to see how long it took anyone to catch it?

 

[TheSapient]

That was indeed a particularly funny joke. Did you follow the thread far enough to see how long it took anyone to catch it?

You were called out within a day and you actively defended it until you simple started ignoring criticism of it.

 

[Dan O.]

Show the posts. You spend so much effort trying to attack me personally that you fail to see the arguments.

 

[TheSapient]

Show the posts. You spend so much effort trying to attack me personally that you fail to see the arguments.

Is this another "joke" or do you really fail to see the irony in your post?

I do have to chuckle over the idea that, to you, simply quoting another post is "so much effort".

 

[Dan O.]

Is this another "joke" or do you really fail to see the irony in your post?

I do have to chuckle over the idea that, to you, simply quoting another post is "so much effort".

Why must I repeatedly show where you are wrong. If you would simply follow the thread you would be able to see these things for yourself and avoid being repeatedly embarrassed.


Here is where that issue ended. It took 2 days and at least 2 pages of posts before anyone was confident in their own position to take a stand.

You analysis fails to consider that there should have been three times as many incorrect guesses as correct guesses. In other words, Michel should have correctly assessed three times as many negative values than correct values. He got lucky on the one right answer with correct credibility and he did worse than chance on identifying incorrect guesses.

Congradulations. You win the gold star for mathematical excellence. This was one of the tests I mentioned multiple times. The proper scoring function has to account for the probability of getting that result. I tried to hint at that with the gambling analogy. If one were betting that a die would roll a specific number, tha payout would be 6 for 1. Conversely, if one were betting that a specific number would not come up the payout would be 6 for 5 (equivalent to betting on all 5 other numbers).

For your own arguments in this thread, you have made claims that the Credibility Rating system is a farce [Post 829] but have not actually put forward an argument as to why you believe that.

Then there was your [Post 190] where you show a critical lack of understanding of what it takes to demonstrate a paranormal ability. Your test would be the equivalent of acing Randi's challenge twice in a row. Most people would stand up and take notice if anyone passed the first phase of one of Randi's challenges. But such an extraordinary event is only enough to get you to look into it further.

 

[Ladewig]

Why must I repeatedly show where you are wrong. If you would simply follow the thread you would be able to see these things for yourself and avoid being repeatedly embarrassed.


Here is where that issue ended. It took 2 days and at least 2 pages of posts before anyone was confident in their own position to take a stand.

​

For your own arguments in this thread, you have made claims that the Credibility Rating system is a farce [Post 829] but have not actually put forward an argument as to why you believe that.

Then there was your [Post 190] where you show a critical lack of understanding of what it takes to demonstrate a paranormal ability. Your test would be the equivalent of acing Randi's challenge twice in a row. Most people would stand up and take notice if anyone passed the first phase of one of Randi's challenges. But such an extraordinary event is only enough to get you to look into it further.

So you read post # 190 and didn't see it as hyperbole to emphasize a point, but instead saw it as literal instructions on how to construct a test. OK, then.

.....................

While it is fun to engage in academic arguments about the protocols in a telepathy test, we should not forget that we are talking about a living person who, apparently, sincerely believes that every person on the planet can hear his thoughts and that almost all of them lie about it when directly or indirectly asked. Encouraging this belief by explaining how one poorly-designed test indicates that he could be right may not be the most helpful course of action.

.....................

 

[Dan O.]

So you read post # 190 and didn't see it as hyperbole to emphasize a point, but instead saw it as literal instructions on how to construct a test. OK, then.

TheSapient has yet to establish a track record within this thread to show that he has a clue. He is specifically bashing the test using the limited selection 1-4 so it does appear that he is clueless. I've given him plenty of opportunities to redeem his position.

While it is fun to engage in academic arguments about the protocols in a telepathy test, we should not forget that we are talking about a living person who, apparently, sincerely believes that every person on the planet can hear his thoughts and that almost all of them lie about it when directly or indirectly asked. Encouraging this belief by explaining how one poorly-designed test indicates that he could be right may not be the most helpful course of action.

While I enjoy the academics of protocols, I also see it as an opening that Michel has created for respectful discussion about reality. The old school psychology that talking about delusions is encouraging them is unsubstantiated woo-woo. Shutting someone out is in my opinion far more damaging.

 

[ComfySlippers]

So the now very silent Michel has done the following:

Dreamed up a test involving four numbers.
Invented a silly "Credibility Rating" system to eliminate the wrong answers.

Has common sense been banned from this thread?

Bridges are inhabited.

 

[ComfySlippers]

TheSapient has yet to establish a track record within this thread to show that he has a clue. He is specifically bashing the test using the limited selection 1-4 so it does appear that he is clueless. I've given him plenty of opportunities to redeem his position.





While I enjoy the academics of protocols, I also see it as an opening that Michel has created for respectful discussion about reality. The old school psychology that talking about delusions is encouraging them is unsubstantiated woo-woo. Shutting someone out is in my opinion far more damaging.

Yeah.
But utter bs is the same no matter how you dress it up.
Oh hang on, where did Telepathic Michel dissapear to?
Inventing another Credibilty Rating maybe.

Brain ponders if Michel and Dan O share the same bridge.

 

[TheSapient]

Why must I repeatedly show where you are wrong. If you would simply follow the thread you would be able to see these things for yourself and avoid being repeatedly embarrassed.


Here is where that issue ended. It took 2 days and at least 2 pages of posts before anyone was confident in their own position to take a stand.

​

For your own arguments in this thread, you have made claims that the Credibility Rating system is a farce [Post 829] but have not actually put forward an argument as to why you believe that.

Then there was your [Post 190] where you show a critical lack of understanding of what it takes to demonstrate a paranormal ability. Your test would be the equivalent of acing Randi's challenge twice in a row. Most people would stand up and take notice if anyone passed the first phase of one of Randi's challenges. But such an extraordinary event is only enough to get you to look into it further.

Uhh, no. You were called on it right away.

Your premise is entirely predicated on the validity of Michel's credibility rating, a rating which is demonstrably shown to be based on the answers that Michel likes. Fail.

But what amuses me most is the way you insist that people who incorrectly relay Michel's number are "lying".

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

and part of your defense

In the proceeding sentence I stipulated that "lying" could be "conscious or unconscious". Is there another word that would be more concise? In 2 out of 3 of those cases where a negative CR was assigned, Michel correctly assessed that the poster was incorrectly relaying the target number. Anyone should be able to do the math here. This is one of the tests I've said you have all failed.

This is typical of your sloppy thinking. You run your junior high level mathematics, but simply can't understand how to apply it to real world problems. No one else blindly accepts that Michel successfully transmitted a number via telepathy, only to have the results muddled by a conspiracy of liars. To you, being alone is not a chance for reflection. Nope. To you being alone means everyone else is wrong.

I know you like analogies, so here you go. It is as if you were claiming that

10 apples + 10 oranges = 20 continents

and when everyone disagrees, you conclude only you understand addition.

 

[TheSapient]

TheSapient has yet to establish a track record within this thread to show that he has a clue. He is specifically bashing the test using the limited selection 1-4 so it does appear that he is clueless. I've given him plenty of opportunities to redeem his position..

I have discussed numerous problems with his protocols, and lack of protocols. Your inability to read is not indicative of the quality of material available to you.

Just some examples:

Talking about how his logic is inconsistent when applying his credibility ratings.

Thank you for reminding us of that post. You gave it a credibility rating of 8. That post it self was almost the same as this one, which you rated a -4.

This is a great example of what a farce your credibility rating system is. You rate the one with the answer you like very high. You rate the one with the answer you don't like like low. You base your low rating on the fact that there is a single typo in that post. You completely ignore the single typo in the post you did like.

Here is part of a conversation on why, after the fact, he needed exact copies of posts PM'ed.

Please explain exactly when and why your credibility system requires an exact PM to be sent to a third party. Do you know before the test begins, and if so, why don't you make it a requirement?

I get you don't want to answer this, but I urge you to think about it. Why is having magical powers so important to you that openly manipulate test results?

We discussed why "I don't know answers should be included in any analysis.

So? He can test the credibility of an "I don't know" answer.

On why protocols matter

You, yourself, have admitted there are no protocols for your credibility system. That makes it unrepeatable, and therefore unscientific.

And so on.

 

[Dan O.]

Uhh, no. You were called on it right away.

What you mean is that another poster that can't follow the argument made a non-sequitur reply to my post. That doesn't count as calling anything. The fact remains that after several attempts to squeeze just a little valid math out of the lot here I intentionally posted the incorrect analysis to see if anyone here had a clue. After two days and two pages of posts went by it was quite obvious who the clueless were.

You have a chance if you wish redemption to stop acting like a jerk and actually discuss the issues.

 

[TheSapient]

What you mean is that another poster that can't follow the argument made a non-sequitur reply to my post. That doesn't count as calling anything. The fact remains that after several attempts to squeeze just a little valid math out of the lot here I intentionally posted the incorrect analysis to see if anyone here had a clue. After two days and two pages of posts went by it was quite obvious who the clueless were.

You have a chance if you wish redemption to stop acting like a jerk and actually discuss the issues.

See, you constancy conclude that people who correct you just don't understand. Funny how you are trying to both claim you were right AND that you were joking. The truth is that you simply have been unable to understand this thread from the beginning.

 

[abaddon]

But what amuses me most is the way you insist that people who incorrectly relay Michel's number are "lying".

Uhh, nope. I think you will find that is Michel's claim. It certainly isn't mine. I have no idea why you might think it was mine.

 

[John Jones]

And what is that?


The explicitly stated claim, only a few posts back in this very thread, which i was responding to was: "he can't, under any circumstances, do better than expected by pure chance". This was discussed earlier and it was pointed out that one of the problems with the current test protocol was that it was possible to do better than pure chance without any paranormal intervention.

Nope.

I can't wait to see how this interlocution ends.