New telepathy test, the sequel.

[JayUtah]

I see no reason why serious telepathy tests should be based only on statistical analyses, while disregarding all comments.

Because as any real scientist knows, statistically controlled tests are repeatable while tests that require subjective interpretation of comments are not.

I believe I am entitled to view this as evidence which confirms my hypothesis in this psychology research.

Not if you expect to be taken seriously by real scientists -- which you evidently are not. You have no training in psychology research, and you are completely oblivious to the comments from those who do and who are telling you carefully and precisely everything you are doing wrong.

Serious testimonies do matter, of course.

No, they do not. The problem is that you have adopted a hybrid approach where you reach for the reproducible rigor of a statistically controlled sample, but you stumble over subjective interpretation which real scientific methodology works very hard to avoid. You cherry-pick the data based on your subjective impression and then cry voila! when that cherry-picked evidence seems to have statistical validity. This is textbook pseudoscience.

 

[JayUtah]

However, one has to be careful because it is also possible that (some) people are hell-bent on hiding the truth.

Speculation. You conjure up the belief that people are deliberately trying to subvert your tests, but that does not suddenly make your cherry-picking scientifically valid.

Some dishonest pseudo-skeptics for example might deliberately give wrong (or even right) answers so the final number of correct answers comes out exactly equal to 25. It is possible that a serious analyst would find that about 40% of the participants who are known for being honest, educated and reliable actually gave the right answer, even if they left no comment.

No.

There are valid ways to control for deliberate attempts to maliciously affect the results, and you have been told what they are. Inventing one yourself that also has the side effect of letting you pick only the results you want is obvious pseudoscience.

Blaming "pseudo-skeptics" for your unwillingness to submit to a valid scientific test of your claimed abilities does not invalidate their criticism.

We don't live in a world of saints.

Yet lots of valid science seems to be conducted without cheating as you do.

 

[Michel H]

I thought you said you had a background in physics? If you do then you should understand scientific process, which you appear to be rejecting here...

Research in extra-sensory perception is different from physics (I spent a lot of time reading books and articles on parapsychology before doing online telepathy tests, I even subscribed to the Journal of Parapsychology for a while).

If I want to know whether a certain person can hear me telepathically, I ask him/her this question:"do you sometimes have an impression of perceiving me telepathically". If the person says "yes", I have obtained evidence which confirms my telepathy hypothesis. This evidence will be better is the person is known for being intelligent and benevolent. There is nothing unscientific about asking such a simple question because everybody is one of the world's greatest experts about their own perceptions.

Science is about trying to understand the world better, not about writing a lot of complicated equations to try to look very sciencey.

 

[JayUtah]

Research in extra-sensory perception is different from physics...

Indeed. You could be considered an expert in researching the latter. You have no training or qualifications in the former. You have been told repeatedly why your experiment is cheating.

(I spent a lot of time reading books and articles on parapsychology before doing online telepathy tests, I even subscribed to the Journal of Parapsychology for a while).

None of those are qualifications.

If I want to know whether a certain person can hear me telepathically, I ask him/her this question:"do you sometimes have an impression of perceiving me telepathically". If the person says "yes", I have obtained evidence which confirms my telepathy hypothesis.

No, that's not evidence. That's not even...wow, you really have no clue.

This evidence will be better is the person is known for being intelligent and benevolent.

No, that is not science. You're speculatively connecting your perception of intelligence and your perception of subjective benevolence to an objectively testable phenomenon. Just test the phenomenon. It either exists and is quantifiable without the confounds, or it is not.

There is nothing unscientific about asking such a simple question...

False. There's nothing scientific about asking it. You're asking a subjective question and accepting an open-ended self-reported result in place of actual data.

...because everybody is one of the world's greatest experts about their own perceptions.

Was that intended to be a serious claim?

Science is about trying to understand the world better, not about writing a lot of complicated equations to try to look very sciencey.

I'm sorry you either don't understand or don't accept statistics. Without a valid statistical model for your results, you have no science. That's just a fact. You're the one trying to look "sciency" by pretending your homegrown methods -- which are obviously intended to cheat the results -- are either acceptable in the field or far superior to what is being done by people who do this kind of research for a living.

You're unqualified. You're doing it wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about. Understanding the world better means separating what's happening in the world from what's happening in your fertile imagination. That's what the modeling is for.

 

[Pixel42]

The idea that the people who inadvertently fool themselves into believing the provably false claims of astrology, dowsing, homeopathy etc, because they do not take into account the effect of their cognitive biases, are "one of the world's greatest experts about their own perceptions" is simply laughable.

 

[Michel H]

I would like to report now the results of my latest telepathy test:

A new telepathy test
...
I recently wrote (and circled) one of the following four words: "2022", "Russia", "attacked" and "Ukraine" on a piece of paper near me.

I ask you to tell me which of these four words I wrote.

This word was selected by means of this random number generator: https://www.random.org/integers/, all four words have equal probabilities.

about 6 months after I started it.

No answer was given on this forum, but I did a very similar test on Spiritual Forums: https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=143590 , where I received just one answer, given by ..Vel.. :

You chose 2022

.

Vel's answer was correct, so the hit rate for this latest test is equal to 100% (but with just one answer given).

You may perhaps remember that the hit rate for the previous test done on this forum was equal to 100% as well (arthwollipot had given the correct answer), see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13639449#post13639449.

 

[JayUtah]

Vel's answer was correct, so the hit rate for this latest test is equal to 100% (but with just one answer given).

With zero degrees of freedom. You have no concept of a proper statistical model for your ego-stroking "tests." Stop pretending to be a scientist.

 

[Michel H]

With zero degrees of freedom. You have no concept of a proper statistical model for your ego-stroking "tests." Stop pretending to be a scientist.

I don't know what you mean with your "zero degrees of freedom" comment.

Member Vel (of Spiritual Forums) had full freedom to answer the words "Russia", or "attacked", or "Ukraine". But he didn't, he chose the word "2022", which was the correct answer.

Just like moderator Loss Leader in 2013:

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

(who also gave the correct answer then, with a very striking comment).

 

[Pixel42]

Please stop blackening the memory of a much loved and sadly missed member of this forum by claiming that an obviously sarcastic response he once made to one of your silly tests in any way supports your delusions.

 

[Michel H]

Please stop blackening the memory of a much loved and sadly missed member of this forum by claiming that an obviously sarcastic response he once made to one of your silly tests in any way supports your delusions.

I believe that I show respect for Loss Leader by quoting him repeatedly.

In Science, having your work used and discussed by others years later is the best fate.

I see no reason to believe that Loss Leader's answer, cited above, was "sarcastic". He confirmed four years later later (after a period during which he had dismissed his correct answer):

... 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. ...

Obviously, ESP work is facing a lot of violent prejudices.

 

[Mojo]

I believe that I show respect for Loss Leader by quoting him repeatedly.

But then, you believe in telepathy.

 

[Mojo]

I believe that I show respect for Loss Leader by quoting him repeatedly.

In Science, having your work used and discussed by others years later is the best fate.

I see no reason to believe that Loss Leader's answer, cited above, was "sarcastic". He confirmed four years later later (after a period during which he had dismissed his correct answer):

... 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. ...

In that post, Loss Leader called you a liar, and said that your mind is “weak and ordinary”.

Do you respect his assessment?

 

[Michel H]

In that post, Loss Leader called you a liar, and said that your mind is “weak and ordinary”.

Do you respect his assessment?

He didn't use the word "liar", but nevertheless Loss Leader's post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12072405#post12072405 does contains some humorous nonsense.

There may be a subtle irony in calling "weak and ordinary" a mind which seems to be able to projects its thoughts worldwide, but saying such things isn't scientific.

Loss Leader could be bright and generous, but he wasn't the ideal scientist.

 

[Mojo]

He didn't use the word "liar"…

Here is what he said about you in that post:

…you lied...

That makes you a liar.

Do you respect his assessment?

 

[Michel H]

Here is what he said about you in that post:


That makes you a liar.

Do you respect his assessment?

No.

Fortunately, I don't have to believe all the insults that are thrown at me on this forum.

I quote the great man once again:

For the record, I was lying ...

 

[Pixel42]

I challenge you to find a single person on this forum - indeed, a single person on the internet who isn't a diagnosed schizophrenic - who agrees with you that the response you keep quoting from Loss Leader to your self evidently preposterous and unscientific test is not obviously sarcastic.

 

[Michel H]

I challenge you to find a single person on this forum - indeed, a single person on the internet who isn't a diagnosed schizophrenic - who agrees with you that the response you keep quoting from Loss Leader to your self evidently preposterous and unscientific test is not obviously sarcastic.

Loss Leader's 2013 response:

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

isn't fundamentally different from many responses or testimonies I have read or received over the years.

I can cite, for example:

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

4

I know it. I'm absolutely sure. I feel it inside of me ...

(from a different test)

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. All of them.
...

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

I have cited some replies seen on this forum. But you've got to understand that there is much, much more than that.

 

[Pixel42]

Every other response you cite is also obviously sarcastic.

I'm challenging you to find one (non-schizophrenic) person who, upon reading the response Loss Leader made to you in the context of the thread in which he made it, agrees with you that it was a serious response and not a sarcastic one.

My only concern in setting this challenge is that you will eventually find someone who is unaware of your issues who will agree with you because they think it's funny to do so, and you will once again be unable to detect the sarcasm.

 

[Michel H]

Every other response you cite is also obviously sarcastic.

I'm challenging you to find one (non-schizophrenic) person who, upon reading the response Loss Leader made to you in the context of the thread in which he made it, agrees with you that it was a serious response and not a sarcastic one.

My only concern in setting this challenge is that you will eventually find someone who is unaware of your issues who will agree with you because they think it's funny to do so, and you will once again be unable to detect the sarcasm.

Saying "this is obviously just sarcasm" (without serious evidence, beyond your prejudices) seems to be a dubious technique used by some members of this forum (you especially) to dismiss testimonies which you don't like.

 

[Mojo]

There may be a subtle irony in calling "weak and ordinary" a mind which seems to be able to projects its thoughts worldwide, but saying such things isn't scientific.

Interesting that you can identify irony in a post that calls your mind “weak and ordinary”, but not in posts pretending to agree with you.