New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Michel H]

Hi Michel,

I'm curious, and as I haven't seen anything about this, can I ask you what Yahoo said in answer to your inquiry about the missing question?

Presumably they have moderators?

I did not dare to enquire about the missing question, because I was afraid of their possible reaction (they have already deleted several of my questions).

I don't like it when my questions are delisted (and the same is true for questions by others as well), but I try to live with it, and to keep a low profile. I had asked my latest test question in the Parapsychology and Polls & Surveys categories, and only the question in Parapsychology was delisted (removed from the list). Parapsychology is in principle a better category for a telepathy experiment, of course.

Yahoo Answers is a free service, it is possible they are not getting a lot of revenue from advertisement, so it perhaps wise to not bother them too much.

 

[Michel H]

But you chose it. You said that a sufficient number of 1-in-4 tests could show a hit rate of 50%. You did this in defence of your 1-in-4 tests. You did it in support of the idea that statistics could show that even a test of that limited quality could show an effect.

The hit rate of 50% does not have any particular significance in my tests. I would like (ideally) a hit rate of 100% for credible answers, and a hit rate of 0% for non-credible ones.

What if I'd agreed that my name had hailed from the well-known marketing term for underpricing one item to get people into the store?

I thought that "loss leader" was more a marketing term than blank tape at the beginning of a magnetic tape. However, I would certainly not dare to say I know exactly how you chose your forum name. My impression was also than you wanted to choose something funny, because of the obvious opposition between "loss" and "leader".

 

[JayUtah]

I did not dare to enquire about the missing question, because I was afraid of their possible reaction (they have already deleted several of my questions).

No. Free to the user or not, it's in the service's best interests to explain why action was taken that might alienate a user. Especially if the alternative is the user spreading malicious rumors about the quality of the service.

I don't like it when my questions are delisted...

But since you refuse to gather any data to test your various hypotheses regarding why your questions don't appear where you suppose they should be, this is a circular argument. It could be the same benign explanation every time, but you don't care to check.

I try to live with it, and to keep a low profile.

But you're not keeping a low profile. You're going all over the Internet spreading all sorts of malicious accusations regarding Yahoo without bothering to collect any evidence to support them.

Yahoo Answers is a free service, it is possible they are not getting a lot of revenue from advertisement, so it perhaps wise to not bother them too much.

That's certainly some sudden sympathy. You've railed on at length about your problems with Yahoo, accusing them of all manner of malfeasance without the slightest shred of evidence or remorse. Now all of a sudden you don't want to bother the poor folks at Yahoo. Or maybe you just don't want the real answer so that you can continue to blame them for anything that doesn't go your way.

 

[JayUtah]

The hit rate of 50% does not have any particular significance in my tests. I would like (ideally) a hit rate of 100% for credible answers, and a hit rate of 0% for non-credible ones.

Quit stalling and do the math.

 

[Michel H]

No. Free to the user or not, it's in the service's best interests to explain why action was taken that might alienate a user.



But since you refuse to gather any data to test your various hypotheses regarding why your questions don't appear where you suppose they should be, this is a circular argument. It could be the same benign explanation every time, but you don't care to check.



But you're not keeping a low profile. You're going all over the Internet spreading all sorts of malicious accusations regarding Yahoo without bothering to collect any evidence to support them.



That's certainly some sudden sympathy. You've railed on at length about your problems with Yahoo, accusing them of all manner of malfeasance without the slightest shred of evidence or remorse. Now all of a sudden you don't want to bother the poor folks at Yahoo. Or maybe you just don't want the real answer so that you can continue to blame them for anything that doesn't go your way.

All I know about Yahoo Answers is that they have displayed a tendency to either delete or delist some of my questions, which I personally find unpleasant (and I believe I have the right to say it from time to time, since it is true). Perhaps they have some pseudo-skeptics who like to harm serious research (sometimes, not always), perhaps a little bit like on this forum (sometimes, not always). There are perhaps also some people who don't really enjoy it when certain kinds of "crimes" are revealed, and who feel an urge to run to the rescue of the persecutor, instead of running to the rescue of the victim.

It is also a free service that I have found useful many times (and not only for parapsychology research). Regarding a possible collusion with CIA or American authorities, this is pure speculation with no solid evidence at all, as I have already said.

 

[JayUtah]

All I know about Yahoo Answers is that they have displayed a tendency to either delete or delist some of my questions...

No, you don't know that because you refuse to ask. What you know is that questions don't always appear where you, according to your intuition, expect to see them from time to time. Instead of gathering data to test the hypothesis, you just up and conclude that you must be right. You don't know the difference between a hypothesis and knowledge.

I believe I have the right to say it from time to time, since it is true...

No. You refuse to gather any evidence that it's true, so no -- you expressly do not have the right to recklessly claim censorship.

Perhaps...

And you're just speculating again. Maliciously. Spreading accusations based on nothing more than untested speculation is -- where the consequences are serious enough -- grounds for legal action. That's how wrong you are.

It is also a free service that I have found useful many times...

But it isn't useful for this purpose. You piss and moan about how you think they're deleting your questions, and you blame them when you don't get the answers you want, or enough of them. And because by its very nature it's a crowd-sourced pool of subjects, you have to apply all your post hoc controls that get you into more methodology trouble.

All these problems and more would be solved if you took a different approach to gathering data, using different sources. But it's pretty obvious at this point that you rely on those problems, because that's where you hide all the dishonest stuff you're doing in your research.

 

[Loss Leader]

In many cases it is unnecessary, but in my old media days there was a distinction maintained between "tape leader" and "film leader," they being made of different materials.

And they're still making changes to materials, widths, methods of encoding and more to this day. IBM, I believe, just debuted a new tape system where each reel can hold something like 12 terabytes of data.

The hit rate of 50% does not have any particular significance in my tests. I would like (ideally) a hit rate of 100% for credible answers, and a hit rate of 0% for non-credible ones.

I offered you a test designed specifically to determine that. It's main feature was that you could assess credibility separately from knowing whether the person had given the correct answer.

We can do it with four choices instead of ten, if you'd like. However, the fewer the choices, the much more participation you'll need.

You can work with me to design the protocol. You continue to decline to do so. Instead you prefer to ask continually changing questions on Yahoo! every two months or so, with about one or two actual answers and maybe a couple more that don't choose any answer at all.

At what rate would you have to ask a 1-in-4 question, getting two credible answers, to determine 100% that some force other than chance is at play?

Hint: It's a trick question. The limit is infinity.

My impression was also than you wanted to choose something funny, because of the obvious opposition between "loss" and "leader".

That's not what you said. You said that my handle showed a duality in my nature. You said that when I gave you an answer you found credible (and also happened to be, by chance, correct), that it showed the "leader" side of my nature. You said that when I disavowed that answer, that I was showing the "loss" side of my nature.

You can scroll back and see your own words for yourself. You were the one who brought my forum handle into this. I didn't mention it at all until you claimed it had some truth value regarding my answers to your poorly designed and recklessly biased tests.

 

[Michel H]

No, you don't know that because you refuse to ask. What you know is that questions don't always appear where you, according to your intuition, expect to see them from time to time.

I think that you are, once again, writing complete and utter nonsense, JayUtah.
This is the list of all questions in the parapsychology category: https://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index/answer?sid=396547172 , the questions are listed chronologically, with the most recent first.

It is obvious that my latest test question: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200104181250AA43dsx is missing, in that list. There is no complicated algorithm involved when questions are just listed chronologically.

 

[Loss Leader]

Parapsychology is in principle a better category for a telepathy experiment, of course.

It's not, though. Just vaguely browsing through the categories, it is obvious that some are far, far better attended than others. A question in Polls & Surveys could garner a hundred answers while one in Parapsychology might be lucky to get eight.

Yahoo Answers is a free service, it is possible they are not getting a lot of revenue from advertisement, so it perhaps wise to not bother them too much.

Yahoo! makes money by selling advertisements, which are often listed on the right side of the screen. Verizon bought it in 2016 for $4.8 billion. Neither Verizon or its subsidiary Yahoo! are hurting for money. Other free services like Youtube (and it's parent, Google) and Facebook are also doing pretty well financially.

 

[JayUtah]

I think that you are, once again, writing complete and utter nonsense, JayUtah.

You didn't address my points before. You don't address them now. Calling them names doesn't make them go away.

This is the list of all questions in the parapsychology category...

You don't know that that's all the questions that were submitted.

...the questions are listed chronologically, with the most recent first.

Evidence of a sort order is not evidence that they are not also being filtered. The only way you'd be able to know if they were filtered is if someone who knew how the algorithm worked told you.

It is obvious that my latest test question: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200104181250AA43dsx is missing, in that list.

But you're only guessing as to why. You accuse Yahoo of deleting them, but you won't contact them to see if that's the case. You make up a lot of excuses why you can't or shouldn't do that. Since you're uninterested in discovering the actual reason, I suspect you just want to continue to whine and play the victim.

There is no complicated algorithm involved when questions are just listed chronologically.

You have no idea how complicated the algorithm is. You can only infer one thing about it by observing what you can see -- that the final sort order is reverse chronological. You have no way of knowing what filtration or prioritization might have occurred prior.

 

[Michel H]

It's not, though. Just vaguely browsing through the categories, it is obvious that some are far, far better attended than others. A question in Polls & Surveys could garner a hundred answers while one in Parapsychology might be lucky to get eight.

An advantage of Polls & Surveys for my testing is that I get answers usually much faster than in Parapsychology, while, in Parapsychology, I might expect, in principle, better quality answers from people who have an interest in this field. I believe parapsychology is a more logical choice. It's not as if I was asking:"Who do you like better, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?".

Yahoo! makes money by selling advertisements, which are often listed on the right side of the screen. Verizon bought it in 2016 for $4.8 billion. Neither Verizon or its subsidiary Yahoo! are hurting for money. Other free services like Youtube (and it's parent, Google) and Facebook are also doing pretty well financially.

You may be right, but I am (a little) scared because I once complained on a separate website, and this led to a deletion of many of my test questions. I then tried to appeal, with no answer. Next I resumed posting telepathy test questions, and none has been deleted in the last year, I think.

 

[Michel H]

You have no way of knowing what filtration or prioritization might have occurred prior.

There is no "filtration or prioritization" (I have been asking questions on Yahoo Answers for more than 10 years).

You ask a question, any question, and it just shows up in the chosen category, that's all (you can try it yourself). Then it may happen that somebody "reports" your question, either because he/she is a pseudo-skeptic who wants to harm, or because some term of service has been violated.

Then the question may be deleted or delisted. I recently saw a case of a delisted question which came back in the list, perhaps because the member who had asked the question felt confident enough to complain and appeal, and it worked.

 

[JayUtah]

There is no "filtration or prioritization" (I have been asking questions on Yahoo Answers for more than 10 years).

That doesn't mean you know the algorithms at work. You observed that the results you can see are sorted in reverse chronological order. You reasonably infer that the display algorithm includes a sort. You notice postings appear and disappear. But instead of reasonably inferring that the algorithm also contains a filter, you propose a conspiracy theory. Then you abjectly refuse to collect any data to see if such an inference (i.e., of various forms of filtration) has merit.

I've never seen someone claiming to be a scientist so absolutely terrified of data.

\perhaps because...

How many times do I have to catch you speculating before it sinks in that your "knowledge" is really just speculation?

Forget for now why it went away and why it came back. Just reflect for a moment on the fact that it did. Doesn't the fact that you saw post reappear in their original form after a hiatus provide some pretty solid evidence that at least one filtration step is part of that particular display algorithm? You're trying to tell me there's no filtration, but there clearly is. And there's no way for you to know what any of the criteria for filtration are simply by looking at the posts for ten years. But you've cobbled up this conspiracy theory whereby pseudo-skeptics are trying to sabotage you at Yahoo. And all you have as evidence of this are maybes and perhapses.

 

[JayUtah]

...because he/she is a pseudo-skeptic who wants to harm...

You have a pretty serious victimization complex going on there. Dial down the paranoia a few notches, please.

 

[Michel H]

You have a pretty serious victimization complex going on there. Dial down the paranoia a few notches, please.

I don't think that your pedantic ranting is helping in any way, JayUtah. What I would like to suggest to you is to try to ask some questions on Yahoo Answers, so you will learn how the service really works, its advantages and its difficulties.

You might also try to do your very best participating in my latest and current test: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200104181250AA43dsx , I just read again the target sentence for you (and also for other people, who might be interested). I don't think that we need on this forum people who seem to enjoy constantly attacking and disparaging others. The goal of a forum like this is helping each other in a spirit of honesty. If your goal is to attack others, I think you should quit posting.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I don't think that your pedantic ranting is helping in any way, JayUtah. What I would like to suggest to you is to try to ask some questions on Yahoo Answers, so you will learn how the service really works, its advantages and its difficulties.

You might also try to do your very best participating in my latest and current test: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200104181250AA43dsx , I just read again the target sentence for you (and also for other people, who might be interested). I don't think that we need on this forum people who seem to enjoy constantly attacking and disparaging others. The goal of a forum like this is helping each other in a spirit of honesty. If your goal is to attack others, I think you should quit posting.

If your main concern is Yahoo Answers, maybe you should go there. If you want to engage in a fair test on this forum and get the other members' input, you may continue to post here.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

It goes without saying, No one here should waste any time on any of Michels tests regardless of where they appear.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't think that your pedantic ranting is helping in any way...

Keep poisoning that well. You're slipping into insults, so that means I must be close to the thing you most want to keep hidden.

What I would like to suggest to you is to try to ask some questions on Yahoo Answers, so you will learn how the service really works, its advantages and its difficulties.

What makes you think I'm unfamiliar with Yahoo Answers? Not everything is a case of "Michel knows best." If you want to know how the service really works, ask someone who knows how the algorithms really work and replace all your speculation with actual knowledge. You won't do that because complaining about censorship is all part of your act.

You might also try to do your very best participating...

Not until you answer all the questions you're evading about your method. I'm not going to validate your pseudoscience. Where's your answer to the statistics problem that was posted earlier? You're not getting off the hook on that.

I don't think that we need on this forum people who seem to enjoy constantly attacking and disparaging others.

Pointing out the flaws in your thinking and your methods is not "attacking and disparaging." Meaningful review is a big part of what makes science work. But you seem uninterested in holding up your end of that.
.

The goal of a forum like this is helping each other in a spirit of honesty. If your goal is to attack others, I think you should quit posting.

The goal of this forum, more often than not, is to expose slipshod thinking and deceptive attempts at pseudoscience. Like so many others before you, you can't toe the line. So you're trying to shame me away from posting. And you're not the first person to try that. You're trying to attach a social and emotional penalty to criticism of your methods, assumptions, and proposals. Do you really think the regulars here aren't thoroughly accustomed to such shoddy tactics? No matter how much you beg me to stop posting, I'm going to continue pointing out all your mistakes.

 

[Loss Leader]

You might also try to do your very best participating in my latest and current test: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200104181250AA43dsx , I just read again the target sentence for you (and also for other people, who might be interested).

Four days old and you've gotten one response - and that person refused to make a guess.

Explain to me again how Yahoo! Answers is superior to a properly blinded test (that still gives you the chance to throw out participants who you don't find credible).

The goal of a forum like this is helping each other in a spirit of honesty.

I don't agree with your characterization of the goal of this forum, or that you even have the authority to speak about the same, however:

JayUtah is, in my estimation, the finest example of a ISF member that one could ask for. He speaks authoritatively, from decades of study and experience in the sciences. He engages with the topic of the thread, points out mistakes in the reasoning of others, and offers helpful guidance in addressing those flaws.

It is true that he is human and sometimes lets a little frustration show through his posts, but he far more often both informative and helpful. In fact, finding any flaw in his knowledge and reasoning is a vanishingly rare treat for one who can do so. Finding any flaw in his understanding of experimental science is close to unheard of.

I personally took great joy in correcting him when he said twelve men have landed on the moon. I got to say that only two men landed on the moon, the other ten technically crashed. He gave me that one and I still count it as a triumph.

If there is one member who could not be accused of being either unhelpful or dishonest, it is JayUtah.

You would be well advised, just as a general rule, to seriously consider any and all of his objections and suggestions when thinking about your own use and/or abuse of the scientific method.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Four days old and you've gotten one response - and that person refused to make a guess.

Explain to me again how Yahoo! Answers is superior to a properly blinded test (that still gives you the chance to throw out participants who you don't find credible).





I don't agree with your characterization of the goal of this forum, or that you even have the authority to speak about the same, however:

JayUtah is, in my estimation, the finest example of a ISF member that one could ask for. He speaks authoritatively, from decades of study and experience in the sciences. He engages with the topic of the thread, points out mistakes in the reasoning of others, and offers helpful guidance in addressing those flaws.

It is true that he is human and sometimes lets a little frustration show through his posts, but he far more often both informative and helpful. In fact, finding any flaw in his knowledge and reasoning is a vanishingly rare treat for one who can do so. Finding any flaw in his understanding of experimental science is close to unheard of.

I personally took great joy in correcting him when he said twelve men have landed on the moon. I got to say that only two men landed on the moon, the other ten technically crashed. He gave me that one and I still count it as a triumph.

If there is one member who could not be accused of being either unhelpful or dishonest, it is JayUtah.

You would be well advised, just as a general rule, to seriously consider any and all of his objections and suggestions when thinking about your own use and/or abuse of the scientific method.

Roger the Mole:

You wrote all four here.

10 dollars says he counts this as a #4 answer hit.