New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Jack by the hedge]

Perhaps your error here is to (perhaps naively) believe that, because a poster says later a certain answer or comment is not serious or sincere, then this necessarily really means it is devoid of sincerity. Did you consider the possibility the poster might be sincere in the first post, and not genuine in the second one? (this is probably a example of the typical error: "I like that, so it must be true")

My recollection is of most of us detecting a sarcastic tone in some responses which you took at face value, and even when the posters confirmed that they were indeed being sarcastic, you chose not to believe them. That makes me think your proposed scenario is very, very unlikely.

 

[Michel H]

People who choose to report their choice after you reveal the answer do not give you any useful indication of your hit rate.

I think this statement is debatable. But what is really is more interesting than hit rates is whether there is currently in the world a special thought broadcasting phenomenon, in which a special individual projects his thoughts into the minds of other human beings. When I see a large number of posts or comments, with an apparent tone of sincerity, which seem to confirm the existence of such a rare phenomenon, I think I am entitled to consider this as "evidence" ("evidence" is not only mathematical).

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I think this statement is debatable. But what is really is more interesting than hit rates is whether there is currently in the world a special thought broadcasting phenomenon, in which a special individual projects his thoughts into the minds of other human beings. When I see a large number of posts or comments, with an apparent tone of sincerity, which seem to confirm the existence of such a rare phenomenon, I think I am entitled to consider this as "evidence" ("evidence" is not only mathematical).

You are incredibly wrong.

 

[The Sparrow]

I don't know what makes you laugh, Dave Rogers. Chance results mean a hit rate about equal to 25% in a four-alternative test. If you get many hit rates which are consistently lower than 25%, e.g. in ESP tests done on skeptical forums, then you have proven telepathy.

................................what?

 

[Michel H]

................................what?

You don't understand?

OK, let me give you two examples (for four-alternative tests).

Situation 1 (no telepathy):
Test 1: hit rate = R = 27%
Test 2: R=20%
Test 3: R=30%
Test 4: R=24%
(and so on)

Situation 2 (there is a very real telepathy phenomenon, but it is not necessarily clearly accepted and recognized by all; incorrect answers are given in a more or less aggressive, superficial and critical fashion, not in a credible way):
Test 1: R=0%
Test 2: R=0%
Test 3: R=0%
Test 4: R=0%
(and so on)

You can see from this example that, in the second situation, a non-random phenomenon shows up in the maths, which, in a given context, you may reasonably attribute to telepathy. The probability of the second set of results is easily calculated to be (assuming there have been only four tests) p = (1/4)⁴=0.004=0.4%, which is small.

 

[The Sparrow]

You don't understand?

OK, let me give you two examples (for four-alternative tests).

Situation 1 (no telepathy):
Test 1: hit rate = R = 27%
Test 2: R=20%
Test 3: R=30%
Test 4: R=24%
(and so on)

Situation 2 (there is a very real telepathy phenomenon, but it is not necessarily clearly accepted and recognized by all; incorrect answers are given in a more or less aggressive, superficial and critical fashion, not in a credible way):
Test 1: R=0%
Test 2: R=0%
Test 3: R=0%
Test 4: R=0%
(and so on)

You can see from this example that, in the second situation, a non-random phenomenon shows up in the maths, which, in a given context, you may reasonably attribute to telepathy. The probability of the second set of results is easily calculated to be (assuming there have been only four tests) p = (1/4)⁴=0.004=0.4%, which is small.

.........................................................................what?

 

[Michel H]

.........................................................................what?

I was trying to explain my point, but, if you keep saying "what, what, what ..." with no further explanation, I am afraid I cannot try to do more for you.

 

[fromdownunder]

.........................................................................what?

What Michel is trying to say is:

1. people who give the right answer are proof of telepathy

2. People who give the wrong answer are all liars and proof of telepathy.

Norm

 

[gabeygoat]

Dear Michael, can you project a useful thought?

 

[Loss Leader]

Situation 2 (there is a very real telepathy phenomenon, but it is not necessarily clearly accepted and recognized by all; incorrect answers are given in a more or less aggressive, superficial and critical fashion, not in a credible way):
Test 1: R=0%
Test 2: R=0%
Test 3: R=0%
Test 4: R=0%
(and so on)

You can see from this example that, in the second situation, a non-random phenomenon shows up in the maths, which, in a given context, you may reasonably attribute to telepathy. The probability of the second set of results is easily calculated to be (assuming there have been only four tests) p = (1/4)⁴=0.004=0.4%, which is small.

Michel, you just assumed the result you were testing for. Instead of a test showing your telepathic powers, you state outright that telepathy is "very real." That's not just bad science, it's literally no science.

I can do it to:

Situation 2 (I have a very real ability to prevent tiger attacks with my mind out to 15 miles, but it is not necessarily clearly accepted and recognized by all. For the New York area[/B]:
Year 1: R=0%
Year 2: R=0%
Year 3: R=0%
Year 4: R=0%
(and so on)

You can see from this example that, in the second situation, a non-random phenomenon shows up in the maths, which, in a given context, you may reasonably attribute to my ability to repel tigers. The probability of the second set of results is easily calculated to be (assuming there have been only four tests) p = (1/4)⁴=0.004=0.4%, which is small.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Situation 2 (there is a very real telepathy phenomenon, but it is not necessarily clearly accepted and recognized by all; incorrect answers are given in a more or less aggressive, superficial and critical fashion, not in a credible way):
Test 1: R=0%
Test 2: R=0%
Test 3: R=0%
Test 4: R=0%
(and so on)

You can see from this example that, in the second situation, a non-random phenomenon shows up in the maths, which, in a given context, you may reasonably attribute to telepathy. The probability of the second set of results is easily calculated to be (assuming there have been only four tests) p = (1/4)⁴=0.004=0.4%, which is small.

What's funny is that you very carefully avoid making any such analysis, and simply crow over everything that you can misrepresent as a correct answer. When anyone makes any attempt to analyse the actual results you get, it all appears entirely consistent with situation 1. You haven't even got the wit to realise that, by deliberately misinterpreting misses as hits, you're preventing any possibility of discovering a situation 2 result, because you carefully avoid the 0% hit rate that might show a statistical anomaly.

Dave

 

[Michel H]

Michel, you just assumed the result you were testing for. Instead of a test showing your telepathic powers, you state outright that telepathy is "very real." That's not just bad science, it's literally no science.

I can do it to:

Situation 2 (I have a very real ability to prevent tiger attacks with my mind out to 15 miles, but it is not necessarily clearly accepted and recognized by all. For the New York area[/B]:
Year 1: R=0%
Year 2: R=0%
Year 3: R=0%
Year 4: R=0%
(and so on)

You can see from this example that, in the second situation, a non-random phenomenon shows up in the maths, which, in a given context, you may reasonably attribute to my ability to repel tigers. The probability of the second set of results is easily calculated to be (assuming there have been only four tests) p = (1/4)⁴=0.004=0.4%, which is small.

If you want to prove you have an amazing ability to repel tigers and to prevent tigers attacks, go to some place in India where tiger attacks are known to occur, and see if you can change that, in a statistically significant way (tiger attacks usually do not occur in the New York area, so finding that no tiger attack has taken place recently there does not prove anything interesting). Contrary to tiger attacks in the NY area, correct answers should be given about 25% of the time in a telepathy test when there is no telepathy, and chance alone is responsible for the results, that's the big difference.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

If you want to prove you have an amazing ability to repel tigers and to prevent tigers attacks, go to some place in India where tiger attacks are known to occur, and see if you can change that, in a statistically significant way (tiger attacks usually do not occur in the New York area, so finding that no tiger attack has taken place recently there does not prove anything interesting). Contrary to tiger attacks in the NY area, correct answers should be given about 25% of the time in a telepathy test when there is no telepathy, and chance alone is responsible for the results, that's the big difference.

I repeal tigers with my mind, I have actually been to India for a business trip and no tigers showed up. My success rate in this and telepathy is already many magnitudes greater than yours.

So how long before a another round of comedy with a new test? I say you do colors

 

[Loss Leader]

If you want to prove you have an amazing ability to repel tigers and to prevent tigers attacks, go to some place in India where tiger attacks are known to occur, and see if you can change that, in a statistically significant way (tiger attacks usually do not occur in the New York area, so finding that no tiger attack has taken place recently there does not prove anything interesting). Contrary to tiger attacks in the NY area, correct answers should be given about 25% of the time in a telepathy test when there is no telepathy, and chance alone is responsible for the results, that's the big difference.

Michel, if you want to prove you have an amazing ability to broadcast your thoughts, go to some place where thought broadcasting is known to occur, and see if you can change that, in a statistically significant way (thought broadcasting does not occur on earth, so finding zero correct guesses for your "tests" does not prove anything interesting). Contrary to thought broadcasting, tiger attacks should occur some percentage of the time, and chance alone is responsible for the results, that's the big difference.

What I am trying to point out is that you have already decided that "thought broadcasting" is true before you conducted your "tests." You are making the same mistake I am. The difference is that I'm willing to admit my tiger claim is silly. You, however, will do anything to avoid admitting that your claim is equally silly.

 

[Michel H]

Dear Michael, can you project a useful thought?

Good question.

I study the news carefully every day, and I try to figure out simple solutions to the great problems of our time: terrorism, climate change, clean energy production, risk of a nuclear war, consequences of Brexit, freedom for the Palestinians and for Taiwan, and so on ...

So, I would hope I do project some useful thoughts from time to time.

 

[abaddon]

If you want to prove you have an amazing ability to repel tigers and to prevent tigers attacks, go to some place in India where tiger attacks are known to occur, and see if you can change that, in a statistically significant way (tiger attacks usually do not occur in the New York area, so finding that no tiger attack has taken place recently there does not prove anything interesting). Contrary to tiger attacks in the NY area, correct answers should be given about 25% of the time in a telepathy test when there is no telepathy, and chance alone is responsible for the results, that's the big difference.

And that is the result you always get. You then make up excuses and cherry-pick the results to falsely create the result you WANT.

 

[Michel H]

...
What I am trying to point out is that you have already decided that "thought broadcasting" is true before you conducted your "tests." ...

No, that's not true. I am always trying to do my testing and my analyses in a neutral and objective way, and I don't need to assume "thought broadcasting" is true beforehand.

And it is a remarkable fact that you, a moderator on this well known forum which tries to be critical and scientific, you said, three years and a half ago:

I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.

This answer was correct, and your hit rate so far is an impeccable 100%. It is also remarkable that, after giving the correct answer in my latest test on Yahoo Answers, member YourTherapist added the comment:

I knew I was right

(link: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20170115225056AAi8xhG )

 

[Loss Leader]

No, that's not true. I am always trying to do my testing and my analyses in a neutral and objective way, and I don't need to assume "thought broadcasting" is true beforehand.

And yet you yourself just said:

there is a very real telepathy phenomenon, but it is not necessarily clearly accepted and recognized by all

Both things cannot be true. A test of psychic ability with no right answers is exactly the same as a test of repelling tigers with no tiger attacks.

And it is a remarkable fact that you, a moderator on this well known forum which tries to be critical and scientific, you said, three years ago

The only remark worth making about it is, "I was making fun of you." Also, my status as a moderator has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I'm a critical or scientific thinker. It's mostly due to the fact that I'm pretty even-tempered and I have the requisite free time.[/QUOTE]

 

[Michel H]

And yet you yourself just said:
...

I do not need to assume that I am a real (though involuntary) thought broadcaster before I start a new test, but that does not prevent me from drawing some conclusions after the test has been completed (or after several test have been completed). Actually, I think it is even my duty to try to draw some conclusions after ESP tests, it would be disrespectful towards the people who have participated not to do so. And I do believe there is substantial evidence indicating that I am a worlwide thought broadcaster, however unlikely and almost incredible this may seem.

 

[Michel H]

...
So how long before a another round of comedy with a new test? ...

I am not currently planning to launch a new test on this forum in the very near future.

However, if you like playing, or participating in simple tests, I can propose you (and also to all the members of this forum) a different game. I think this game is possibly instructive, and might help you become a smart parapsychologist.

Let's assume Michel H has conducted a new ESP test, and he has received four answers:

(1) I have serious doughts about the scientific nature of your test, from somebody who clearly understand nothing about statistics. I say 3.

(2) Oh no, another one of these silly telepathy 'tests'! Let me go back to my exciting Bigfoot thread! Like the previous poster, I say 3 as well.

(3) I answer 2, but only because, when people are asked to select a number in a range (like '1, 2, 3, 4'), they tend to select numbers near the middle of the range. Nothing to do with telepathy here.

(4) Hi Michel. I am almost sure you wrote a "4" on your paper.

Now, can you tell me which of these answers is credible, and which is not? Good answerers will receive the Virtual Medal of the Smart Parapsychologist (V.M.S.P.).