Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Loss Leader]

Giordano, you are not the first to make such a suggestion (and I wouldn't even be surprised if you had made it before on this forum, under its previous name). But actually real telepathy research is not conducted this way, even Randi did not recommend it (see here), J. B. Rhine for example used five "ESP cards", there are usually four possibilities in ganzfeld telepathy research. Using a (very) large number of possible answers, of "targets", has two drawback. First, my real (?) telepathic specificity, because it is real, is not "unlimited" (I am not attempting to do miracles here). So, if I had written "6743865454" on my modest sheet of paper for example, even if you were ("collectively") very honest, sincere and motivated, I think it might be really very difficult for you to psychically divine it. A second reason has to do with generosity and motivation. It seems that, for many people, even if they know a lot about my modest person through ESP because of a very rare and exceptional worldwide telepathy phenomenon, it is, so to speak, "internally very hard" to admit it. In addition, I am probably perceived as weak and isolated, with little support, and this, in our society can unfortunately sometimes have serious consequences, people might say to themselves "Why should I do it?". If the target pool is small, the psychological effort people have to provide is smaller, the risks of "giving away too much information" are perceived as more limited. If the target pool is large, people will have an impression of giving away a lot of info, and many will be very reluctant to do that.

By the way, I have not yet received an answer to my initial question: which answer is more credible? I also (ask and) invite you to give "credibility ratings" (between -10 and 10) to the two hypothetical answers given in the OP. If you give (in my opinion) good credibility ratings to these two answers (positive or negative), I will try to acknowledge it.

Translation: You have yet to say words I want to hear. Please redo your answer until it agrees with my preconceived notions.

 

[Ladewig]

One more time: if you wish to avoid possible lying and clueless recipients, just chose a number between 1 and a million. Then the guesses from those lying and the clueless will just disappear in the noise of having 1:1,000,000 chances of guessing a number at random, whereas even 5 people getting your number correctly would probably be statistically significant (given the total number of responders, of course). If you wish to get even better statistics, just repeat the experiment a few times with the people who got the right number the first time. Easy.

What would happen is that any guesses that were multiples of, factors of, or palindromes of the correct number would be fallaciously counted as _"hits_".

Furthermore the mind boggles at what new types of shoehorning would be invented.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

This would be more or less equivalent to doing several tests, each with ten different targets, and my latest test was precisely such a test, with ten different targets. But, I think that rather than repeating in an endless way the same kind of test, the issue of credibility should be clarified "in a neutral way". This is why I would like to urge you to answer the question at the end the OP (although the thread has now be merged). I am not Sylvia Browne.

She had far more charisma and was never dumb enough to lay out challenge details, thou she did take Randi up on the offer [never mentioned after ] a number of years before she passed.

 

[theprestige]

Huh. So the idea is that once you identify and remove the liars from the respondent pool, the results from the remaining respondents will do better than random chance in your telepathy test?

 

[AdMan]

Huh. So the idea is that once you identify and remove the liars from the respondent pool, the results from the remaining respondents will do better than random chance in your telepathy test?

Yup, and he gets to apply his "credibility rating" after he is aware of the respondents' answers, so he can (and has) simply eliminated those who get the wrong answer, based on his wholly subjective criteria.

It's a joke of a test, really.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yup, and he gets to apply his "credibility rating" after he is aware of the respondents' answers, so he can (and has) simply eliminated those who get the wrong answer, based on his wholly subjective criteria.

It's a joke of a test, really.

The "throw the results away of those who are deliberately fooling me by guessing wrongly too frequently" apparently explains JB Rhine's results.

 

[fromdownunder]

By the way, I have not yet received an answer to my initial question: which answer is more credible? I also (ask and) invite you to give "credibility ratings" (between -10 and 10) to the two hypothetical answers given in the OP. If you give (in my opinion) good credibility ratings to these two answers (positive or negative), I will try to acknowledge it.

Actually you got a number of answers to your original question. You simply did not like what the answers were. And you have had similar answers throughout this thread for all of your earlier pathetic and failed tests.

Retrofit that wherever you retrofit stuff you do not like, and answers that you do not agree with.

Norm

 

[Michel H]

Huh. So the idea is that once you identify and remove the liars from the respondent pool, the results from the remaining respondents will do better than random chance in your telepathy test?

Not exactly, the situation is unfortunately more complicated than that, because some people might be honest in one test, and then decide it's no longer fun to be honest, and either disappear and no longer participate in the tests, or decide to lie in the next test. My impression from the tests (especially on this forum) is that there are few people who really "don't know". In order to make some progress, it would be useful to develop some kind of agreement on what constitutes a credible answer, this is why I started this new discussion. However, it's possible that most of you are scared like death to enter such a debate, because you fear (without saying it) it might open the door to the truth on telepathy, this may be why my question at the end of post 1674 (which started this new discussion) has not yet received a single answer, and tends to be ignored, many of you seem to prefer to repeat stereotyped and (in my opinion at least) groundless criticism, perhaps such an attitude is more comfortable and reassuring to many of you, you prefer to live in your skeptical Disneyland, rather than in the real world. I also note that the technique of systematic thread merger, without the agreement or consultation of the opening poster, has also the practical consequence of sabotaging my work and efforts. In this way, the opening post is quickly forgotten, and the door is open for making very general contemptuous statements, without analyzing or studying too much.

 

[Loss Leader]

perhaps such an attitude is more comfortable and reassuring

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Michel H]

Then how did you do in your latest test? My understanding was that you did very poorly, and that no one guessed the target number. ...

The results of my latest test (together with its opening post) may be found here.

But then, I don't remember the repetition of the tests. How did all the numbers work out?

I recommend the first two tests on this forum (which, in my opinion, gave the best results):
test1: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8523568#post8523568
analysis1: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8607740#post8607740
test2: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9444439#post9444439
analysis2: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9516155#post9516155

Why would I give you an answer to your question if you already did the test the our suggested way where reliability or perceived reliability would not play a role?

Not sure I understand your question well, but I have actually studied reliabilities of answers in all five tests done so far on this forum.

 

[Ladewig]

Not exactly, the situation is unfortunately more complicated than that, because some people might be honest in one test, and then decide it's no longer fun to be honest, and either disappear and no longer participate in the tests, or decide to lie in the next test. My impression from the tests (especially on this forum) is that there are few people who really "don't know". In order to make some progress, it would be useful to develop some kind of agreement on what constitutes a credible answer, this is why I started this new discussion. However, it's possible that most of you are scared like death to enter such a debate, because you fear (without saying it) it might open the door to the truth on telepathy, this may be why my question at the end of post 174 (which started this new discussion) has not yet received a single answer, and tends to be ignored, many of you seem to prefer to repeat stereotyped and (in my opinion at least) groundless criticism, perhaps such an attitude is more comfortable and reassuring to many of you, you prefer to live in your skeptical Disneyland, rather than in the real world. I also note that the technique of systematic thread merger, without the agreement or consultation of the opening poster, has also the practical consequence of sabotaging my work and efforts. In this way, the opening post is quickly forgotten, and the door is open for making very general contemptuous statements, without analyzing or studying too much.

If the site is full of unpredictable liars with a paralyzingly fear of seeing evidence of telepathy, then I defy you to list a worse website on which to run your tests.

You have complained about every single aspect of this thread.
You have questioned our intelligence, our open-mindedness, and our motivations.
You have accused us of perversely trying to prevent you from your one over-riding goal.

This is a free and open board and you are welcome to continue to do all those things. But please stop pretending that any progress has been made up until this point and please stop pretending that future progress of any form can be made. It is a dead end. Every page from this point forward will look like every previous page. Testing for telepathy here (using your methods) is a dead end. Testing for telepathy here (using your methods) is a fool's errand.

Your last post admitted that it is impossible to make progress here.
Please re-read your last post and believe everything you wrote.

 

[fromdownunder]

However, it's possible that most of you are scared like death to enter such a debate, because you fear (without saying it) it might open the door to the truth on telepathy, this may be why my question at the end of post 174

Actually it was Post 1674, and as I said, and you chose to completely ignore in your dream world:

...you got a number of answers to your original question. You simply did not like what the answers were. And you have had similar answers throughout this thread for all of your earlier pathetic and failed tests.

Retrofit that wherever you retrofit stuff you do not like, and answers that you do not agree with. You don't want answers, you want agreement, and that is simply not going to happen.

Norm

 

[Pixel42]

Sure, it is possible to design an ESP test with no credibility evaluation (the test you did yourself on this forum is an example of such a test), but, if I did such a test with no credibility assessment, it would probably "fail" (i.e. give results which agree with pure chance), like your test did "fail". Clearly, whether respondents are serious and honest or not is of central importance:

You are starting with the assumption that telepathy exists, that everybody can hear your thoughts, and that most, if not all, of the respondents who give the wrong answer are deliberately lying.

If telepathy does not exist then a test which gives a negative result is a successful test, not a 'failed' one.

Everybody who has participated in one of your tests knows that they cannot hear your thoughts and are simply guessing a number at random. I know you will never accept that, but it is the truth.

 

[Akhenaten]

Let's assume some individual, say A, conducts from time to time telepathy tests with other persons. In these tests, he (assuming this person is a male) is always the "sender"; during his experiments, he focuses on integral numbers (ranging, say, from 1 to 5 inclusive), views them several times and repeats them silently (with his "inner voice"), attempting to communicate them to his current partner. All precautionary measures are assumed to have been taken to make sure there is no sensory leak, e. g. there is a suitable screen between A and his partners, his partners are too far to be able to see and identify the number through visual perception, and so on.

A has received in particular two answers.

I actually assume that A is far more likely to have received an avalanche of answers explaining why his test is a complete farce, but he will have ignored almost all of them.

Answer 1:
I have really no idea what your number is. Nonetheless, I answer "3", but I warn you this is a completely random choice.

Answer 2:
In this answer, the other person seems to take A's test more seriously. She/he says:
I believe it's a 2, I think I saw it briefly like on my "mental screen". I also feel I "heard it", but with an impoverished sound, not a sound with all the harmonic richness and frequencies that you usually perceive when you listen to a sound propagating in the air, with your ears (provided you have a good sense of hearing, of course).

Now my question is: which (numerical) answer seems more credible to you? The first one (3), or the second one (2)? Note that I am not asking here which answer (in the sense of "set of words") is more credible, but, rather, which numerical answer is more credible, taking the words into account.

Neither is more credible than the other.

I ask this question because I've found that assessing credibilities was an important aspect in the online telepathy tests I've been doing.

No, you've found no such thing. You've arbitrarily decided that this is the case despite receiving the same avalanche of objections to such foolishness as A did.

 

[Michel H]

Actually it was Post 1674 ...

Yes, that's right, thank you for pointing out this error, I corrected post 1708.

...you got a number of answers to your original question.

No, I don't think so. In post 1674 (which started this new discussion), I presented two hypothetical answers , and I asked you to tell me which one was the most credible (the interest of this question lies in the fact that such a judgement would come from you, rather than from me, that would be a big change). Later (in post 1696), I requested that you give me credibility ratings for these same two answers. So far, many attacks as usual , but nobody has told me which answer is the most credible, and nobody (including you, fromdownunder) has given me credibility ratings. Credibility ratings seem, however, to be essential and of central importance in this research.
Correction and update: I have now read Akhenaten's post above, who said:

Neither is more credible than the other.

(thank you, Akhenaten). However, he gave no credibility rating. I would like that each of you gives a credibility rating for each answer of post 1674.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think it's necessary to take into account the fact that some subjects might lie, or might really not know the number, and the words that are said might give precious (and even perhaps indispensable) clues about that.

You can't take any of these things into account because you have absolutely no idea which, if any, of them are in play.

This has been demonstrated to you in previous iterations of this silly test.

Remember, this is a psychology experiment, and, in a psychology experiment, you better take psychological factors into consideration.

Oh, we are. Trouble is we have to keep most of our conclusions to ourselves to stay within the MA.

If you all agree that one (numerical) answer definitely seems more credible than the other (without knowing the correct number that the researcher viewed, of course), this could therefore be of great interest, I think.

And if the vast majority agree that no answer can be known to be more credible than any other you'll simply ignore us and attempt to conduct exactly the same utterly pointless test that you've tried three five times already.

If you (members of this forum) don't know the correct number, you can't be biased.

But since you have no possible way of knowing if any of us knows the number (this is, after all, what the bloody test is supposed to demonstrate) then you have no way of knowing who is biased and who is not.

That's why this whole credibility rating nonsense needs to be removed.

 

[Akhenaten]

Since the respondent does not actually know the correct number, they can't actually lie about it. They may lie about what they think it is but in such cases the quantum psychic energy field actually places the correct answer into their "lying" response.

Why cannot Michel understand this simple principle when it's so obvious to the rest of us?

 

[Akhenaten]

Sure, it is possible to design an ESP test with no credibility evaluation (the test you did yourself on this forum is an example of such a test), but, if I did such a test with no credibility assessment, it would probably "fail" (i.e. give results which agree with pure chance), like your test did "fail".

You do not understand what "failure" means in this context.

Certainly, a properly designed test may fail to demonstrate ESP, but in so doing the test will have been successful.

In exactly the same way, a biopsy may fail to reveal the presence of cancerous cells but you certainly wouldn't describe the procedure as having failed.

Your tests, however, fail in every possible way according to every possible nuance of the word.

Clearly, whether respondents are serious and honest or not is of central importance:

If that's the case then you need to start another series of tests in another thread because this is most definitely not what you set out to demonstrate in this thread.

 

[fromdownunder]

No, I don't think so. In post 1674 (which started this new discussion), I presented two hypothetical answers , and I asked you to tell me which one was the most credible (the interest of this question lies in the fact that such a judgement would come from you, rather than from me, that would be a big change).

And Posts 1675, 1676, 1677 and 1679 were direct answers to your question, so then...

Later (in post 1696), I requested that you give me credibility ratings for these same two answers. So far, many attacks as usual , but nobody has told me which answer is the most credible, and nobody (including you, fromdownunder) has given me credibility ratings.

...you had to move the goalposts yet again as you have through every "test" (if that is the word I am groping for) that you have made here, simply because you do not like the answers you get. Your post 1674 DID get direct answers. If you want to deny these after the event, as you try to justify your unjustifiable belief that your tests are succesful, I really do not care. You are the one with the problem, not me.

Norm.

 

[Akhenaten]

Giordano, you are not the first to make such a suggestion (and I wouldn't even be surprised if you had made it before on this forum, under its previous name). But actually real telepathy research is not conducted this way, even Randi did not recommend it (see here), J. B. Rhine for example used five "ESP cards", there are usually four possibilities in ganzfeld telepathy research.

Real telepathy research? Is that what you think is going on here?

Using a (very) large number of possible answers, of "targets", has two drawback. First, my real (?) telepathic specificity, because it is real, is not "unlimited" (I am not attempting to do miracles here).

Yes, you are.

So, if I had written "6743865454" on my modest sheet of paper for example, even if you were ("collectively") very honest, sincere and motivated, I think it might be really very difficult for you to psychically divine it.

Why?

And in answering, please keep in mind that you're really in no position to be making up limitations for something that's never been demonstrated to exist.

You might just as well try to explain why dragons can't exceed the speed of sound.

A second reason has to do with generosity and motivation. It seems that, for many people, even if they know a lot about my modest person through ESP because of a very rare and exceptional worldwide telepathy phenomenon, it is, so to speak, "internally very hard" to admit it.

That's pure fantasy based on your uninformed and apparently unshakeable belief that you have this power. You're not just assuming the consequent, your entire way of thinking is welded to it.

In addition, I am probably perceived as weak and isolated, with little support, and this, in our society can unfortunately sometimes have serious consequences, people might say to themselves "Why should I do it?".

That's gobbledygook. Or projection. Whatever it is, it doesn't make a scrap of sense.

If the target pool is small, the psychological effort people have to provide is smaller, the risks of "giving away too much information" are perceived as more limited. If the target pool is large, people will have an impression of giving away a lot of info, and many will be very reluctant to do that.

How in blazes do you figure that normal people (us) are going to be concerned about "giving away too much information" by writing down a six digit number?

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

By the way, I have not yet received an answer to my initial question: which answer is more credible? I also (ask and) invite you to give "credibility ratings" (between -10 and 10) to the two hypothetical answers given in the OP. If you give (in my opinion) good credibility ratings to these two answers (positive or negative), I will try to acknowledge it.

You don't actually read much of the thread at all, do you?