New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Pixel42]

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.

My reason for saying "this is obviously just sarcasm" is not prejudice, but the simple fact that I do not have an issue with detecting sarcasm. The other members of the forum who tell you the same likewise have no such issue.

I did, in fact, like Loss Leader's "testimony" very much. The "it's almost as if" part was particularly delicious. It's just a shame you are unable to properly appreciate it yourself.

 

[kali1137]

You can't accept the parts of his words you like and disregard what you don't. The constant use of Loss Leaders post is vile and loathsome - but then that is the one constant in this thread.

 

[JayUtah]

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

I know. That's why I'm telling you to stop pretending you're a scientist and that what you're doing has any scientific validity. If you don't know what it means for a statistical model to have zero degrees of freedom then you're in way over your head.

Just like moderator Loss Leader...

No, we're not going to do this again.

 

[JayUtah]

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

Nonsense. You know your misinterpretation of his statements earns you criticism here. You're deliberately poking at the memory of a beloved colleague in order to provoke a response and get attention.

In Science...

Stop. You're not a scientist, so stop trying to tell everyone else what science is.

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

No. Your inappropriate behavior and unsupportable claims are being justly criticized. This has little to do with serious research in parapsychology.

 

[JayUtah]

...but [Loss Leader] wasn't the ideal scientist.

Wrong. You have no concept of proper scientific methodology. You are not competent to judge whether someone else does. I had many conversations with Loss Leader regarding the role of science in law, and I found him to be quite a bit more knowledgeable and conversant than you are about scientific methodology.

Your only claim to scientific expertise was a reference to a paper you published 40 years ago as a student in a field that is notoriously resistant to empirical methods, and which you admit is not a qualification for the science you're now trying to do. You are not accepted here as a scientist.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

No, it's not a "dubious technique." It's the unanimous judgment of everyone in this thread who hasn't been diagnosed with schizophrenia, an illness whose symptoms include deficits in detecting sarcasm.

You have been given plenty of opportunity to perform a properly controlled experiment to test your claimed abilities. When you did, your abilities did not manifest themselves. You insist on protocols that allow you to cherry-pick the answers you like and discard the rest. It is abundantly clear which side of your question is operating with prejudice.

 

[JayUtah]

[Deleted; I erroneously repeated a response to a months-old post.]

 

[Little 10 Toes]

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):


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

You do not respect him at all. You constantly misquote him.

Here is the full quote:

Your aggression shows through more clearly than ever. You sarcastically refer to this form as quote-advanced-unquote. You call my powers "alleged". Worst of all, you point out that telepathy can be "annoying".

By your own rules, you lack credibility. Your answers can be disregarded as lies.

I did not only present evidence of my telepathy. Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your weak and ordinary 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. Since then, your aggression has grown. After that point, even when I got the right answer by reading your mind, you lied and changed your answer to agree with someone whose powers do not frighten you.

You do let slip one true statement, probably subconsciously. You call telepathy "annoying". I am sure that you do feel annoyed by your jealousy of my extraordinary telepathic abilities.

Your claim of hearing threatening voices is not credible. It is untrue.

Here is a better post that you continually ignore:

For the record, I was lying about having any indication of knowing what number you were thinking of. I lied because I thought it was funny. I lied to make you look foolish. I saw no number in my mind and did not even guess a number. I just hit a key.

All of my responses to any of your tests have been lies.

If I were you, I would discard all my responses as not being credible.

Now, the question is: If a moderator of a paranormal forum has no credibility, let alone special credibility, how can any person's credibility be assessed?

I believe that you have claimed that everyone in the world hears you. If this is the case (which it is not), more than one person out of 7 BILLION, would have answered.

 

[Pixel42]

@Michel H: Have you found anyone yet who agrees with your interpretation of the post by Loss Leader you have been continually quoting for the last nine years?

Why not ask the poster on your other thread elsewhere, the one who guessed right in your latest test, what they think? Surely they've proved their bona fides? Just post the link to this page of this thread in that one

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311777&page=62

so they can read my challenge and its context, and also click the links in the posts quoted if they want to read their context too, and ask them. Do they agree with you that the response was meant seriously, or do they agree with everyone here (including Loss Leader himself) that it was obviously sarcastic?

I await the result with interest.

 

[Michel H]

@Michel H: Have you found anyone yet who agrees with your interpretation of the post by Loss Leader you have been continually quoting for the last nine years?

I don't think many people would be interested in commenting objectively now a post which was written up 9 years ago (and is self-evident):

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

Even though this post, written in 2013 by a generally respected moderator of the (then) James Randi Educational Foundation, in which he gave the correct answer to one of my tests, is still of interest, in my opinion.

Why not ask the poster on your other thread elsewhere, the one who guessed right in your latest test, what they think?

Harassing a forum member (Vel, in this case, cf. https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=143590) who was kind enough to participate in one of my tests in a meaningful and qualitative way is really the last thing I want to do.

I am not going to send him/her private messages asking "Can you please tell me a little more about your May 2022 correct reply? (Vel's correct answer was posted a little more than a month after I had launched the test on Spiritual Forums).

These tests are always a delicate matter, and it is important that the volunteers I rely on can feel comfortable, and not threatened.

There is, however, something new I can show you (and to other readers of this thread) which seems to shed some light on "what actually goes on in the mind of correct answerers".

When I started a new telepathy test in April on this forum:

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

I had actually already posted this test both on Spiritual Forums (https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=143590) and on Doctissimo (a French forum, see https://forum.doctissimo.fr/psychol...ation/test-telepathie-ecrit-sujet_60508_1.htm) a few days before.

In the French test, I got 8 answers, 4 of which were "attacked". Two people (25%) gave the correct answer ("2022").

I assume the high number of "attacked" answers ("attaquée" in French) was because people wanted to express their disapproval after Putin's invasion.

The two participants who gave the correct response seemed to do so in a "special" way.

The first person who gave the correct answer (apparently a female, her member name was Safraniamagik, she deleted her account later), said:

Bonjour Ukraine , à bientôt pour la rep ( maintenant ça n’arrête pas de me dire cetais 2022 )

Hello Ukraine, see you soon for the answer (now it doesn't stop telling me it was 2022)

(I decided her answer was 2022 because this was the last answer she gave, that's what I usually do).

Then, after I gave the correct answer, she posted the comment:

Ahah faut que j’écoute + la petite voix dans la tête . J’aime bien ce genre de poste merci

Aah I need to listen more to the little voice in my head. I like this kind of post thank you

So, from Safraniamagik, we learned that, apparently, the correct answer came from "the little voice in her head".

The other correct answer, by Bea47, was a little special too, but much less extraordinary:

Bonsoir
Je dirai 2022
Bonnes fêtes de Pâques.
Cordialement

Good evening
I shall say 2022
Happy Easter.
Cordially

This answer stands out a little bit because it is so extremely kind and polite.

When an average Joe (telepathically speaking) does an online telepathy test, he probably doesn't get replies like "now it doesn't stop telling me it was 2022" and "I need to listen more to the little voice in my head" which are similar to Loss Leader's:

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

, because all these answers suggest a phenomenon of extra-sensory communication.

Loss Leader, as a male, was claiming he was actively reading my mind. But Safraniamagik, as a female, was more ready to accept that the right answer had been communicated to her, by some mysterious voice (and this was probably more accurate).

 

[Pixel42]

So that's "No, I haven't been able to find anyone who agrees with my interpretation of Loss Leader's post", then. What a surprise.

"What a surprise" is sarcasm. Did you recognise it?

 

[JayUtah]

Even though this post, written in 2013 by a generally respected moderator of the (then) James Randi Educational Foundation, in which he gave the correct answer to one of my tests, is still of interest, in my opinion.

Stop dragging his name through the mud for the sake of your ego. You admit you suffer from a mental illness, one of the symptoms of which is an inability to detect sarcasm. The rest of us are not so debilitated. Everyone but you saw the sarcasm, and we know why you didn't. Give it a rest.

These tests are always a delicate matter, and it is important that the volunteers I rely on can feel comfortable, and not threatened.

You were shown protocols that would ensure the honesty and statistical validity of your data without having to risk currying the favor of your subjects. You are not an expert in this sort of science. You are not the teacher. You don't get to dictate to your betters how their science should best be done.

I assume the high number of "attacked" answers ("attaquée" in French) was because people wanted to express their disapproval after Putin's invasion.

This is a stretch, even for you.

The two participants who gave the correct response seemed to do so in a "special" way.

None of this matters. You're applying your own special ad hoc judgment after the fact to cherry-pick the answers you want. Everything about your description is, in one way or another, completely antithetical to scientific practice.

This answer stands out a little bit because it is so extremely kind and polite.

This has nothing to do with whether you have telepathic powers.

When an average Joe (telepathically speaking) does an online telepathy test, he probably...

No. You have no clue how to conduct a properly controlled experiment. You're simply making up ad hoc reasons after the fact to post-justify choosing only the data that satisfies your ego.

You are not a scientist.

 

[Michel H]

A simple telepathy test: which sentence did I write?

A new test proposed to you ...

I recently wrote (and circled), on a piece of paper beside me, one of the following four sentences:
(1) Russia withdraws from conquered territories since February.
(2) Crimea and the people's republics belong to Russia.
(3) Ukraine doesn't join NATO.
(4) Sanctions are lifted, trade resumes normally.

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

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

 

[junkshop]

Michel, I'm sending you a message. Please act upon it.

 

[Pixel42]

Michel, we have explained to you over and over again why your tests are utterly pointless and prove absolutely nothing. A fundamentally flawed test will never produce meaningful results, no matter how many times you run it. You might convince scientifically illiterate people elsewhere to participate, but all you have ever received here is sarcasm and mockery. Since we finally understood why that is not an appropriate response in your case, even that kind of participation has ceased.

A popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[wollery]

I don't think many people would be interested in commenting objectively now a post which was written up 9 years ago (and is self-evident):

Even though this post, written in 2013 by a generally respected moderator of the (then) James Randi Educational Foundation, in which he gave the correct answer to one of my tests, is still of interest, in my opinion.

Harassing a forum member (Vel, in this case, cf. https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=143590) who was kind enough to participate in one of my tests in a meaningful and qualitative way is really the last thing I want to do.

I am not going to send him/her private messages asking "Can you please tell me a little more about your May 2022 correct reply? (Vel's correct answer was posted a little more than a month after I had launched the test on Spiritual Forums).

These tests are always a delicate matter, and it is important that the volunteers I rely on can feel comfortable, and not threatened.

There is, however, something new I can show you (and to other readers of this thread) which seems to shed some light on "what actually goes on in the mind of correct answerers".

When I started a new telepathy test in April on this forum:

I had actually already posted this test both on Spiritual Forums (https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=143590) and on Doctissimo (a French forum, see https://forum.doctissimo.fr/psychol...ation/test-telepathie-ecrit-sujet_60508_1.htm) a few days before.

In the French test, I got 8 answers, 4 of which were "attacked". Two people (25%) gave the correct answer ("2022").

I assume the high number of "attacked" answers ("attaquée" in French) was because people wanted to express their disapproval after Putin's invasion.

The two participants who gave the correct response seemed to do so in a "special" way.

The first person who gave the correct answer (apparently a female, her member name was Safraniamagik, she deleted her account later), said:

(I decided her answer was 2022 because this was the last answer she gave, that's what I usually do).

Then, after I gave the correct answer, she posted the comment:


So, from Safraniamagik, we learned that, apparently, the correct answer came from "the little voice in her head".

The other correct answer, by Bea47, was a little special too, but much less extraordinary:


This answer stands out a little bit because it is so extremely kind and polite.

When an average Joe (telepathically speaking) does an online telepathy test, he probably doesn't get replies like "now it doesn't stop telling me it was 2022" and "I need to listen more to the little voice in my head" which are similar to Loss Leader's:

, because all these answers suggest a phenomenon of extra-sensory communication.

Loss Leader, as a male, was claiming he was actively reading my mind. But Safraniamagik, as a female, was more ready to accept that the right answer had been communicated to her, by some mysterious voice (and this was probably more accurate).

So, to summarise, you got a 25% hit rate for a test containing 4 options.

That’s exactly what you would expect from random chance, which agrees with the null hypothesis and indicates that you aren’t projecting messages.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[Mongrel]

Michel, I'm sending you a message. Please act upon it.

Was it the same one they used in Arkell v Pressdram?

 

[JayUtah]

A new test proposed to you ...

No. It's the same test methodology you've been peddling for years now. In every test, you include an element that allows you to subjectively post-justify your ad hoc, unblinded acceptance or rejection of the data with the stated goal of skewing it in your favor. Here you've polluted your potential responses with political subtext, allowing you to speculate on respondents' political biases instead of properly trying to eliminate or control for any such effect.

You're doing literally everything that good methodology says not to do. This is not science. You are not a scientist. What you're doing does not provide scientific proof of your claim to be telepathic.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

You've written all four of them repeatedly in the Ukraine invasion thread, and nobody takes them any more seriously there than we take your blatantly rigged tests here.

Remember, folks, the only winning move is not to play.

Dave

 

[Gamolon]

A new test proposed to you ...

I recently wrote (and circled), on a piece of paper beside me, one of the following four sentences:
(1) Russia withdraws from conquered territories since February.
(2) Crimea and the people's republics belong to Russia.
(3) Ukraine doesn't join NATO.
(4) Sanctions are lifted, trade resumes normally.

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

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

Why are you even picking sentences and then giving them out to people to choose from?

Wouldn't a better test be to get any number of people and you think/concentrate on a sentence WITHOUT giving them choices and see what they "receive" from you, if anything?

Someone with telepathy wouldn't need the power of suggestion to lead others to a correct answer.