New telepathy test, the sequel.

[abaddon]

One aspect of this disease is "delusions" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia). Wikipedia writes:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion).

However, I don't think I am famous, omnipotent or very powerful.

Yes you do. You have claimed to have the "power" of telepathy. You have claimed that you can psychicly control animal behaviour.

I simply think I do have (or I may have) some good ideas, which may be useful to others, for human progress on this planet.

Delusion of grandeur.

One of these good ideas (in my opinion) is, for example (it is very simple, but worth perhaps more than a trillion dollars if well implemented):

Another delusion of grandeur. Yet you claim that you have no such thing.

Nuclear energy should be used to help people, to provide affordable energy, radio-isotopes for use in Medicine, and so on, not nuclear weapons to kill and threaten people.

Well, duh. And you somehow think you are the first to think of that?

An effective ban on nuclear weapons would make easier for example to use fast neutron plutonium reactors without any proliferation concern. It would also allow to lift nuclear-related sanctions on North Korea and Iran, and greatly improve lives of millions.

Such a ban is unworkable, and molten salt reactors would remove that issue. Again, you are not the first to consider such matters, you are about 60 years too late to that party.

I have a certain sensitivity to the well-being of other people.

Your other threads established that you have no empathy at all to which you agreed.

I also think that I have (probably because of some genetic factor) a curious tendency to involuntarily communicate my thoughts to others, even when they are geographically far away. I don't view this as a superpower (and here I try to answer William Parcher in post #1196) because this is something I cannot control.

Of course you cannot control it, you simply dont have it because it does not exist.

 

[RoboTimbo]

One aspect of this disease is "delusions" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia). Wikipedia writes:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion).

However, I don't think I am famous, omnipotent or very powerful. I simply think I do have (or I may have) some good ideas, which may be useful to others, for human progress on this planet.

Yes, you do have delusions of being very powerful by pretending to have super powers. You do NOT have the ability to project your thoughts to anyone else and you do NOT have any origional ideas for human progress.

The delusion that you do is a symptom.

Making your claimed super power unfalsifiable, making your "four choice tests" so simple and limited and then applying your biased "credibility ratings" to make them even more laughable are all symptoms.

We know and you know that you will never submit to an unbiased test because we know and you know what the result would show.

 

[Michel H]

A moderate success would be a hit rate which just exceeded the level needed to be statistically significant. Your test does not remotely qualify.

In analyzing my telepathy tests, I usually do not limit myself to just counting the total number of answers, counting those which are correct and then calculating the ratio and the p-value. For example, to me there is a difference between the proven correct answers:

... I do indeed have ESP, and know for a fact that he wrote 2!

or

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

(regardless of what may be said later by one of the members, highlighting by me), and an unpleasant but hypothetical:

This is a ridiculous test. Nevertheless, I say 2

.

In the case of the Yahoo test now under consideration, we note that John (who gave the correct answer) has a best answer rate of 22% for 12,395 answers, with a "scientific" DNA avatar (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20191223165542AAdfnoP) while the person who gave an incorrect answer has a best answer rate equal to "only" 7% for 263 answers, with an avatar featuring a big sword. In addition, John had already participated in one of my tests, in which he gave the correct answer ("B"), and later said:

Yeah, I knew it was B all along

. Satyrette, on the other hand, had participated in just one test, I think, in which she gave an incorrect answer. So the picture seems rather clear, credibility-wise.

As a former researcher (I think), you must certainly understand that all aspects of evidence available to you must be taken into account, not just the purely numerical one. John said, in the latest test:

I am now a proven psychic!

This has a certain meaning, which cannot just be ignored (especially for such a good member of Yahoo), just because it is not numerical.

My mother told me in 1991 (after seeing her very old father) "There is something I must tell you, people can read your mind". Obviously, I didn't reply "Sorry, mother, where is your p-value. Without a p-value, this doesn't count".

 

[Michel H]

This is what exactly what you did.

Try to do a telepathy test, and see if a moderator replies to you:

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

or if a Yahoo Answers member with 22% of best answers for 12,395 answers says after the test:

I am now a proven psychic!

 

[RoboTimbo]

Try to do a telepathy test, and see if a moderator replies to you:

Try to project your phone number at a moderator and see if they call you.

 

[Agatha]

Moderators are just ordinary members when replying to threads outside FMF.

It is well-established from this thread that you are unable to discern mockery and sarcasm from sincerity.

 

[Michel H]

Moderators are just ordinary members when replying to threads outside FMF.

I don't think this is quite true because mods have a reputation, an authority and a credibility to defend. They are "little bosses" who can take decisions on this forum.

It is well-established from this thread that you are unable to discern mockery and sarcasm from sincerity.

It seems to me that I have read something like:

"Address the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.

Presenting a certain viewpoint which diverges from your skeptical axioms does not necessarily mean "unable to discern", Agatha. After I presented my latest evidence on this forum today, I noticed a sudden change of tone in you:

It's not a secret that there simply are not enough active mods or admins at the moment.

.
There are people who like joking (though preferably not too much in a serious telepathy test), there are also people who sometimes lie too ... .

 

[Agatha]

I don't think this is quite true because mods have a reputation, an authority and a credibility to defend. They are "little bosses" who can take decisions on this forum.

Nevertheless it is true. The mods take decisions only on certain matters, and are entirely free to promulgate their own views in any thread outside FMF, nor do they have any more or less credibility than any other member.

It seems to me that I have read something like:

if you feel I have breached the rules, you should report my post. I would not be involved in the decision-making process of that report. Other than that, you should perhaps avoid bringing forum management matters up outside FMF.

Presenting a certain viewpoint which diverges from your skeptical axioms does not necessarily mean "unable to discern", Agatha. After I presented my latest evidence today, I noticed a sudden change of tone in you:

I hadn’t even read this thread before I made that observation in FMF about an entirely different subject. Nor have I ever resiled from my original view on your tests (they are pointless) or your ability to detect sarcasm or mockery (you don’t demonstrate that ability here on ISF).I have made no change in “tone”.
.

There are people who like joking (though preferably not too much in a serious telepathy test), there are also people who sometimes lie too ... .

Yes indeed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There are people who like joking (though preferably not too much in a serious telepathy test), there are also people who sometimes lie too ... .

Let us know when you get anywhere near a serious telepathy test. Your "four choice" fake ones with biased "credibility ratings" are laughable.

I don't think you deliberately lie, if that helps at all.

 

[Pixel42]

Even a serious telepathy test would be likely to attract a little mockery and sarcasm on a sceptics forum. Michel's tests have never been taken seriously, because they've always been a joke. They became less funny when the extent of the OP's problems became apparent, and since it became clear that he is unable to recognize sarcasm the mocking answers have pretty much stopped, which means he no longer gets much response at all. Which is probably best, as there's unfortunately no way we can help him.

 

[Michel H]

Even a serious telepathy test would be likely to attract a little mockery and sarcasm on a sceptics forum.

Perhaps the idea of radio could have seemed ridiculous around 1800 too, before Heinrich Hertz discovered electromagnetic waves in 1888.

Michel's tests have never been taken seriously, because they've always been a joke.

Not everybody seems (or seemed) to agree:

Well this is certainly one of the most robustly controlled experiments I have encountered.

Totally worth the wait.

(after I gave results to a test)

Hurray.

Congratulations on once again proving telepathy.
...
Bravo. I salute you.
... You are the vanguard of the next Golden Age of psychic testing.
...
Once, again. Congratulations.

Actually, it is likely that you cannot find as much praise anywhere, on ESP or parapsychology tests on the internet, as in my tests.

They became less funny when the extent of the OP's problems became apparent, and since it became clear that he is unable to recognize sarcasm the mocking answers have pretty much stopped, which means he no longer gets much response at all. Which is probably best, as there's unfortunately no way we can help him.

Perhaps this forum has "hardened", and has become more narrow-minded after the name change, from "James Randi Educational Forum" to "International Skeptics Forum", and has become a kind of sect of skeptical hardliners, which are happy to make personal attacks with no serious basis, in violation of their Membership Agreement, which forbids personal attacks. Which is something that I regret (if this is true) because I think a serious, honest, respectful and intelligent forum to debate extra-sensory phenomena may be useful.

Also, please note that I did not request answers or participation from the members of this forum (who have made some good posts in the past) in my latest test (perhaps I should have, I don't know, with a possibility of replying "I don't know" to a question "Which text (or number) did I write and circle?").

And, once again, it would be a major methodological mistake to dismiss non-numerical evidence, for example this:

... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your ... mind and pull out the number you were thinking of ... your thoughts were very easy to read ...

You could.
But surely I'd have received your thoughts about this already.

in favor of purely numerical evidence. This is not how research in psychology works, even if this may seem to be an easy and convenient way for you to sabotage serious work.

 

[Pixel42]

All the comments you quote approvingly are sarcastic, Michel. I know you won't believe that, but it's blindingly obvious to anyone with a working sarcasm detector.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

This is a game with absolutely no winners.

 

[calebprime]

All the comments you quote approvingly are sarcastic, Michel. I know you won't believe that, but it's blindingly obvious to anyone with a working sarcasm detector.

I was going to say much the same thing.

 

[Michel H]

All the comments you quote approvingly are sarcastic, Michel. I know you won't believe that, but it's blindingly obvious to anyone with a working sarcasm detector.

That's what you state, because this is a convenient way for you to dismiss evidence that you don't like, but you seem to be unable to prove it. Actually, I think that nobody (or almost nobody) really believes that, for example, the posts below:

Well this is certainly one of the most robustly controlled experiments I have encountered.

Totally worth the wait.

(after I gave results to a test)
were of a sarcastic nature. There was really not an atom of sarcasm, or even humor in these posts.

I think it is very likely that you don't really believe yourself these posts were jokes, because I have already noticed several times that you can make good posts sometimes, when you consent to.

You really should not get the right to rig the game, on a skeptical forum which discusses unusual things, and decree that, whenever you see a post which disagrees with your preconceived ideas, then it is "sarcasm".

 

[Mojo]

All the comments you quote approvingly are sarcastic, Michel. I know you won't believe that, but it's blindingly obvious to anyone with a working sarcasm detector.

And would be to anyone with working telepathy.

 

[Pixel42]

That's what you state, because this is a convenient way for you to dismiss evidence that you don't like, but you seem to be unable to prove it.

Describe what would constitute acceptable proof, Michel. Clearly the posters themselves assuring you the comments were meant sarcastically doesn't qualify as you've already rejected at least one such assurance, so what would?

 

[RoboTimbo]

That's what you state, because this is a convenient way for you to dismiss evidence that you don't like, but you seem to be unable to prove it.

If you think that everyone means exactly what they say, then why do you assign credibility ratings to answers?

It must be a way for you to "dismiss evidence that you don't like". Your "four chioice" tests are laughable and your "credibility ratings" prove your dishonesty about it.

 

[Mojo]

That's what you state, because this is a convenient way for you to dismiss evidence that you don't like, but you seem to be unable to prove it. Actually, I think that nobody (or almost nobody) really believes that, for example, the posts below:


(after I gave results to a test)
were of a sarcastic nature. There was really not an atom of sarcasm, or even humor in these posts.

I think it is very likely that you don't really believe yourself these posts were jokes, because I have already noticed several times that you can make good posts sometimes, when you consent to.

You really should not get the right to rig the game, on a skeptical forum which discusses unusual things, and decree that, whenever you see a post which disagrees with your preconceived ideas, then it is "sarcasm".

Given that one of the sarcastic comments you quoted (and linked back to) was a direct response to a post of yours in which you dismissed all the answers you didn’t like as not sufficiently ‘credible’, you really aren’t in any position, either morally or rhetorically, to complain about anyone rigging the game.

 

[Mojo]

If you think that everyone means exactly what they say, then why do you assign credibility ratings to answers?

It must be a way for you to "dismiss evidence that you don't like".

I haven’t previously been involved in this thread or the “which number did I write” thread, but just by following links that Michel himself had posted I immediately found him doing exactly that.