My Second Telepathy Test

[Michel H]

...
Zooterkin posted several guesses, all of which failed to qualify because he wrote 6 or more digits and/or letters. His one 5-digit guess was the word BOOZE upside-down. ...

Actually, zooterkin posted:

90210

,
then

5317704

(that one had to be rejected by you, as it had 7 digits)
and finally

07734
58008
32008

(note, this is a set of three numbers, three was the answer to my test)
So, he actually posted four 5-digit guesses, not just one. I "suspect" he may have actually answered to my test in a veiled way, like you and jsfisher.

 

[Loss Leader]

Which program did you use? This one: https://www.random.org/integers/?

Yes

On the contrary, jsfisher (apparently) exhibited some "scientific emotion", he said he had "sensed" something, and even "fairly strongly".

He wrote the number AFTER I posted the correct answer, just as one other person did. What he sensed fairly strongly was the number he had just read in my post. (And even then, he managed to get one digit wrong.)

I "suspect" he may have actually answered to my test in a veiled way, like you and jsfisher.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

 

[zooterkin]

Zooterkin posted several guesses, all of which failed to qualify because he wrote 6 or more digits and/or letters. His one 5-digit guess was the word BOOZE upside-down.

Not true. I also had HELLO and BOOBS, as well as 90210 as a result of a mind-meld with shemp.

 

[Daylightstar]

...

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

My 'guess' was 3 2 5 9 6, this was a very, very, very serious 'guess'.
Dark clouds and thunder from heaven serious, or, this serious:
3 2 5 9 6

I didn't post it because I thought lightning would strike me if I did.
Or being burned at the stake.

So I kept it to my self, obviously.

Very, very serious stuff

 

[jsfisher]

Also, jsfisher's answer came AFTER I posted the target number. So, he saw the target number before making his guess. In fact, two people pretended to guess the number after I posted it. It is impossible to call an answer "serious" that comes after the target number is revealed. It's doubly impossible to call that the only serious answer.
...
Jsfisher's answer was written after seeing the target number as a post-diction joke, as was one other person's. The funny thing is that, even after seeing the number, jsfisher still got it wrong. Norman Alexander at least took the time to double check.

The error in the second to last digit was intentional. I didn't want it too obvious I had cheated.

 

[IXP]

Confidence levels were disregarded in favor of a -10 to +10 aggressiveness scale. I found your answer to be passive-aggressive.

I have sent you via private message a compendium of 10,000 lawyer jokes. I hope you enjoy them.

IXP

 

[dlorde]

Tiktaalik's only post in my latest test has a similar structure:

1) I am not a he.
2) The statement about '4' was a (subtle, I agree) joke based on the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42. I only 'got' part of it...
3) I do not work for 'the police'.

So, your telepathy seems to be unable to:
1) determine what sex a person is
2) determine when someone is joking
3) determine what occupation someone is in

Here, one sees that number 3 appears twice. This may have been also a way to suggest (without saying it clearly) that the correct answer in my test was a 3. Tiktaalik has (like you) a history of 100% hit rate in my test.

Er, the numbers 1 and 4 also appear twice, and the number 2 appears three times, so by this criteria the answer to your test should have been 2...

Pick whatever number you like, and you'll be able to find unrelated matches all over the place. If you pick a number less than 4, you'll even see it more often than you'd expect (see Benford's Law). None of this has anything to do with telepathy.

 

[Donn]

Poe also has three in it. I'm thinkin'.

 

[stanfr]

Im guessing the number was 32569
I swear I haven't looked at any of the responses here, just read the OP.
I never lie, ask anyone!

 

[Michel H]

Er, the numbers 1 and 4 also appear twice, and the number 2 appears three times, so by this criteria the answer to your test should have been 2...

Pick whatever number you like, and you'll be able to find unrelated matches all over the place. If you pick a number less than 4, you'll even see it more often than you'd expect (see Benford's Law). None of this has anything to do with telepathy.

Hmm, you've been looking for the digits in the text... I was talking about "structure".
In Tiktaalik's post, one can see twice a group of three (numbered, with numbers at the beginning) sentences, and Loss Leader's target number started with 32. I personally find number 3 rather conspicuous in that post. In addition, my (final) side remark about Tiktaalik was not really essential in my post. One idea, concept that's really essential and of fundamental importance in my telepathy research, on the other hand, is the idea of credibility rating, and the ability for the researcher to assign fair credibility ratings in an "unblinded way". That is much more important, I believe.

 

[Michel H]

It is also of some interest to note that there is another member (in addition to moderator zooterkin) who gave a number starting with 3, before Loss Leader closed his test. This member is Garrette, who posted:

By "not a 5 digit number" LL means that it is not one number with 5 digits but rather 5 separate digits generated in order. Correct?

33928

One may ask whether this could possibly be related to the target (3) in my test. But, remarkably, Garrette wrote, a little later:

That cinches it. LossLeader is lying, and Michel H is telepathic.

This suggests some sympathy to my claims, and it is interesting that this apparent sympathy is correlated with giving 3 (my target) as first digit.

 

[Donn]

This suggests some sympathy to my claims, and it is interesting that this apparent sympathy is correlated with giving 3 (my target) as first digit.

No it absolutely doesn't certainly not in fact, yes, partially lend nor borrow, xor or nand, sympathy to your claims.

There is some missing apparent correlation in a correlated fashion of great magnitude, albeit minuscule and not there.

I have written three sentences agreeing not with you nor for you and neither on your behalf. Such is the power of your skull to prevent all transmission of your thoughts.

Oh dear, is this the fifth sentence, perhaps triads may be squeezed from it somehow?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

So what exactly is the purpose of this thread?

To point out what a reasonable telepathy test might look like with added humor and fun.
Michel H un surprisingly [or perhaps not *wink*] missed the joke and is taking this all very seriously.

 

[Loss Leader]

It is also of some interest to note that there is another member (in addition to moderator zooterkin) who gave a number starting with 3, before Loss Leader closed his test. This member is Garrette, who posted:

One may ask whether this could possibly be related to the target (3) in my test. But, remarkably, Garrette wrote, a little later:

This suggests some sympathy to my claims, and it is interesting that this apparent sympathy is correlated with giving 3 (my target) as first digit.

This makes no sense. The first digit had a one in ten chance of being a 3. With over fifty guesses, we would expect about 5 to randomly start with three. That's less than we actually got. You are calling numbers in another test hits without considering the misses. When that is done, the results were Worse than chance.

 

[The Moog]

Er, the numbers 1 and 4 also appear twice, and the number 2 appears three times, so by this criteria the answer to your test should have been 2....

The answer does seem to be 2. There has been so much number 2 deposited on Michel's thread.

 

[Daylightstar]

This thread is now on page ..... 3

 

[dlorde]

... One idea, concept that's really essential and of fundamental importance in my telepathy research, on the other hand, is the idea of credibility rating, and the ability for the researcher to assign fair credibility ratings in an "unblinded way". That is much more important, I believe.

Unfortunately something as subjective as a credibility rating, even if blinded, would detract from the whatever quality the test might have if it was otherwise reasonably well designed (so far, they show no understanding of design at all). Unblinded, it makes it entirely valueless - unless you're after a canonical example of confirmation bias.

 

[fromdownunder]

This suggests some sympathy to my claims, and it is interesting that this apparent sympathy is correlated with giving 3 (my target) as first digit.

So what is your actual hypothesis. I can think of three options:

1. People heard your three, deliberately lied on your thread, and then decided to taunt you by putting the number 3 on an entirely different thread?

2. People subconciously heard your 3 and placed it (in less than actual odds would suggest) on this thread without even realising why?

2. The RNG used by Loss Leader may have heard your three, and deliberately placed it as the first number. Perhaps you should start research your capacity to influence RNG's and other computer programmes. This is a whole new level of research for you. Come back with evidence.

Why in your view did a number of 3's turn up on this thread and again, at less than the odds would suggest, and you include one occasion that was posted after the correct answer had been given. I was tempted to write three on your thread (but you would have not got the joke) because once in my rock star youth, I got to third base on a first date, but since that would have gone straight over your head, I refrained from doing so.

Norm

 

[Michel H]

So what is your actual hypothesis. I can think of three options:

1. People heard your three, deliberately lied on your thread, and then decided to taunt you by putting the number 3 on an entirely different thread?

2. People subconciously heard your 3 and placed it (in less than actual odds would suggest) on this thread without even realising why?

2. The RNG used by Loss Leader may have heard your three, and deliberately placed it as the first number. Perhaps you should start research your capacity to influence RNG's and other computer programmes. This is a whole new level of research for you. Come back with evidence.

Why in your view did a number of 3's turn up on this thread and again, at less than the odds would suggest, and you include one occasion that was posted after the correct answer had been given. I was tempted to write three on your thread (but you would have not got the joke) because once in my rock star youth, I got to third base on a first date, but since that would have gone straight over your head, I refrained from doing so.

Norm

I suppose your explanation number 1 is (more or less) the correct one. I suspect Loss Leader used the target number in my test (3) when he constructed his own target 3 2 5 6 9, in order to get more hits (even if he denies it), as a "joke" (a joke with some merits, perhaps, that's hard to tell). I also note that his "telepathy test thread" did not get merged with his previous test thread, unlike mine (which, unfortunately, got merged). That's one of the tricks that pseudo-skeptics use to make my life hard, and theirs easier

 

[fromdownunder]

Norm