New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Nay_Sayer]

But obviously sarcastic answers are apparently fine, even after the posters who gave them confirm they meant them sarcastically.

Any answer that fit what he wanted was, more accurately.

IIRC someone answered with a letter instead of a number and Michel did a gold medal-winning mental gymnastics routine to turn it into a hit.

I'll give him exactly one more chance to propose something different until he once again goes on ignore.

This is why he vanished the first time, Everyone refused to engage with him because it's the same song and dance.

 

[Michel H]

But obviously sarcastic answers are apparently fine, even after the posters who gave them confirm they meant them sarcastically.

I don't remember having ever seen a really "sarcastic" answer in one of my tests. What I have seen, however, is people whose moods have changed, and who are now attempting to convince me that their answers or comments were not serious, this is very different. You can't expect me to change my opinions just to please some people, this is scientific research.

 

[Loss Leader]

But on a more serious note, data-pruning immediately raises the specter of post hoc manipulation. We naturally fear that removing "errant" data is a proxy for removing data that doesn't support the desired conclusion.

This is why, in my most recent test protocol (as amended by Michel), I offered him the chance to exclude the answer of any participant in the poll but only before he knew which choice the participant had made. I even offered him writing samples of any size from each participant, so long as they did not reveal their choice. This would have allowed him the freedom to engage in his data pruning without knowing whether he was eliminating a correct or incorrect guess.

The test set-up would have been simple. It would have done everything Michel said he wanted. And it would have been finished by now. He refused to engage with it.

Instead, he keeps resurrecting my long-dead posts as evidence that he has some telepathic power. He does this despite my many, many pleas that he stop. And whether he has telepathic powers or not, citing me when I asked him not to is just plain rude.

 

[Michel H]

Any answer that fit what he wanted was more accurately.

IIRC someone answered with a letter instead of a number and Michel did a gold medal-winning mental gymnastics routine to turn it into a hit.

I'll give him exactly one more chance to propose something different until he once again goes on ignore.

This is why he vanished the first time, Everyone refused to engage with him because it's the same song and dance.

I see that, in August 2013, like fromdownunder, you gave an answer which was incorrect, but also non-credible, Nay_Sayer:

2 and just as before this is a horribly constructed test

, thereby making a positive contribution to this research effort.

 

[JayUtah]

What I have seen, however, is people whose moods have changed...

No, you don't know that.

...who are now attempting to convince me that their answers or comments were not serious...

Or they're trying to tell you that you have been wrong all along and insist that your interpretation supersedes their own. You have demonstrated an almost complete inability to determine when people are being facetious or sarcastic. This has required them to make it plain to you, when someone else would have required no such correction.

Try to imagine the possibility that you are wrong.

You can't expect me to change my opinions just to please some people.

Your opinion is irrelevant. If people are telling you that you have consistently misunderstood what they were saying, you're simply wrong.

...this is scientific research.

No. Nothing you're doing is science. It's a comical pseudoscientific exercise designed to massage your ego.

 

[JayUtah]

I see that, in August 2013, like fromdownunder, you gave an answer which was incorrect, but also non-credible...

Irrelevant. You have demonstrated that the real criteria by which you filter evidence is whether it confirms your belief or not. When "correct" but sarcastic answers are brought to your attention, such that your credibility filter should have rejected them, you accept them instead because they gratify your belief that you are telepathic. When the providers of those opinions assure you they were entirely sarcastic, you insist that you know better what their real moods and motives are.

That is as far from science as someone can get. You're not a brilliant scientist. In terms of perceptive ability, you're not even a normal person.

 

[Pixel42]

I don't remember having ever seen a really "sarcastic" answer in one of my tests. What I have seen, however, is people whose moods have changed, and who are now attempting to convince me that their answers or comments were not serious, this is very different. You can't expect me to change my opinions just to please some people, this is scientific research.

A scientific researcher is expected to change their opinions when they conflict with the evidence. You have ample evidence of your own inability to detect sarcasm, of posters who can detect it agreeing that certain answers were obviously sarcastic, and of posters who made some of those posts confirming that they were indeed meant sarcastically. Has anyone ever agreed with your own assessment of those posts? No, because you are the only one who cannot detect sarcasm.

No serious scientific researcher would proceed as you have done at all, let alone reject the ample evidence that they are misjudging many of the responses they get.

 

[JayUtah]

He refused to engage with it.

Of course. Sincerity has nothing to do with the criteria he applies to his crowd-sourced answers. It's all about conforming to the predetermined conclusion.

He does this despite my many, many pleas that he stop.

This is because he wants to believe that your motives are the same as his. He wants to believe you're backpedaling on your answer only because you've seen how he intends to use it, and that his interpretation of your motives and contributions is necessarily correct.

...citing me when I asked him not to is just plain rude.

He thinks he's caught you backpedaling and is therefore trying to hold you accountable to it. Further elaboration risks violating a ruling in limine.

 

[JayUtah]

No serious scientific researcher would proceed as you have done at all, let alone reject the ample evidence that they are misjudging many of the responses they get.

Agreed. No serious scientific researcher would design an experiment that required his subjective judgment to determine which evidence was valid.

 

[fromdownunder]

you participated in a fairly bright way in my successful test of August 2013 (even though a correct answer would have been better).

For the record, here are my posts on the August 2013 thread:


23rd August 2013, 08:43 PM

In the spirit of the OP, I will now give my honest answer

1.


Norm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9445494&postcount=307


23rd August 2013, 08:45 PM

In the spirit of the OP, I will now give my honest answer

2.


Norm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9445496&postcount=308


23rd August 2013, 08:46 PM

In the spirit of the OP, I will now give my honest answer

3.


Norm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9445498&postcount=309



23rd August 2013, 08:47 PM

In the spirit of the OP, I will now give my honest answer

4.


Norm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9445501&postcount=310




Later, in a thread now in AAH so I am not allowed to link to it, you actually cited one of the above as an indication that it was a correct answer to your poll. That does strike me as quite dishonest. Again, this is for the record, but it sure as hell indicates that you are not beyond bending the truth to breaking point in order to feed your delusions.

And I repeat:


Show me where either he or Loss Leader said that they thought you had psychic abilities and stop making stuff up that you cannot support.

You failed to answer this question, now on the previous page. What are you afraid of? Is your delusion far more important than the truth?


Norm

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I see that, in August 2013, like fromdownunder, you gave an answer which was incorrect, but also non-credible, Nay_Sayer:

, thereby making a positive contribution to this research effort.

I told you then where you could stick your credibility assessment.

You do not have esp.

You have never had a successful test.

I'll lastly say I disagree to an extent about the previous mod box. I think his mental condition is exactly why he thinks the way he does but I won't push it any further than saying that.

Goodbye.

 

[steenkh]

I don't remember having ever seen a really "sarcastic" answer in one of my tests.

But you have quoted obvious sarcastic answers as normal answers, even when the poster explained that it was sarcastic.

This is a huge problem for you. You do not understand that people resort to sarcasm when some claims reach a certain level of ridiculousness.

Repeating the sarcastic answers as proof convinces nobody.

 

[steenkh]

For the record, here are my posts on the August 2013 thread:


23rd August 2013, 08:43 PM


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9445494&postcount=307


23rd August 2013, 08:45 PM


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9445496&postcount=308


23rd August 2013, 08:46 PM

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9445498&postcount=309



23rd August 2013, 08:47 PM


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9445501&postcount=310




Later, in a thread now in AAH so I am not allowed to link to it, you actually cited one of the above as an indication that it was a correct answer to your poll. That does strike me as quite dishonest. Again, this is for the record, but it sure as hell indicates that you are not beyond bending the truth to breaking point in order to feed your delusions.

Really? I did not follow these threads back then, so I am really surprised to read that you made a post with each possible answer, and Michel H picked one of then as evidence for ESP!

 

[Pixel42]

You do not understand that people resort to sarcasm when some claims reach a certain level of ridiculousness.

Just yesterday Michel tried to support his assertion that he "had experience" in designing good test protocols by quoting three posts all of which were actually saying "your test protocol design has so many flaws that I'm daunted by the prospect of listing them, so I'm resorting to sarcasm to express my contempt for it".

I've been pondering why so many posters (including me) try once again to engage with Michel whenever he bumps this thread despite ample evidence that it's pointless, and I've concluded it's because - unlike the majority of the believers who come here with their worthless anecdotes - he clearly has the intellectual capacity to understand why what he is doing will not produce results any more reliable than such anecdotes. Surely, in that case, we can eventually get him to do so? Unfortunately intellectual capacity is not the only requirement to achieve that understanding or even, it turns out, the most important one.

 

[fromdownunder]

But you have quoted obvious sarcastic answers as normal answers, even when the poster explained that it was sarcastic.

This is a huge problem for you. You do not understand that people resort to sarcasm when some claims reach a certain level of ridiculousness.

FIFY


Norm

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I don't remember having ever seen a really "sarcastic" answer in one of my tests. What I have seen, however, is people whose moods have changed, and who are now attempting to convince me that their answers or comments were not serious, this is very different. You can't expect me to change my opinions just to please some people, this is scientific research.

We obviously can't help you with your problem.

You keep quoting obviously facetious joke responses as if they had been intended seriously and then, even when the original writer confirms that they were just joking, you refuse to believe they were jokes.

In any case, whether responders think they are joking or not, you're never going to get a statistically significant result from a handful of responses.

That's why I suggest again;

1) if you believe people all over the world hear your thoughts (although I can confirm that I do not) think about your telephone number and your wish for people to call it. You have a pool of seven billion minds to reach. If even a few hundred bother to ring the number it will be immediately obvious.

2) Do some research on social media to see whether people ask each other if they too hear the voice of some French-speaking guy in their head. If this was a widespread phenomenon, people would be talking about it. People would be joking about it. Standup comedians would have entire routines about "What about whatever it is that French guy's thinking this week, huh? I bet that's some crazy **** if I only understood it.". Look it up. See if the world is chatting about you. When you find that it isn't, you're going to assume it's a worldwide conspiracy where the entire human race has somehow agreed to deceive you. Than have a think about how absurd that idea is.

 

[Gamolon]

Your idea is perhaps interesting, Startz, though I believe the idea my tests are not rigorous is actually "fake news", which, however, seems to be popular on this forum, and repeated many times. I offer one dollar to any member of this forum who participates in my current test, with a maximum of twenty dollars.

The test may be found here: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200104181250AA43dsx.

I clicked on the link and have a question. Why only four choices?

 

[JayUtah]

I clicked on the link and have a question. Why only four choices?

If Loss Leader's misfortune is any indicator, it's so that there is a substantial probability that enough people will simply guess the right answer to satisfy Michel that he is a telepath. If you read up a page or so, you'll see that Loss Leader's one correct guess in the previous run was trumpeted as evidence of his "psychic ability." Just one of the many ways Michel stacks the deck.

Why only four chances indeed? Why not something completely open-ended like, "I've placed an object in my breadbox and am thinking about it. Tell me what the object is." That opens the field to anything smaller than a breadbox. Now of course that causes problems in the statistical basis for computing p. Traditionally you limit the number of choices to a small, fixed set (e.g., Zener cards) so that you can say with remarkable confidence how likely it is someone can guess them purely by chance. That's less possible when the options are open-ended. But the open-endedness itself is what suggests it is virtually impossible for any number of subjects to correctly guess the contents by chance.

(BTW, Zener cards were retired from psi experiments because of the many ways they were not random.)

 

[steenkh]

I clicked on the link and have a question. Why only four choices?

That is obvious: 10% will be regarded as a significant proof, and four choices will by themselves give 25% success rate. In other words, a solid proof.

Note to Michel H: this post is pure sarcasm.

 

[Gamolon]

That is obvious: 10% will be regarded as a significant proof, and four choices will by themselves give 25% success rate. In other words, a solid proof.

My point exactly.

I am not getting any telepathic nudges to pick any of them so I would be guessing if I chose with a 25% chance of getting it right and he would take that as a success.