Assistance required for telepathy proof

[golfy]

Hi Pixel,

I have had a look at the tables you have linked to and my numbers match up. For a 50:50 on the 10000 table it would have to be greater than 25 correct predictions to pass the 10000 to 1 criteria that the JREF have set.

p(=24): 0.000553; p(>24): 0.000162
p(=25): 0.000133; p(>25): 3.0E-5
p(=26): 2.6E-5; p(>26): 4.0E-6
p(=27): 4.0E-6; p(>27): 0
p(=28): 0; p(>28): 0


p(=25): 0.000133; p(>25): 3.0E-5

p(=25): 0.000133 = 7518 to 1 and p(>25): 3.0E-5 (26 or more) = 33333 to one so the 10000 break point would be between 25 out of 30 and 26 out of thirty, in other words 26 correct predictions out of thirty would be greater than 10000 to one and good enough for a JREF application. 26 out of 30 (p(=26): 2.6E-5) is actually about 38000 to 1 but as 25 out of 30 is 7518 to 1 then I have to reach at least 26 to qualify.

I prefer the method above as I can calculate the actual statistical probability of my actual results accurately as I perfect my tests but at least my numbers have now been confirmed as correct so far.

If a poly was used with 20% error rate (or GSR if it gives similar predictable results once the problems are ironed out) then the charts would be on the 20% level. Only 8 out of 10 correct answers would be required to reach the 10000 point.

p(=5): 0.026424; p(>5): 0.006369
p(=6): 0.005505; p(>6): 0.000864
p(=7): 0.000786; p(>7): 7.8E-5
p(=8): 7.4E-5; p(>8): 4.0E-6
p(=9): 4.0E-6; p(>9): 0

p(=7): 0.000786 is 1272 to 1 and p(=8): 7.4E-5 is about 13500 to 1 – reaching a greater than 10000 to 1 point.

And you are wrong dlorde, statistically two out of two tests at 50% chance is correct at 75% probability that I am telepathic but who would rely on such a small sample size and say it is valid? 10000 to 1 or 99.99% certainty is the target to reach before the JREF will acknowledge that I am telepathic, not 75% probability that I am based on two 50:50 tests.

p(=0): 0.25; p(>0): 0.75
p(=1): 0.5; p(>1): 0.25
p(=2): 0.25; p(>2): 0

p(=2): 0.25 = 25% error, 75% probable – not enough samples to make the data reliable though.

golfy

 

[Sean84]

With all the silly things people pay good money for, and all the things people subject themselves to for money this is where you think the line would be drawn?

Not at cam that uses bat feces, not at pills that contain no ingredient, not at giving some random person money to talk to their dead pet, not at jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, not at being a guinea pig for medications that have side effects such as drooling and increased agitation, not at being a test subject for a substance that makes one trip out, but at a pill that would cause Gi upset, the single most common side effect of any oral medication.

Really? You might want to rethink your line of logic.

You're now arguing that people don't care about the consequences of taking any of the pills. That invalidates your test as a form of lie detector.

I'd go on to explain that your test would just be people taking pills at random or sitting around waiting to hear golfy and not taking any of the pills, or any of a number of things I can see wrong with this scenario, but you seem to have argued yourself into a corner anyway and I've wasted enough time on this.

Good game.

 

[Pixel42]

Hi Pixel,

I have had a look at the tables you have linked to and my numbers match up. For a 50:50 on the 10000 table it would have to be greater than 25 correct predictions to pass the 10000 to 1 criteria that the JREF have set.

Yes, that's the number of correct predictions you would have to make out of 30, by whatever means, for there to be a less than 1 in 10000 probability of you having done so by chance. Whether you make your predictions by praying, examining the entrails of a freshly slaughtered goat or looking at the flashing lights on a polygraph, that's the hit rate you have to reach in order for the probability to be less than 1 in 10000 that you acheived that hit rate by pure chance.

Note, however, that 1 in 10000 is not the success criteria JREF have set. They don't have a fixed criteria, it depends on the claim being made, you will have to negotiate the actual criteria with them if you ever get to the point of making an application. In the past, however, they have usually set success criteria of beating chance odds of 1 in 1000 (not 1 in 10000) for the preliminary test whenever someone has made a claim similar to yours. It's expected that they would set more demanding criteria, perhaps 1 in 10000, for the final test but that's pure speculation as no one has ever passed a preliminary test.

If a poly was used with 20% error rate (or GSR if it gives similar predictable results once the problems are ironed out) then the charts would be on the 20% level. Only 8 out of 10 correct answers would be required to reach the 10000 point.

No. The hit rate you have to beat is always the one given in the 50% row, because the chances of guessing right when there are only two choices, 'cat' or 'ship', is, and always will be, 50%. If you're using a tool as part of your method of prediction that has an error rate of 20% then your chances of getting the required number of hits are reduced.

ETA: Let's suppose, for the purposes of illustration, that you are 100% effective at sending your thoughts to the receiver, so they always know what word you wrote. With a polygraph with a 20% error rate you would only get the right answer 4 times out of 5, so you would only get 24 hits out of 30. With a polygraph that was only 50% accurate you would probably get the most likely pure chance result of 15 out of 30, even if your telepathic ability was 100% reliable.

 

[sadhatter]

You're now arguing that people don't care about the consequences of taking any of the pills. That invalidates your test as a form of lie detector.

I'd go on to explain that your test would just be people taking pills at random or sitting around waiting to hear golfy and not taking any of the pills, or any of a number of things I can see wrong with this scenario, but you seem to have argued yourself into a corner anyway and I've wasted enough time on this.

Good game.

Really, so all examples i listed don't happen? Funny that, i will have to talk to my instructors about lying to me about medical testing. Your claim that the results wouldn't be positive has nothing to do with the fact that the test, if properly controlled would not only be something that is in line with what people do already and are willing to do.

I can see why you would want to pack up your ball and go home at this point. Seeing as you are simply continuing the trend of making increasingly obtuse statements in an attempt to brand what would be a rather standard and harmless test if properly controlled as something dangerous and beyond what any sane person would undergo.

My only word of advice is not to go into the sales game.

 

[golfy]

Quote: from golfy
"If a poly was used with 20% error rate (or GSR if it gives similar predictable results once the problems are ironed out) then the charts would be on the 20% level. Only 8 out of 10 correct answers would be required to reach the 10000 point."

From Pixel 42 "No. The hit rate you have to beat is always the one given in the 50% row, because the chances of guessing right when there are only two choices, 'cat' or 'ship', is, and always will be, 50%. If you're using a tool as part of your method of prediction that has an error rate of 20% then your chances of getting the required number of hits are reduced.

ETA: Let's suppose, for the purposes of illustration, that you are 100% effective at sending your thoughts to the receiver, so they always know what word you wrote. With a polygraph with a 20% error rate you would only get the right answer 4 times out of 5, so you would only get 24 hits out of 30. With a polygraph that was only 50% accurate you would probably get the most likely pure chance result of 15 out of 30, even if your telepathic ability was 100% reliable."


Your paragraph above is not correct Pixcel42. The error rate (50% for a coin) means that for it be for it to be past a 10000 to 1 possibility of it happening by chance, then you would have to have your coin making 26 correct predictions out of 30 which is possible, but unlikely. This would that there is a 0.001% of it happening by chance, so presumably you have a clever coin or some other factor that is enabling you to get the coin to do the right thing 26 times out of 30, or a poly that is actually giving correct answers.

For an instrument of 80% probability of it getting the correct answer right, then if you would need less tests to do as each test produces an accurate result of assumed 80%. Each test has its error rate multiplied by the error rate of the previous test in a sequence. A coin would be 50% accurate, 50% error rate so tests would be 0.5 (50%) x 0.5 x 0.5 etc. Two tests would be 0.5x0.5 = 0.25 or 25% chance of an error as shown in my previous post. Three tests would be 0.5x0.5x0.5 = 0.125 or 1/8 or 12.5% error etc.

If a poly were used then each guess would be influenced by the poly – if the poly were 100% accurate then you would not be guessing at a 50% level, you would know. But the poly is not 100%, but 80% so each indication from the poly would be at an 80% certainty of being correct, not a 50% certainty of being correct like a coin.

Therefore only 8 tests out of 10 would be required as each test has a higher value of probability of accuracy than a coin would. Error rate would reduce by 0.2x0.2 = 0.04 = 4% chance of error in only two tests, 0.8% error with 3 etc. A poly of 80% accuracy would be able to do this and maybe even get 10 out of 10.

golfy

 

[sadhatter]

Quote: from golfy
"If a poly was used with 20% error rate (or GSR if it gives similar predictable results once the problems are ironed out) then the charts would be on the 20% level. Only 8 out of 10 correct answers would be required to reach the 10000 point."

From Pixel 42 "No. The hit rate you have to beat is always the one given in the 50% row, because the chances of guessing right when there are only two choices, 'cat' or 'ship', is, and always will be, 50%. If you're using a tool as part of your method of prediction that has an error rate of 20% then your chances of getting the required number of hits are reduced.

ETA: Let's suppose, for the purposes of illustration, that you are 100% effective at sending your thoughts to the receiver, so they always know what word you wrote. With a polygraph with a 20% error rate you would only get the right answer 4 times out of 5, so you would only get 24 hits out of 30. With a polygraph that was only 50% accurate you would probably get the most likely pure chance result of 15 out of 30, even if your telepathic ability was 100% reliable."


Your paragraph above is not correct Pixcel42. The error rate (50% for a coin) means that for it be for it to be past a 10000 to 1 possibility of it happening by chance, then you would have to have your coin making 26 correct predictions out of 30 which is possible, but unlikely. This would that there is a 0.001% of it happening by chance, so presumably you have a clever coin or some other factor that is enabling you to get the coin to do the right thing 26 times out of 30, or a poly that is actually giving correct answers.

For an instrument of 80% probability of it getting the correct answer right, then if you would need less tests to do as each test produces an accurate result of assumed 80%. Each test has its error rate multiplied by the error rate of the previous test in a sequence. A coin would be 50% accurate, 50% error rate so tests would be 0.5 (50%) x 0.5 x 0.5 etc. Two tests would be 0.5x0.5 = 0.25 or 25% chance of an error as shown in my previous post. Three tests would be 0.5x0.5x0.5 = 0.125 or 1/8 or 12.5% error etc.

If a poly were used then each guess would be influenced by the poly – if the poly were 100% accurate then you would not be guessing at a 50% level, you would know. But the poly is not 100%, but 80% so each indication from the poly would be at an 80% certainty of being correct, not a 50% certainty of being correct like a coin.

Therefore only 8 tests out of 10 would be required as each test has a higher value of probability of accuracy than a coin would. Error rate would reduce by 0.2x0.2 = 0.04 = 4% chance of error in only two tests, 0.8% error with 3 etc. A poly of 80% accuracy would be able to do this and maybe even get 10 out of 10.

golfy

We get it. We don't buy it, but we get it. Repeating it does nothing to make the test more enticing or accurate.

 

[golfy]

You do not have to answer if you are bored - proving telepathy is not going to happen in 5 minutes - if you can prove it quicker than me than carry on. I will be doing more tests shortly when the gel arrives tomorrow and then I will have a better idea of where to go with the tests.

As Pixel42 pointed out, no one has got past the first test with the JREF.

If you fail to prepare, then prepare to fail etc This is not a knee jerk reaction application and then “Oh, look, I didn’t win the million.” like others do.

golfy

 

[jsfisher]

golfy,
The accuracy of the polygraph is not what's being tested. It is your telepathic ability. You need to demonstrate a result that would have a very low probability of being by chance, which would be 50:50 for each trial.

Use any instruments you like to help you come up with the correct result each trial, but it is still that 50:50 thing you are competing against.

 

[Pixel42]

Your paragraph above is not correct Pixcel42.

It is correct.

If your telepathic ability is 100% reliable then your results will depend entirely on how accurate your polygraph is. If it is 50% accurate you will get the right answer 50% of the time, which is the same as tossing a coin, and your results will be exactly as expected by chance. If your polygraph is more accurate than that then you will do better than chance, e.g. if it's 80% accurate you'll get the right answer 80% of time, i.e. you'll get 24 hits out of 30, which is enough to beat the 1 in 1000 odds but not the 1 in 10000 odds of having got that number of hits by chance.

Each test has its error rate multiplied by the error rate of the previous test in a sequence.

I'm struggling to understand the rest of your post, but I think this is where you're going wrong. Each test is independant, and has the same chance of being in error as any other. However many runs you do, if you're using a tool that has an error rate of 20% then you'll get the wrong answer 20% of the time. If you do 10 runs you'll get the wrong answer twice, if you do 30 runs you'll get the wrong answer 6 times, if you do 100 runs you'll get the wrong answer 20 times.

 

[Sean84]

Has golfy said yet what it would take to convince him that people can't hear his thoughts?

He seems to be making up new excuses for his "poly" at each turn. Improper lubrication is my favorite so far, but at what point will golfy believe that a failed test is golfy's fault?

I'd ask golfy but it's like pulling teeth.

 

[sadhatter]

You do not have to answer if you are bored - proving telepathy is not going to happen in 5 minutes - if you can prove it quicker than me than carry on. I will be doing more tests shortly when the gel arrives tomorrow and then I will have a better idea of where to go with the tests.

As Pixel42 pointed out, no one has got past the first test with the JREF.

If you fail to prepare, then prepare to fail etc This is not a knee jerk reaction application and then “Oh, look, I didn’t win the million.” like others do.

golfy

5 minutes, no, over 2 years, and it starts to become obvious your havin' a laugh.

Again, your just repeating your test in hopes that suddenly we will all say " Oh, yeah, i get it now.". I repeat, we get it, and "it" is crap.

 

[AdMan]

Has golfy said yet what it would take to convince him that people can't hear his thoughts?

No--golfy is already convinced of his powers and so can't conceive of anything that would convince him otherwise. That's why spending any time and energy on helping him test his "telepathy" is a waste. No matter the results, he is not going to accept them if, as expected, they don't confirm his belief that he is telepathic. He is simply going to come up with various excuses which will make sense to him--nevermind that they won't to anyone else.

Like I said, he needs medical help, not encouragement.

 

[golfy]

Has golfy said yet what it would take to convince him that people can't hear his thoughts?

He seems to be making up new excuses for his "poly" at each turn. Improper lubrication is my favorite so far, but at what point will golfy believe that a failed test is golfy's fault?

I'd ask golfy but it's like pulling teeth.

So why, oh knower of everything does Lafayette sell it?

http://www.lafayettepolygraph.com/product_detail.asp?ItemID=1397

I have an Axciton, could not find it on their website though but conductive gel is available on eBay, so I have bought some. If you don't know what you are talking about, perhaps not commenting maybe wise.

golfy

 

[Sledge]

So why, oh knower of everything does Lafayette sell it?

Same reason anyone sells anything: because someone will buy it. Was that really so hard to figure out?

 

[Sean84]

So why, oh knower of everything does Lafayette sell it?

http://www.lafayettepolygraph.com/product_detail.asp?ItemID=1397

I have an Axciton, could not find it on their website though but conductive gel is available on eBay, so I have bought some. If you don't know what you are talking about, perhaps not commenting maybe wise.

golfy

Falsifiability, golfy, not sex jelly. You missed the point entirely.

Look at AdMan's post just before yours. He got it.

 

[golfy]

Same reason anyone sells anything: because someone will buy it. Was that really so hard to figure out?

Wrong, they sell the gel as it improves the accuracy of the poly by ensuring a good electrical conection to the electrodes, gets around different peoples skin conductivity differences and will therefore make the tests more repeatable across a wider range of people. Duh!

This is why I will win the $1M and you will not. I am making an effort to get the correct results.

golfy

 

[golfy]

To Pixel42,

If a 99% poly makes one indication that the robber did rob the bank, then you are saying that the poly is only 50% accurate as it has two choices, robbed or did not rob. No the poly is 99% accurate with one test, not 50%.

golfy

 

[beren]

To Pixel42,

If a 99% poly makes one indication that the robber did rob the bank, then you are saying that the poly is only 50% accurate as it has two choices, robbed or did not rob. No the poly is 99% accurate with one test, not 50%.

golfy

1. No such thing as a 99% poly. Lie detectors don't work.

2. That is not a valid comparison anyway. You don't have to get it right, you have to get it right significantly better than a non-telepath like myself could get it right by guessing and just pretending to use the poly. Ergo if you are telepathic, anything less than 100% accuracy of the poly (which is laughable) actually decreases your odds.

 

[Sledge]

Wrong, they sell the gel as it improves the accuracy of the poly by ensuring a good electrical conection to the electrodes, gets around different peoples skin conductivity differences and will therefore make the tests more repeatable across a wider range of people. Duh!

Are you seriously arguing with the notion that shops sell things because other people will buy them? Good grief, man, stop and listen to yourself for a moment.

This is why I will win the $1M and you will not. I am making an effort to get the correct results.

If only this was true.

 

[Hitch]

If the JREF is willing to test you, it's on the basis of you being able to telepathically send messages. They aren't going to test a polygraph device. Saying that your device is only 80% accurate and therefore your accuracy doesn't need to be as high to prove your claim won't fly.

I think it's highly unlikely that the JREF will agree to any protocol for a telepathy test that includes a polygraph device. Not because they don't work or they have a policy against testing them, but because one of the key elements in any test of telepathic abilities is eliminating alternate (non-telepathic) means of communication.

Being able to accurately predict what word a subject has written down after asking them what word they wrote down is a feat that even the worst stage magician would be embarrassed to demonstrate.

I realize you're trying to set up a demonstration that allows you to show your ability with an unwilling subject. But I can't imagine it ever being acceptable.