New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Jack by the hedge]

... there isn't much you could say about his answer:

.



Your rejection of this answer is simply a reflection of your current prejudices...

I can say it was obviously a joke. The truth is "prejudices" are rather the point. Your protocol is not science. It's barely a parody of science. There is no hope of its producing objective, reproducible results.

 

[JayUtah]

Loss Leader did not violate the protocol of my test.

No, you did.

Your rejection of this answer is simply a reflection of your current prejudices and preconceived ideas, and this is not something I can accept as an argument.

I'm not rejecting anything Loss Leader said. I'm rejecting YOUR judgment and rationale for including it as a credible hit. Do you understand the difference between commentary on Loss Leader's behavior and commentary on your behavior? It's your judgment people are questioning. The way you phrased it in your protocol was that a decision could be challenged if people didn't like the way YOU decided. That's what's being done here, and you reject the challenge, once again, on purely subjective criteria. That's cheating if the challenge is meant to reduce the effect of subjectivity on your data.

It doesn't matter what excuse you give for overruling outside review of your judgment. The participants and observers are unanimous in their opposition to your judgment and have provided well-considered reasons for their objection. If you're just going to ignore all of it, assume they're all biased or lying, and reassert your original ruling because of the reasons you think they acted rather than upon their stated criteria, then there is no meaningful cure in your protocol for its obvious subjectivity. Regardless of your excuse, your protocol is therefore irreproducible.

No scientist will accept your protocol as an nonbiased method of collecting data.

 

[abaddon]

No, you did.





It doesn't matter what excuse you give for overruling outside review of your judgment. The participants and observers are unanimous in their opposition to your judgment and have provided well-considered reasons for their objection. If you're just going to ignore all of it, assume they're all biased or lying, and reassert your original ruling, then there is no meaningful cure in your protocol for its obvious subjectivity. Regardless of your excuse, your protocol is therefore irreproducible.

Loss Leader can't respond. This is a particularly scummy move by Michel.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

One of the more pitiful aspects here is the efforts Michel is expending to defend one solitary data point.

Nobody has ever produced significant evidence for telepathy so even if you think such phenomena might exist they are undoubtedly so weak that you could only hope to detect their existence by sifting a mountain of objective data.

Michel only has a handful of worthless subjective results.

 

[JayUtah]

Loss Leader can't respond. This is a particularly scummy move by Michel.

Which is why I've called Michel out on having progressed from biased to just downright offensive. But it's all part of the game. Harping on the contribution of a well-beloved but lamentedly-departed member lets him write off objections to his abuse as emotional defensiveness rather than well-reasoned analysis.

I speak from experience when I say that schizophrenics are unwilling experts at emotional manipulation. The poor relative we hosted for a summer wreaked irreparable damage on my family and circle of friends. She's getting the help she needs. But the pain of living in the periphery of profound mental illness is real.

 

[JayUtah]

One of the more pitiful aspects here is the efforts Michel is expending to defend one solitary data point.

It's not just a data point. It's a data point Michel thinks we can't argue with because it comes from such an eminent and well-respected source. It's not a numerical victory he seeks; it's a moral victory. Despite his assurance that he will allow his judgment to be questioned, Michel is trying to make the case that any opposition to that judgment must be from prejudice and bias, because who could argue on defensible evidentiary grounds with the "obviously" confirmatory evidence provided by Loss Leader.

Nobody has ever produced significant evidence for telepathy so even if you think such phenomena might exist they are undoubtedly so weak that you could only hope to detect their existence by sifting a mountain of objective data.

Which is why it's imperative that he support his claim that thoughts are projected as electromagnetic radiation in the 20-watt range at common radio frequencies. That would make every brain so endowed roughly on par with the radios we put on airliners and spaceships. Very hard to miss.

Michel only has a handful of worthless subjective results.

In a paragon of tautological hubris, he has declared that even if his raw result fails to achieve statistical significance, he can reliably determine which are true misses and which are insincere misses that should be omitted or "corrected" as hits. This, even when he can't articulate the criteria that apply: he just knows. And it only works when he is the judge, and only when the data are unblinded. Because he has blatantly defined "good" data as only that which confirms his predetermined conclusion. And, without knowing the field or having previously published in it, he declares that this is a far better method than any of the previous practitioners have managed.

And this is supposed to improve the reputation of parapsychology among actual scientists.

 

[abaddon]

Which is why I've called Michel out on having progressed from biased to just downright offensive. But it's all part of the game. Harping on the contribution of a well-beloved but lamentedly-departed member lets him write off objections to his abuse as emotional defensiveness rather than well-reasoned analysis.

Well, TBH I can be more frank here then I could in a real life encounter. This place lets me let off a little steam. One cannot do that in a real world situation. Michel is para-schiz and off meds and not seeing professionals. We know this because he has told us. We are not making this up out of whole cloth somehow. Pretty much everyone is concerned about his situation and wants him to seek professional help. He will have none of it. His reasons are his own, I guess.

I speak from experience when I say that schizophrenics are unwilling experts at emotional manipulation. The poor relative we hosted for a summer wreaked irreparable damage on my family and circle of friends. She's getting the help she needs. But the pain of living in the periphery of profound mental illness is real.

Yeah. It ain't a happy place, is it? One sort of weirdly inherits it. If one were to be strictly logical about it, one would say that "It's not my problem, go away". I cannot imagine saying such to any family or friend or whatever. But sadly it happens. I have had kids on the phone from a call box because they have been ejected from their home because they are trans, or gay, or don't believe the religion du jour or whatever. It's heartbreaking. But people do this all the time without a care.

I do believe that I previously told you that I would happily place my kids in your care if some mad need arised. That remains true ish. My eldest is 19, so I have a mere advisory role at this point.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Loss Leader can't respond. This is a particularly scummy move by Michel.

IMO, it's even worse as Michel keeps posting an edited version of LL's last, longer post, where IIRC, he was mildly insulting Michel with a "back-handed compliment". This was obvious to native English speakers.

In other words... LL was STILL "takin' the piss".
But Michel keeps ignoring that.

MICHEL... if as you claim, you have many, many other supporting comments and correct responses, than LL's single judged response should be statistically irrelevant.
We would all truly appreciate if you would simply toss it, never to be referenced again. You know this, we've said this... why won't you do this?

 

[abaddon]

IMO, it's even worse as Michel keeps posting an edited version of LL's last, longer post, where IIRC, he was mildly insulting Michel with a "back-handed compliment". This was obvious to native English speakers.

In other words... LL was STILL "takin' the piss".
But Michel keeps ignoring that.

MICHEL... if as you claim, you have many, many other supporting comments and correct responses, than LL's single judged response should be statistically irrelevant.
We would all truly appreciate if you would simply toss it, never to be referenced again. You know this, we've said this... why won't you do this?

Oh Michel is taking a massive dump on the grave of LL. I take exception to that. This disrespect is beyond the pale.

 

[Pixel42]

If you legitimately think Loss Leader's answer wasn't credible, you have a right to present arguments which really show that his answer shouldn't be considered as serious and reliable (this is actually part of my method, it's a security feature).

Here, once again, is the post Loss Leader made when he realised to his horror you were taking his sarcastic answer seriously:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10438878#post10438878

No, I was not serious. I was joking. This was before I realized how ill you were. I never would have posted if I knew the state of your health. I am very, very sorry for any role I played in aiding your delusion.

I had just written the number 4. I typed it right ther between "a" and "very." When I said it was like I had written it myself, I meant to refer to the fact that I had just written it myself.

That's sarcasm. It was a joke based on the word "seeing." I did see a 4 in that I was staring at it on my computer screen. I did not see it in my mind and choose to type it. I typed it quite randomly and then joked about having typed it.

A better argument that his answer shouldn't be considered as serious and reliable would be difficult to imagine. The fact that he later reverted to piss taking is regrettable, but you can't pretend that his answer passes your "security feature" when literally everybody else, including the person who posted it, disagrees with your credibility rating for it. Well you obviously can pretend that, because your illness forces you to, but you're not fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[abaddon]

Here, once again, is the post Loss Leader made when he realised to his horror you were taking his sarcastic answer seriously:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10438878#post10438878



A better argument that his answer shouldn't be considered as serious and reliable would be difficult to imagine. The fact that he later reverted to piss taking is regrettable, but you can't pretend that his answer passes your "security feature" when literally everybody else, including the person who posted it, disagrees with your credibility rating for it. Well you obviously can pretend that, because your illness forces you to, but you're not fooling anyone but yourself.

Normally, I would be right up there with the mockery of cranks. But Michel is seriously ill and mockery would be a bad move.

 

[JayUtah]

Normally, I would be right up there with the mockery of cranks. But Michel is seriously ill and mockery would be a bad move.

It's clear Michel needs to come to grips with his condition. But it's not necessarily the case that all objectionable claims are the product of illness. Selectively quoting source material can also be a conscious decision, aside from illness. It's possible to be both schizophrenic and a jerk.

 

[jmontecillo01]

I am posting this in the hope that Michel understand what he is going.

It's clear Michel needs to come to grips with his condition. But it's not necessarily the case that all objectionable claims are the product of illness. Selectively quoting source material can also be a conscious decision, aside from illness. It's possible to be both schizophrenic and a jerk.

You might be right. Michel, at the same time is just being a jerk. But, there is another problem with dealing with schizoprenia, reading comprehension.

People with schizophrenia are likely to have severely impaired reading ability, a new study has shown.

A systematic review by researchers at Brunel University London's Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience (CCN) found that those who have been diagnosed as having schizophrenia are likely to have difficulty recognizing, manipulating and pronouncing individual sounds, and understanding written text.

The findings indicate that there could be significant overlap between the underlying causes of schizophrenia and the underlying causes of dyslexia, although the researchers say there are multiple factors that need to be taken into consideration.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-03-ability-severely-impaired-schizophrenia.html

Interpretion of words seen, depends on type of delusion. I still remember when I thought I was god's spokesman. Everthing I see seems to come from god. Say, I see the sign "Please keep our park clean. By order by park manager". I would interpret park manager as god and park is our planet (earth). There is failure 'to see' the other words, and in Michel's case, failure to detect sarcasm.

Michel,

Just assuming thought broadcasting is real.

There is no way you can prevent thoughts entering your head, therefore the idea of selective broadcasting is not possible. You cannot just turn off/on your thoughts. That means you are broadcasting your thoughts, 24/7.

You cannot have privacy with your thoughts. You'll be telling the world everything from taking a dump, through farting, trough locking your self in your bedroom with only a playboy magazine for company.

Do you now understand that when I was suffering from thought broadcasting, I would hit my head againts the wall to get rid of the thoughts?

Michel, beware of what you wish for, you might just get it.

 

[LongFuzzy]

Of course if telepathy were real, we would have to host a Disaster Area concert.

 

[Michel H]

Michel,

Just assuming thought broadcasting is real.

There is no way you can prevent thoughts entering your head, therefore the idea of selective broadcasting is not possible. You cannot just turn off/on your thoughts. That means you are broadcasting your thoughts, 24/7.

You cannot have privacy with your thoughts. You'll be telling the world everything from taking a dump, through farting, trough locking your self in your bedroom with only a playboy magazine for company.

Do you now understand that when I was suffering from thought broadcasting, I would hit my head againts the wall to get rid of the thoughts?

Michel, beware of what you wish for, you might just get it.

I am not much concerned about these things.

But I have to say I am still a little embarrassed by one thing: thinking about the genital parts of the person I am talking to (male or female).

 

[Michel H]

MICHEL... if as you claim, you have many, many other supporting comments and correct responses, than LL's single judged response should be statistically irrelevant.
We would all truly appreciate if you would simply toss it, never to be referenced again. You know this, we've said this... why won't you do this?

Loss Leader's correct answer to my second test:

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

,
the seriousness of which he confirmed later:

... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your ... mind and pull out the number you were thinking of. You did not feel aggressively towards me back then so your thoughts were very easy to read and you did not change your answer when you knew I was right. ...

(after having denied for a while that his answer had been valuable) is still of great importance and of great interest to me, because it was made by a respected moderator on the prestigious forum of the Randi Educational Foundation (one can perhaps hope that it was truly educational).

I assume these posts reflect a high moral stature by this particular mod (even though we have seen that he wasn't always consistent in his comments).

I have noticed everybody in this thread has shown respect and appreciation for Loss Leader (I wouldn't say the same has been true for me).

I am not going to ditch a valuable testimony, consistent with several others, just because it is not to the liking of some skeptics.

 

[Lothian]

Loss Leader's correct answer to my second test:
,
the seriousness of which he confirmed later:

(after having denied for a while that his answer had been valuable) is still of great importance and of great interest to me, because it was made by a respected moderator on the prestigious forum of the Randi Educational Foundation (one can perhaps hope that it was truly educational).

I assume these posts reflect a high moral stature by this particular mod (even though we have seen that he wasn't always consistent in his comments).

I have noticed everybody in this thread has shown respect and appreciation for Loss Leader (I wouldn't say the same has been true for me).

I am not going to ditch a valuable testimony, consistent with several others, just because it is not the the liking of some skeptics.

That wooshing noise was Loss Leader's sarcasm going over your head. Not that it matters. You sucked and had to cheat to show any effect. Unfortunately your cheating is comically obvious to all. That is why no one takes you seriously. You are pissing on logic. You don't deserve respect.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

You cannot have privacy with your thoughts.

Logically, Michel H is complimenting everyone on Earth for their honesty.

Despite his claim he is broadcasting his bank, bank account number and PIN number, no one has ever cleared his bank accounts.

 

[JayUtah]

(after having denied for a while that his answer had been valuable) is still of great importance and of great interest to me, because it was made by a respected moderator on the prestigious forum of the Randi Educational Foundation (one can perhaps hope that it was truly educational).

The problem is that observers of your experiment note that the contributions of the "respected moderator" are ambiguous at best. At worst, Loss Leader did not realize that you had failed to note his sarcasm. The observation is that the data point should be discarded on the basis of ambiguous intent, according to your protocol. But you accept it, not because it is reliable data by the criteria you established, but solely because it is a hit. By accepting it despite its obvious unreliability, you convey that your bias governs your decision, not your judgment. This is why no one takes you seriously.

I assume these posts reflect a high moral stature by this particular mod (even though we have seen that he wasn't always consistent in his comments).

"Moral stature" is irrelevant. By your criteria, the data point is ambiguous and should be rejected. You have subjectively chosen to resolve in your favor the inconsistency you see in his posts because you know that by doing so you will get one more hit. More astute observers note that the "inconsistency" is a product of your inability to recognize sarcasm. Those who understand sarcasm see no problem in understanding which of Loss Leader's contributions was most sincerely intended.

I have noticed everybody in this thread has shown respect and appreciation for Loss Leader (I wouldn't say the same has been true for me).

Loss Leader earned the respect he was given by long years of treating others with respect, both as a judicious moderator and as a gracious poster. You have not, for the reasons amply described. Your behavior is not worthy of respect, as you fail to treat anyone else with respect and you actively insult those who are trying to help you achieve scientific rigor.

I am not going to ditch a valuable testimony, consistent with several others, just because it is not to the liking of some skeptics.

Your protocol requires that your decisions regarding data reliability be subject to challenge. Your decision has been challenged, and appropriate grounds for the challenge have been given. There is unanimous agreement among the participants and observers that you are not interpreting Loss Leader's contributions appropriately. You have simply overruled the judgment of the experiment participants and observers, once again on subjective grounds. This means your protocol is worthless in the methods it uses to mitigate the effect of subjective judgment and bias.

If you never had any intention of respecting the judgment of others here at the forum, then you have been in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing, for years.

 

[Michel H]

The problem is that observers of your experiment note that the contributions of the "respected moderator" are ambiguous at best. At worst, Loss Leader did not realize that you had failed to note his sarcasm. The observation is that the data point should be discarded on the basis of ambiguous intent, according to your protocol. But you accept it, not because it is reliable data by the criteria you established, but solely because it is a hit. By accepting it despite its obvious unreliability, you convey that your bias governs your decision, not your judgment. This is why no one takes you seriously.



"Moral stature" is irrelevant. By your criteria, the data point is ambiguous and should be rejected. You have subjectively chosen to resolve in your favor the inconsistency you see in his posts because you know that by doing so you will get one more hit. More astute observers note that the "inconsistency" is a product of your inability to recognize sarcasm. Those who understand sarcasm see no problem in understanding which of Loss Leader's contributions was most sincerely intended.



Loss Leader earned the respect he was given by long years of treating others with respect, both as a judicious moderator and as a gracious poster. You have not, for the reasons amply described. Your behavior is not worthy of respect, as you fail to treat anyone else with respect and you actively insult those who are trying to help you achieve scientific rigor.



Your protocol requires that your decisions regarding data reliability be subject to challenge. Your decision has been challenged, and appropriate grounds for the challenge have been given. There is unanimous agreement among the participants and observers that you are not interpreting Loss Leader's contributions appropriately. You have simply overruled the judgment of the experiment participants and observers, once again on subjective grounds. This means your protocol is worthless in the methods it uses to mitigate the effect of subjective judgment and bias.

If you never had any intention of respecting the judgment of others here at the forum, then you have been in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing, for years.

Members of this forum are still welcome to object to my analyses when there are serious grounds to object (yes, this is still part of my method). There must, however, be valid reasons in order to make me alter my conclusions.

The argument "of the crowd" ("What?? At least 10 people have told you they disagreed with you, and you keep on believing your conclusions are right!!!) is not sufficient.

When I assigned my credibility to Loss Leader's answer back in 2013 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9516155#post9516155), I used the information which was available to me then (I usually, as a rule, assign credibilities for an answer given at time T using the information available at time T, not in a retrospective way, using what is said later by people perhaps angry and worried because they feel they have said too much).

Then, when the test was completed (and knowing the test was over), Loss Leader expressed for a while (not surprisingly) the skeptical view that his answer had just been random.

However, he later clarified that:

... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your ... mind and pull out the number you were thinking of. You did not feel aggressively towards me back then so your thoughts were very easy to read and you did not change your answer when you knew I was right. ...

So, I feel that I have been faithful and respectful with respect to his legacy.

You might also notice incidentally that using data which are a little bit imperfect is a hallmark of serious science. Real cheaters might provide fake data which are too good to be true, like perhaps some propaganda by some "Communist Party".

It seems clear to me that many members of this forum are not objective, in the sense that they often exclusively and desperately want to defend the narrow-minded skeptical viewpoint, in spite of the obvious evidence (which is rarely cited by them).

This is a real problem. So, perhaps you need to adopt a more relaxed and neutral attitude, not like someone who is upset, scared by the idea that his sad skeptical boat might imminently sink.