New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Michel H]

I hope that you all noticed the remarkable (likely) telepathic feat of Loss Leader (because talking about telepathy is good, seeing it in action is better).

On this Sunday November 12, 2017, 6:43 pm GMT, I submitted this post (a response to Loss Leader):

I am sorry if I sound sometimes a little rude but my own ethical rules require me to always try to tell it "like it is", to say the truth as I understand it (while acknowledging positive contributions from others), instead of a behavior which might be perceived as more socially acceptable. Should my own rules conflict with the rules of this forum, I would hope the moderator team will take the context into account. I am getting a lot of attacks, so it is normal that I fight back.

Sometimes, I feel a little, on this forum, like a person who would be trying to sell "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins in Vatican City (the "Vatican City" of Skepticism, here, on this forum). Not the most comfortable of situations.

And Loss Leader replied to it:

... I am a true telepath ...

also at 6:43 pm GMT on this Sunday November 12, 2017 (exact same time, with precision limited to minutes), even though his previous post in this thread had been submitted about 13 hours earlier. He initially replied to it with the single word "edited", and he later edited his post.

 

[John Jones]

I hope that you all noticed the remarkable (likely) telepathic feat of Loss Leader (because talking about telepathy is good, seeing it in action is better).

On this Sunday November 12, 2017, 6:43 pm, I submitted this post (a response to Loss Leader):

And Loss Leader replied to it:

also at 6:43 pm on this Sunday November 12, 2017 (exact same time, with precision limited to minutes), even though his previous post in this thread had been submitted about 13 hours earlier. He initially replied to it with the single word "edited", and he later edited his post.

Loss Leader is not telepathic. You, however, are quite delusional. Any more questions?

 

[Reality Check]

An indicator that separates cranks from scientists is the confidence and courage to expose their work to the criticism of their peers. So where in the last 4 years (22 October 2013) have you tried to publish your work?

And what did your reviewers say about the quality of your "test" given

Ask any undergraduate science student about

• Selection bias
• Confirmation bias
• Sample size and its effects on statistics
• What scientific research is (hint - not online polls!)
• How to design tests.
  A guessing game need not be a test of telepathy.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Incidentally, I just want to tell one of the posters here: it's under the sink. He knows which one he is.

Thanks man! You have no idea how long I was looking for that... Oh, actually you have!

Goodness know how it ended up there.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Why did you have to post this if you simultaneously claim we can all read your thoughts?

This is clear evidence you don't believe you are telepathic.

Almost as good as the fact that his bank account isn’t immediately emptied and and his credit cards maxed out as soon as he gets them is evidence that he isn't projecting his thoughts.

 

[Loss Leader]

I hope that you all noticed the remarkable (likely) telepathic feat of Loss Leader (because talking about telepathy is good, seeing it in action is better).

No.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Almost as good as the fact that his bank account isn’t immediately emptied and and his credit cards maxed out as soon as he gets them is evidence that he isn't projecting his thoughts.

I offered this as evidence some months ago. Michel H claims everyone in the world is dishonest, yet no one has cleared his bank accounts after he thought of his PIN number and he claims he involuntarily sent it to all of us telepathically. The fact he still has bank accounts indicates he doesn't believe he is telepathic.

However, my main point is that Michel H's stories keep changing.

In the beginning, only he heard a voice in his head saying "kill yourself". Yet when he reverses the roles to get attention, he claims the entire world hears all his thoughts. That makes no logical sense.

Then Michel H said all dogs is the world could hear him. However how would he know unless all the world's dogs sent him back a message saying they could hear him?

The simplest test would be Michel H simply identifying our real first names and posting them.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I offered this as evidence some months ago.

Yeah, it's not the first time I've brought it up, this thread keeps on giving, but you know how unconvincing reality is for some people.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The simplest test would be Michel H simply identifying our real first names and posting them.

He could just do mine. My first name is incredibly unusual, and I can prove, from things I've previously posted on the board (but which won't be at all obvious should anybody go looking for them) that it's my name.

 

[fromdownunder]

The simplest test would be Michel H simply identifying our real first names and posting them.

This would be rather easy about me, since I sign every post with my given name. But my understanding is that he claims to project, not receive, so this would not work.

Norm

 

[Loss Leader]

The simplest test would be Michel H simply identifying our real first names and posting them.

That would be a terrible test. It's basically the definition of hot reading. Our posts give up a tremendous amount of information. Facebook, Twitter and the rest give even more. Every year at Secret Santa time, I have very little trouble finding the real name and address of whomever I get. (And I don't use moderator or psychic powers. Only Admins have access to registration information, anyway.)

Years ago, I posted a thread called "Find Me" wherein I challenged the members here to find the first four digits of my zip code. The first correct answer was posted within twenty minutes.

 

[Reality Check]

..telepathy fantasies....also at 6:43 pm GMT on this Sunday November 12, 2017 (exact same time, with precision limited to minutes), even though his previous post in this thread had been submitted about 13 hours earlier. He initially replied to it with the single word "edited", and he later edited his post.

Loss Leader replied to your post within a minute and edits their reply 3 minutes later.
Loss Leader posted 13 hours previous to that post (people do sleep and work!).
And you think that that is evidence of telepathy ?

 

[Michel H]

Loss Leader replied to your post within a minute and edits their reply 3 minutes later.
Loss Leader posted 13 hours previous to that post (people do sleep and work!).
And you think that that is evidence of telepathy ?

Yes, I do (likely evidence, not certain evidence). Sometimes, a little thinking is not bad in life (that applies to me as well btw). And please quote me accurately and politely.

Loss Leader replied to your post within a minute ...

What he did what actually more than that: if I post at 2:00:30 pm and if you reply within a minute, your post time might be 2:01, not 2:00.
When you know a person's thoughts, you can "feel" exactly when a posts replying to you will appear, and then reply very quickly if you want to (but this is much harder when you don't know the person's thoughts, and have no clue as to when the post replying to you will show up).

 

[Matthew Ellard]

.

The simplest test would be Michel H simply identifying our real first names and posting them.

That would be a terrible test. It's basically the definition of hot reading. Our posts give up a tremendous amount of information. Facebook, Twitter and the rest give even more. .

Fair enough. I understand your point.

 

[abaddon]

. Fair enough. I understand your point.

Bit of a problem that one. A little bit of research on this site alone would reveal my first and last names and my professional credentials. I could thus not be a victim/participant in such an experiment.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Loss Leader]

What he did what actually more than that: if I post at 2:00:30 pm and if you reply within a minute, your post time might be 2:01, not 2:00.
When you know a person's thoughts, you can "feel" exactly when a posts replying to you will appear, and then reply very quickly if you want to (but this is much harder when you don't know the person's thoughts, and have no clue as to when the post replying to you will show up).

If you want me to admit I'm not psychic, I'm not going to do that. It's true that, after I posted, I saw you had posted while I was writing. So, rather than leave my post which now made no sense in context, I went back and edited it. It's also true that cross-posting is actually exceedingly common. It happens all the time. And it is true that I used no psychic power to learn when you were posting.

Even so, I am telepathic. You are not.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When you know a person's thoughts, you can "feel" exactly when a posts replying to you will appear...

How would you know what someone should "feel" in that situation?

The voices in your head are not other people. Your belief is that it's all the rest of us who hear another person's thoughts (although of course we do not).

At this point, if I were you, there would now follow a digression into the imaginary significance of your writing "a posts" above. But I am not, so that at least we are spared.

 

[abaddon]

Hey Michel, you had THAT for breakfast? Wow, don't you know that is terribly unhealthy?

No, no, no. Stop projecting your excuses, already.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm currently doing an interesting free course on the Cognitive Sciences and in the video I just watched the presenter referred to an experiment which might cast some light on what is going on here. I've found this paper, which goes into more detail than the video.

A number of studies have shown that patients with schizophrenia respond faster than healthy subjects in tasks that require them to integrate information to make a response, an effect often called jumping to conclusions (Fine et al, 2007; Garety and Freeman, 1999; Garety et al, 1991; Huq et al, 1988; Moritz and Woodward, 2005; Moritz et al, 2007; Van Dael et al, 2006). In the original version of this task known as the beads or urn task (Huq et al, 1988), subjects were told that beads would be drawn from one of two urns. One urn had 85% red beads and 15% blue beads and the other had 85% blue beads and 15% red beads. The subjects were then shown beads one at a time, and asked to indicate when they thought they had enough information to decide from which urn the beads had been drawn. Patients were more likely than controls to stop the task and make their choice after 1 or 2 draws, and were also more likely to report a stronger belief about the origin of the bead after only a single bead had been drawn. This was taken as evidence for disorganized inference processes in patients with schizophrenia.

I've always been puzzled as to why someone who is clearly reasonably intelligent and well educated thinks that sensible conclusions can be drawn from his absurdly inadequate "tests". Perhaps this research provides some insight.

 

[Michel H]

How would you know what someone should "feel" in that situation?

The voices in your head are not other people. Your belief is that it's all the rest of us who hear another person's thoughts (although of course we do not).

At this point, if I were you, there would now follow a digression into the imaginary significance of your writing "a posts" above. But I am not, so that at least we are spared.

This is another small error that I made, I don't think it has any significance.