New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Startz]

I believe the method I am currently using is rigorous.

I know that you believe that, but you can see that no one else does.

Assume you are right and everyone else is wrong: You still will not convince anyone because they do not believe your method.

If you want to convince others you will use a standard approach. This does not mean you have to concede weakness in your approach. It just means that you are ALSO willing to use a standard approach because that is what others understand.

On the other hand, perhaps you have no interest in persuading anyone other than yourself about telepathy. If you do, the path to persuasion is straightforward.

 

[JayUtah]

I believe the method I am currently using is rigorous.

No.

I gave you a lengthy, thorough evaluation of your method a page or so back. I pointed out several of your most egregious errors. I stopped only because I ran out of time, not because I ran out of your errors. You didn't even acknowledge that it had been written, much less provide cogent answers for any of the issues raised.

Based on the issues I raised and your inability to address them, I conclude you don't have the slightest clue how to properly structure a scientific experiment of this sort, or supply a rigorous statistical basis for the analysis of its results.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I believe the method I am currently using is rigorous.

This post has virtually no credibility. Your use of "I believe" shows that you actually know that your method lacks any sort of rigor and you've built bias in as a feature rather than a bug.

 

[JayUtah]

Loss Leader's answer in the same test ... was good too.

No, it was not, as he has repeatedly informed you. He is the author of the post. He is the only person in the world who knows what his intent was in writing it. Your opinion to the contrary is just plain wrong.

I assume you are now both lying and trying to deceive me.

Of course they aren't. Deception doesn't occur when someone with knowledge repudiates someone who is merely speculating and will not let go of that speculation. You seem unable to consider, even remotely, the possibility that you are wrong. This is not a rational approach to communicating with others.

It seems that dishonesty is very common about the Michel H alleged telepathic phenomenon...

Nonsense. What you perceive most often as hostility is the understandable frustration incurred when dealing with someone who is utterly disconnected from various aspects of reality. When the facts don't correspond to your beliefs, you lash out at the people responsible for those facts and tar them with all manner of malicious intent. This is not their fault. People have tried their best to compel you to see the difference between ideas you have formed and facts that are indisputable. You simply don't see reality the same way everyone else does -- and not in a good way.

There is one single answer for everything you're making us suffer through on your behalf. A ruling in limine prevents it from being discussed, but that doesn't make it go away.

...from people of questionable competence...

No. Your competence was tested and you failed the test.

 

[EHocking]

I believe the method I am currently using is rigorous.

 

[fromdownunder]

I believe the method I am currently using is rigorous.

No, you know it's not and that is why you continually make up stuff to justify your belief, and call everyone else a liar with no justification at all. Why are you so afraid of the truth?



Norm

 

[Michel H]

I know that you believe that, but you can see that no one else does.

Assume you are right and everyone else is wrong: You still will not convince anyone because they do not believe your method.

If you want to convince others you will use a standard approach. This does not mean you have to concede weakness in your approach. It just means that you are ALSO willing to use a standard approach because that is what others understand.

On the other hand, perhaps you have no interest in persuading anyone other than yourself about telepathy. If you do, the path to persuasion is straightforward.

It seems to me most people on this forum are thoroughly dishonest, Startz, and there is no way dishonest people could be convinced. They will always find some pretext to arrive at their favorite conclusion, either "worthless!", or "you did not prove telepathy at all!" (or, perhaps, both). There are, however, other forums, some scientific journals too.

I can't say now (one way or another) what the scientific journals will say if I try to submit a paper with my results (I have never tried). It is possible that psychological and parapsychological sciences nowadays have become so corrupt that just submitting serious research with clear results has become an unforgiveable sin. However, this is an extreme accusation, that I can't make without proof.

 

[RoboTimbo]

They will always find some pretext to arrive at their favorite conclusion,

Such as using biased "credibility ratings" in laughable "four choice" tests while running away from a fair test?

 

[Michel H]

You simply don't see reality the same way everyone else does -- and not in a good way.

I believe I am just using simple logic and common sense in the analyses of my tests, that in principle most people should easily understand. This is not really advanced science in the techniques used, there is far more advanced stuff in physics and biology, for example.

 

[fromdownunder]

(when several answers are given, it seems logical that people are trying to improve and that the final answer is the one that should be used in the analysis).

So you consider four answers in four minutes (which is about as fast as one is allowed to make posts on this Board given the 'Bot forced time delay between answers) was me trying to think about your question and "improve" my answer? Seriously?



Norm

 

[Michel H]

Such as using biased "credibility ratings" in laughable "four choice" tests while running away from a fair test?

I am not sure I would actually use "credibility ratings" in an actual publication (though I think there is nothing wrong with this, as long as these ratings are not considered as precisely determined), I would perhaps just classify answers into credible ones and non-credible ones.

As to "four-choice" tests, I don't think this should be a problem for people who know statistics.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is not really advanced science in the techniques used

It isn't science at all. It's using dishonest bias to perpetuate a delusion.

 

[RoboTimbo]

As to "four-choice" tests, I don't think this should be a problem for people who know statistics.

But all of your four choice tests have given results the same as expected by chance. No telepathy involved.

 

[Startz]

It seems to me most people on this forum are thoroughly dishonest, Startz, and there is no way dishonest people could be convinced. They will always find some pretext to arrive at their favorite conclusion, either "worthless!", or "you did not prove telepathy at all!" (or, perhaps, both). There are, however, other forums, some scientific journals too.

I can't say now (one way or another) what the scientific journals will say if I try to submit a paper with my results (I have never tried). It is possible that psychological and parapsychological sciences nowadays have become so corrupt that just submitting serious research with clear results has become an unforgiveable sin. However, this is an extreme accusation, that I can't make without proof.

If you believe most people on this forum are thoroughly dishonest, why are you here???

Apparently it is not to convince anyone. Perhaps you could explain to us what you find gratifying about being here.

 

[JayUtah]

I believe I am just using simple logic and common sense in the analyses of my tests...

You aren't. And even if you were, "simple logic and common sense" are not substitutes for appropriate methodology.

...that in principle most people should easily understand.

Ease of understanding is not a factor. Your method is either correct or it isn't. Your critics have given you long lists of reasons why your method is incorrect. In return you simply call them liars.

This is not really advanced science in the techniques used...

Except that it is, when properly done. Experimental psychology using human subjects is not a straightforward, easy topic. Proper methodology is king. And beginners with no training -- such as you -- are not the least expected to get it right. You may have experience in other fields of science, but it is abundantly clear you have no experience designing such experiments.

 

[Michel H]

So you consider four answers in four minutes (which is about as fast as one is allowed to make posts on this Board given the 'Bot forced time delay between answers) was me trying to think about your question and "improve" my answer? Seriously?



Norm

It seems to me it is normal to use uniformly the last answer given, when several answers are given, I don't think this reflect any bias. There would be legitimate suspicions of dishonesty if the psychic claimant used, for example, sometimes the first answer, sometimes the second one, each time to try to get the best result, but I don't do that.

You first gave "1" as an answer, in a funny and non-credible way, and then you decided to give (finally) the correct answer (4), which was an improvement. I think that I might know a little the ideas that went through your mind (though I cannot be completely sure, of course), and which led you to post this succession 1, 2, 3, 4.

You reflected that it could be nice to give the right answer, and therefore to be one of the winners of the test. However, it bothered you to reveal too much (that's very typical). Then you had an idea, a kind of compromise: why not give the correct answer (4), but as a sequence (1, 2, 3, 4)? In this way, you gave the right answer, but, at the same time, it sounded like a joke, and you did not reveal too much, which could make you feel uncomfortable later, like Loss Leader for example. And then you implemented your plan.

 

[JayUtah]

It seems to me most people on this forum are thoroughly dishonest...

No. Don't blame everyone else for your lack of credibility.

They will always find some pretext to arrive at their favorite conclusion...

There is nothing pretextual about the reasons people are giving you for disputing or dismissing your conclusions. Your approach to those reasons consists entirely of dismissing them, poisoning the well, and gaslighting.

I can't say now (one way or another) what the scientific journals will say...

Any respectable journal will laugh and throw your proposal in the trash. It doesn't even pass muster as a high school science fair exhibit.

It is possible that psychological and parapsychological sciences nowadays have become so corrupt that just submitting serious research with clear results has become an unforgiveable sin. However, this is an extreme accusation, that I can't make without proof.

All your accusations come without proof. You make them anyway, repeatedly. All you're doing here is planning your response for the inevitable rejection of your play-science by any serious party.

 

[JayUtah]

It seems to me...

It seemed to the rest of us like he was pulling your leg by giving all the answers. The fact that you didn't recognize that pattern as a joke is why people rightly say you don't understand enough about human behavior to be a proper judge of the responses.

 

[Michel H]

If you believe most people on this forum are thoroughly dishonest, why are you here???

Apparently it is not to convince anyone. Perhaps you could explain to us what you find gratifying about being here.

I was probably happy when I read, for example:

Hurray.

Congratulations on once again proving telepathy.

I don't know if this will happen again or not. However, I don't think I should leave without having answered properly all questions.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not sure I would actually use "credibility ratings" in an actual publication (though I think there is nothing wrong with this, as long as these ratings are not considered as precisely determined), I would perhaps just classify answers into credible ones and non-credible ones.

Any adjudication of the "credibility" of a response, according to subjective criteria, with the operative data fully revealed, is an immediate show-stopper. No serious journal will publish results culled by means of the experimenter deciding after seeing the results which ones he will accept and which he won't.

As to "four-choice" tests, I don't think this should be a problem for people who know statistics.

I addressed the statistics of your four-answer format in depth. It showed that you clearly don't know what you're doing. Your assiduous avoidance of it tells me you have no answers to remedy the issues I raised.