Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Michel H]

Michel H, this test contains the same, grave flaws as your previous ones, and people should not (and have not!) participate until you address those. Specifically, you need to fix your protocol because of two main problems, although there are still a host of smaller ones.

1) By requiring people to do a simple substitution and post the accompanying MD5 hash, it is very easy for you to cheat and simply test all four combinations in the hash generator to determine which people guessed correctly.

2) Choosing one of 4 numbers, without a great deal of repetition, is completely meaningless statistically speaking. The best solution would be to have people choose a number from a much larger range, such as 1-10000.

Also, if you are hearing voices again, especially voices telling you to harm yourself, you really should see a health care professional to make sure it isn't a symptom of something other than telepathy.

Hokulele, I'll try to answers the points you're making here.
(1) " By requiring people to do a simple substitution and post the accompanying MD5 hash, it is very easy for you to cheat and simply test all four combinations in the hash generator to determine which people guessed correctly."
I suspect you didn't read my opening post carefully. The objection you're making was a valid one for the opening post of my previous test, which was pointed out by Agatha, but is no longer valid for this test. Let me use an example. You decide to answer "1", you post "I am far away, but I am really almost sure your number is a xx.", and then the md5 hash of "1. yfgygh $ù^^) àçè§'"é!ç geswcpzhgf". Even if I have your MD5 hash, I am unable to determine that your numerical answer is a 1, because your hash was not produced from the string I am far away, but I am really almost sure your number is a 1.
(2) Choosing one of 4 numbers, without a great deal of repetition, is completely meaningless statistically speaking. The best solution would be to have people choose a number from a much larger range, such as 1-10000.
This is an "objection" which is made from time to time. Let me say this. If my number was 7532, the motivation for people to answer it correctly would probably be rather low, even if they can really actually do it, because of an extraordinary telepathic phenomenon without historical precedent. In addition, if many people answer in several threads I can possibly receive many answers, and theoretically reach statistical significance.
(3) Also, if you are hearing voices again, especially voices telling you to harm yourself, you really should see a health care professional to make sure it isn't a symptom of something other than telepathy.
In this thread, I would like to request that you (and other members) focus insofar as possible to telepathy aspects (and possibly technical ones, but in a smart way), rather than "medical" aspects. I suppose you can imagine the possibly bad consequences if the doctor lies, is dishonest, and gives possibly dangerous pseudo-medications.

 

[Michel H]

(Hokulele's post #7)

^^^^^^^^

Michael, please, please follow everything in this post.

Even if you don't think these issues are important, the vast majority of people here think they are.

Well, I have answered her now, I can only hope she will be satisfied with my answer, so that the same illegitimate stuff doesn't keep coming up again and again.

 

[Hokulele]

(2) Choosing one of 4 numbers, without a great deal of repetition, is completely meaningless statistically speaking. The best solution would be to have people choose a number from a much larger range, such as 1-10000.
This is an "objection" which is made from time to time. Let me say this. If my number was 7532, the motivation for people to answer it correctly would probably be rather low, even if they can really actually do it, because of an extraordinary telepathic phenomenon without historical precedent. In addition, if many people answer in several threads I can possibly receive many answers, and theoretically reach statistical significance.

No, you would have to repeat the test multiple times with the same people getting the same results to get any sort of statistical significance. Since you have no way of controlling for this, you need to use a larger range of numbers, or else this test is completely meaningless.

 

[Agatha]

Hokulele, I'll try to answers the points you're making here.
(1) " By requiring people to do a simple substitution and post the accompanying MD5 hash, it is very easy for you to cheat and simply test all four combinations in the hash generator to determine which people guessed correctly."
I suspect you didn't read my opening post carefully. The objection you're making was a valid one for the opening post of my previous test, which was pointed out by Agatha, but is no longer valid for this test. Let me use an example. You decide to answer "1", you post "I am far away, but I am really almost sure your number is a xx.", and then the md5 hash of "1. yfgygh $ù^^) àçè§'"é!ç geswcpzhgf". Even if I have your MD5 hash, I am unable to determine that your numerical answer is a 1, because your hash was not produced from the string I am far away, but I am really almost sure your number is a 1.

OK, but not particularly well explained in your OP.

(2) Choosing one of 4 numbers, without a great deal of repetition, is completely meaningless statistically speaking. The best solution would be to have people choose a number from a much larger range, such as 1-10000.
This is an "objection" which is made from time to time. Let me say this. If my number was 7532, the motivation for people to answer it correctly would probably be rather low, even if they can really actually do it, because of an extraordinary telepathic phenomenon without historical precedent. In addition, if many people answer in several threads I can possibly receive many answers, and theoretically reach statistical significance.

No. The motivation to answer is just the same whether we are to choose between the numbers 1 to 4 or the numbers 1 to 10,000. Limiting it to four numbers means the probability of people getting the right number by chance alone is a massive 25%, no matter how many runs or tests you do. By selecting from a greater range of numbers, the probability of people getting the right number by chance is much reduced.

(3) Also, if you are hearing voices again, especially voices telling you to harm yourself, you really should see a health care professional to make sure it isn't a symptom of something other than telepathy.
In this thread, I would like to request that you (and other members) focus insofar as possible to telepathy aspects (and possibly technical ones, but in a smart way), rather than "medical" aspects. I suppose you can imagine the possibly bad consequences if the doctor lies, is dishonest, and gives possibly dangerous pseudo-medications.

Then find a doctor whom you can trust. Most doctors will not lie, have no reason to be dishonest, and will always balance the benefits you will get from prescribed medication against the disadvantages from side-effects.

Unfortunately it's not possible to divorce the medical aspects of "telepathy" from any thread about it, as telepathy itself has never been shown to exist under controlled conditions. However, the feeling that people can hear your thoughts or that other people's thoughts are being transmitted to you are classic signs of some types of mental illness. Hearing voices, and in particular hostile voices, is another common symptom. There can be physical reasons for such illnesses, for example tumours in the brain, or the illnesses can be caused by chemical imbalances. Either way, consulting a doctor whom you can trust is very important to rule out illness as the cause of the feelings and voices.

 

[Michel H]

No, you would have to repeat the test multiple times with the same people getting the same results to get any sort of statistical significance. Since you have no way of controlling for this, you need to use a larger range of numbers, or else this test is completely meaningless.

No, I don't care whether answerers are the same or not, this is irrelevant. If there is no telepathy, answerers should be completely clueless as to the numbers I wrote and circled. If a pattern of correctness emerges, then, theoretically, it might be related to telepathy, especially if some people give strong testimonies in favor of telepathy.

 

[Hokulele]

No, I don't care whether answerers are the same or not, this is irrelevant.

Then this test is completely meaningless, statistically speaking, and I strongly urge everyone to refrain from participating.

 

[Agatha]

No, I don't care whether answerers are the same or not, this is irrelevant. If there is no telepathy, answerers should be completely clueless as to the numbers I wrote and circled. If a pattern of correctness emerges, then, theoretically, it might be related to telepathy, especially if some people give strong testimonies in favor of telepathy.

No, because people have a bias towards some numbers over others. Nothing to do with telepathy and everything to do with human tendency to prefer primes and odd numbers, and reluctance to choose the beginning or end number of a range. See for example: http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/02/05/is-17-the-most-random-number/

 

[Michel H]

No, because people have a bias towards some numbers over others. Nothing to do with telepathy and everything to do with human tendency to prefer primes and odd numbers, and reluctance to choose the beginning or end number of a range. See for example: http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/02/05/is-17-the-most-random-number/

Such things may possibly happen, but, if many people answer "3" for example (3 is both a prime and an odd number), this is unlikely to lead to success in my tests, because I generally try to use random target numbers.

 

[Giordano]

Such things may possibly happen, but, if many people answer "3" for example (3 is both a prime and an odd number), this is unlikely to lead to success in my tests, because I generally try to use random target numbers.

I thought you asked us to pick from 1, 2, 3, or 4? Or as in the last test, are you really going to score us not on the number, but "how certain we are"?

So if you really want to prove telepathy, do what the others here have suggested as a fair test. Not 1, 2, 3, 4 and then ignoring only the correct guesses based on what was written.

Also, even if you are feeling certain in your health and in your telepathy, everyone should see a doctor because anyone might have an invisible (to them) disorder that can be treated.

 

[Mudcat]

 

[bluesjnr]

Many years ago I used to frequent a forum (don't ask, I won't tell) which, amongst it's Illuminati, had a member called "Puppet Master". He was very good at setting up long range gotcha trolls, not unlike this one, upon the culmination of which he would post one word only.

"plink!"

To denote the sound of him twanging the collective strings of his respondents as they became his puppets.

Just saying.....................................

 

[Michel H]

I thought you asked us to pick from 1, 2, 3, or 4? Or as in the last test, are you really going to score us not on the number, but "how certain we are"?
. . .

I thought you asked us to pick from 1, 2, 3, or 4?
Yes, that's right, please choose from 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Or as in the last test, are you really going to score us not on the number, but "how certain we are"?
Well, I would like to credibility-score you based on the accompanying text you write. You have shown a great talent in this, on this forum, in the past (in writing good texts). Answer in a relaxed way (being relaxed does not exclude cleverness), replace the number by xx, and add an MD5 hash (see opening post), so that your (numerical) answer can no longer be changed. And you reveal the number later. I don't think it's really very complicated, and you can probably all relatively easily do it. The idea of using MD5 hashes was actually first proposed by you on this forum (I was not using MD5's before). If you had to choose between doing this test correctly and learning Chinese, what would you choose?

 

[AdMan]

I also ask you to write a comment, together with your numerical answer, or at least a small sentence.
In your comment, you may explain, for example, how confident you are that your number is the "correct" one, the one that I wrote. The comment you will write is important for me, in my method, because it should help me figure out if your answer is a quality one, a sincere answer, or just an answer of "inferior quality", which may nevertheless be interesting. I am planning to use your text to rate your answer, on a credibility scale between -10 and 10, like I did in my previous tests on this forum.

Please make sure it is not possible to infer your numerical answer from your comment (e.g. don't write: "I believe the correct answer is greater than one and smaller than three"). Otherwise, your answer will unfortunately have to be considered invalid.

A MD5 hash code for a complicated sentence containing my target number (like, for example: "The number I wrote is 5. f4315d 3b1àéùd81") is:
2ae41c33a0469b37b6c7848249026b0a

It was obtained on this website:
http://www.md5hashgenerator.com/ .

I shall reveal the actual sentence I used to produce this MD5 hash at the end of the test, after I have revealed the target. This way, you'll be able to verify my number.

In this thread, like in my previous test on this forum, I want to evaluate credibilities without any knowledge of the number you picked ("in a blind way"), to make sure that I don't get influenced or biased by the number you chose. This should make this test more rigorous, although at the cost of additional complexity. I hope this (rather minor) additional complexity will not deter you to participate in this test.

No.

Although your latest test is flawed in many ways, as others have pointed out, this bit makes it as bad as all your earlier ones. You cannot apply subjective measures to answers like this.

 

[godless dave]

The comment you will write is important for me, in my method, because it should help me figure out if your answer is a quality one, a sincere answer, or just an answer of "inferior quality", which may nevertheless be interesting. I am planning to use your text to rate your answer, on a credibility scale between -10 and 10, like I did in my previous tests on this forum.

This completely invalidates your test.

 

[Tomtomkent]

This is not a new test.

It is a slightly altered version of the old test that addresses none of the issues raised in previous threads and is not any more rigorous. The alteration is a new way of doing the exact same test.

The mods may aswell merge the threads.

 

[Tomtomkent]

For the record "reliability" is a prejudiced confirmation bias. The results that best match the desired number are retained, those that are wrong are ignored.

The only way to validate the test is to accept ALL responses and to ONLY look at the number.

Choosing out of four numbers is too small a sample size. Ideally you want four digits chosen from 0 to 9. More complex the sequence, the less likely the chances of guessing randomly, so the more obvious a significant result is.

 

[Ladewig]

I have just as much telepathy as you, Michel.

We can run tests all day long and as long as I can decide which answers are valid and which are not my success rate will be exactly equal to your success rate.

In fact everyone in this thread can demonstrate telepathy by using your protocol. So now we have to answer the question. Does everyone in this thread have telepathy or is the protocol flawed?

 

[Michel H]

I have just as much telepathy as you, Michael.

We can run tests all day long and as long as I can decide which answers are valid and which are not my success rate will be exactly equal to your success rate.

In fact everyone in this thread can demonstrate telepathy by using your protocol. So now we have to answer the question. Does everyone in this thread have telepathy or is the protocol flawed?

Well, after I have read your texts ("blinded" with 'xx'), I don't decide, of course, which are correct, and which ones are incorrect, because I don't know the actual numbers. I can, however, express appreciations on their credibilities, using my familiar "blinding" protocol. Now, if you actually tried to participate in this test, using exactly my specified protocol, perhaps this would be more useful than vain criticism (??). Even if you fail to guess the correct number (it would not be the end of the world), correctly applying this (hopefully) "rigorous" protocol could be of interest.

 

[AdMan]

Well, after I have read your texts ("blinded" with 'xx'), I don't decide, of course, which are correct, and which ones are incorrect, because I don't know the actual numbers. I can, however, express appreciations on their credibilities, using my familiar "blinding" protocol. Now, if you actually tried to participate in this test, using exactly my specified protocol, perhaps this would be more useful than vain criticism (??). Even if you fail to guess the correct number (it would not be the end of the world), correctly applying this (hopefully) "rigorous" protocol could be of interest.

Your protocol is anything but rigorous if you insist on one criterion to evaluate answers being your "appreciations on their credibilities." Can you really not see that?

 

[Michel H]

Your protocol is anything but rigorous if you insist on one criterion to evaluate answers being your "appreciations on their credibilities." Can you really not see that?

There is not just one criterion to evaluate answers, there are actually two: credibility and correctness. If "we" find that these two properties are correlated, then we may get some interesting results.