Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
If I try to project a "thought", or an idea, it will be difficult to determine exactly when an answer is a hit, and when it is a miss (it is easier when the target is a number). I tried to use words recently in another test (on another forum), but the results were not good, words may be less "neutral" than numbers, people might answer the word they "like best", or they feel is the most "appropriate". Also, numbers may seem more "scientific", which may give an psychological advantage in a scientific experiment. Also, with numbers, I can say "numerical correctness".
Click to expand...

Forgive me, but I'm trying to understand.

You believe you have the ability to project thoughts and ideas, an ability which your own testing has shown you do not have.

Because you have demonstrated to yourself you can't project thoughts in general, you are testing your ability to project the idea of a single number. You do this by thinking about a single number.

You don't think it matters that you also think about other numbers, because you don't have the ability to project numbers, but rather ideas, which you can't do, according to your tests. Therefore, having ideas about other numbers won't affect your inability to project numbers?
 
TheSapient said:
Forgive me, but I'm trying to understand.

You believe you have the ability to project thoughts and ideas, an ability which your own testing has shown you do not have.

Because you have demonstrated to yourself you can't project thoughts in general, you are testing your ability to project the idea of a single number. You do this by thinking about a single number.

You don't think it matters that you also think about other numbers, because you don't have the ability to project numbers, but rather ideas, which you can't do, according to your tests. Therefore, having ideas about other numbers won't affect your inability to project numbers?
Click to expand...
I have tested here (on this forum) my "ability" (so to speak) to communicate numbers with, I think, some success, in spite of what some here say. However, your perception of my numbers is, in my opinion, an "intelligent" one, you understand the context of the transmission. The basic, underlying, phenomenon remains that I communicate my thoughts.
 
Clearly Michel H believes he can project thoughts. Trying to convince him otherwise is unlikely to work. He may be wrong (as we believe) or he may be right (as he believes), but we or test results are unlikely to change his mind. Again, if he wants to control this better, whatever the cause, he might be surprised by the recent advances in pharmacology that would help.
 
Michel H said:
Also, numbers may seem more "scientific", which may give an psychological advantage in a scientific experiment
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? Who is getting the psychological advantage? You? The people to whom you are trying to transmit? The people who are carefully and repeatedly explaining why the 1-to-4 test is useless?
 
Ladewig said:
... Who is getting the psychological advantage? You? The people to whom you are trying to transmit? ...
Click to expand...
I think it is in my interest, and in the interest of my scientific project, to give participants of this test an impression they are taking part in a good, scientific, project.
 
Ladewig said:
... The people who are carefully and repeatedly explaining why the 1-to-4 test is useless?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is true a 1-4 test is useless (although other target pools or ranges could be tried), there exist statistical tools to analyse the results of such tests.
 
Michel H said:
I think it is in my interest, and in the interest of my scientific project, to give participants of this test an impression they are taking part in a good, scientific, project.
Click to expand...

If that's true, why do you absolutely refuse to give people that impression? Why don't you actually try running a "good, scientific, project" instead of this utter nonsense of re-evaluating answers after they've been revealed, which utterly destroys the whole purpose of blinding?

Michel H said:
I don't think it is true a 1-4 test is useless (although other target pools or ranges could be tried), there exist statistical tools to analyse the results of such tests.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you refuse to run the tests in a way that would make such tests useful, because of your paranoia that people might be lying to you. A test with a larger pool of potential answers would make potential liars irrelevant, since any hits would be statistically significant (a benefit from your point of view), and would make it harder to twist the results to pretend they're more significant than they are (a benefit from everyone else's point of view). It would be a win-win!

Unless your goal is to twist the results to pretend they're more significant than they are (which is the impression most people have at this point), you should run a test more like Loss Leader's. Stop telling us how nice it would be to run a "good, scientific, project", and do it! For once.
 
Michel H said:
I hope so. Ashles said:
Click to expand...

And once again, you prove you are absolutely immune to sarcasm or humor.

Has it never really occurred to you that people are not being serious, while virtually everyone else can see that they are just joking?

Your telepathy must be pretty crappy if you can't tell when other posters aren't being serious, when everyone else doesn't even need telepathy for that.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
I think it is in my interest, and in the interest of my scientific project, to give participants of this test an impression they are taking part in a good, scientific, project.
Click to expand...

From the criticism you get here you should know people do not approve of your sloppy methodology and poorly designed tests.

Who is this test for anyway? You continue to believe you have magical powers no matter how many times you fall your own tests. The rest of us would know if we were receiving your thoughts. So why test?
 
AdMan said:
And once again, you prove you are absolutely immune to sarcasm or humor.

Has it never really occurred to you that people are not being serious, while virtually everyone else can see that they are just joking?

Your telepathy must be pretty crappy if you can't tell when other posters aren't being serious, when everyone else doesn't even need telepathy for that.
Click to expand...

Lol he has a point there Michael H.
 
Michel H said:
If I try to project a "thought", or an idea, ....
Click to expand...
I'd like to understand this better. Does your telepathic capability only happen when you "project" your thoughts or ideas? Or does the telepathy occur when you merely think about it. For example, in this "test" do you just think about your number and others are expected to receive your communication or do you "project" your thoughts? If so, how do "thinking" and "projecting" differ?
 
Michel H said:
I think it is in my interest, and in the interest of my scientific project, to give participants of this test an impression they are taking part in a good, scientific, project.
Click to expand...

So do any participants actually have the impression they are taking part in a good, scientific, project? No.
 
Ladewig said:
So do any participants actually have the impression they are taking part in a good, scientific, project? No.
Click to expand...

Do many of them possess an understanding of what constitutes such a project? Yes, as they have repeatedly demonstrated.
 
Michel H said:
I have tested here (on this forum) my "ability" (so to speak) to communicate numbers with, I think, some success, in spite of what some here say. However, your perception of my numbers is, in my opinion, an "intelligent" one, you understand the context of the transmission. The basic, underlying, phenomenon remains that I communicate my thoughts.
Click to expand...

Some?
No one thinks the test was successful. Not partially successful, not even a little tiny bit successful.

You claim success and everyone else at the JREF board says the test is unsuccessful.
 
Michel H said:
I hope so. Ashles said:

[quote="Ashles Well this is certainly one of the most robustly controlled experiments I have encountered.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Michel, do you have the faintest idea what sarcasm is, and what it actually means? You certainly, as evidenced 100 times of more on your threads, don't even appear to know the concept, as your complete inability to pick "genuine" from "humourus" and "sarcastic" shows and have no apparent idea that people are not trying to lie to you about your ideas, they (we) just find them laughable.

Norm
 
Michel H said:
Michel H said:
I think it is in my interest, and in the interest of my scientific project, to give participants of this test an impression they are taking part in a good, scientific, project.
Click to expand...


bruto said:
Has that happened? ...
Click to expand...

I hope so. Ashles said:

Ashles said:
Well this is certainly one of the most robustly controlled experiments I have encountered.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Please explain again for us how you assign credibility ratings, Michel, and what CR you would give to Ashles' statement above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom