Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Daylightstar]

... you answer my question in post 1674 (please give also ratings, ..., Daylightstar ...

As has been pointed out, the question is meaningless.
It's your attempt to generate opinions on credibility as if your credibility rating irrationality has any merit.
Which it doesn't have.

You will not receive numbers from me.

 

[Michel H]

You say that ...


... but then you make it clear that you are not open to that idea at all.

Your "hypothetical telepathy" is not accepted by society because everyone knows for a fact that they cannot hear your thoughts. Until you accept this as a possibility you are not open to the idea that you aren't telepathic.

There are many diagnosed schizophrenics who have accepted the help and medications of psychiatrists and are now living normal lives, no longer plagued by the paranoia and delusions from which you still suffer. Is it not arrogant of you to assume that they are all mistaken and you are the one that's right?

Let me ask you this: can you hear the thoughts of all the other undiagnosed or unmedicated schizophrenics who still believe as you do?

Well, I hear (often aggressive) voices in my head, but not "thoughts". There may be people who believe (or seem to believe) somewhat like me, but I think these cases are not as "real" as mine, as I have already explained (possible examples are Golfy, and the Chinese guy, who posted recently on this forum).
Things are not necessarily like what you read in books or news magazines, or in the DSM. Sometimes, "scientific revolutions" do happen. It's up to you to decide if you just want to defend a criminal and erroneous past, or help build the future.

 

[AdMan]

Note that I said "global criminal phenomenon", not "global criminal conspiracy" (it's a little bit different). Can I remain open to the possibility that there is actually no criminal phenomenon against me (in which many people are lying)? Yes, I think so; however the evidence points to a telepathic phenomenon (in my opinion). Note also that people are not always lying - and there are also half-lies, in which people lie, but in a way which makes it pretty clear they are.

No matter how you define it, thinking most people are acting (or thinking) against you is paranoid and irrational. It shows something is probably not all right with your own thinking, probably with your brain chemistry, not with the rest of the world. I think you are smart enough to know this, Michel.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Things are not necessarily like what you read in books or news magazines, or in the DSM. Sometimes, "scientific revolutions" do happen. It's up to you to decide if you just want to defend a criminal and erroneous past, or help build the future.

Things are not necessarily like what you think you're experiencing. Sometimes people simply lack a degree of mental health.
Even though they appear to function normally in one way, at the same time they utterly malfunction in another way.
Often, this is not observable by themselves.

 

[AdMan]

Well, I hear (often aggressive) voices in my head, but not "thoughts". There may be people who believe (or seem to believe) somewhat like me, but I think these cases are not as "real" as mine, as I have already explained (possible examples are Golfy, and the Chinese guy, who posted recently on this forum).
Things are not necessarily like what you read in books or news magazines, or in the DSM. Sometimes, "scientific revolutions" do happen. It's up to you to decide if you just want to defend a criminal and erroneous past, or help build the future.

I have read and heard of many cases where schizophrenics hear voices--I understand that is a main symptom of the disease. I understand that these "voices" are pretty much indistinguishable from actual voices--they aren't perceived as "thoughts". So I am not sure how your own experience is different.

 

[Pixel42]

Well, I hear (often aggressive) voices in my head, but not "thoughts". There may be people who believe (or seem to believe) somewhat like me, but I think these cases are not as "real" as mine, as I have already explained (possible examples are Golfy, and the Chinese guy, who posted recently on this forum).

To the other schizophrenics who believe everyone else can hear their thoughts their case is the one that's real and yours (as they know they cannot hear your thoughts) is the one that isn't. None of those who have posted here have ever mentioned being able to hear the thoughts of any other, including you. Does that really not give you pause?

Things are not necessarily like what you read in books or news magazines, or in the DSM. Sometimes, "scientific revolutions" do happen.

The typical delusions of a typical schizophrenic are not going to start a scientific revolution.

It's up to you to decide if you just want to defend a criminal and erroneous past, or help build the future.

The only thing I want to do is help you accept the reality of your situation so that you will then accept the real help that is available to you.

 

[Michel H]

You're mincing words, and didn't really answer my question as to whether you are able to consider the possibility that this is all in your mind.

I am still open to the possibility that I am not telepathic, not to the possibility that is "all in my mind", because I have received testimonies indicating I am "telepathic".

As to evidence of a "telepathic phenomenon," at least in this forum you haven't been able to present any.

This sounds like a blatant lie, see for example post 1726.
You might also want to look at this webpage: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100703134559AAR70yj (already mentioned on this forum).
I asked:
Do you sometimes have the odd impression of "knowing what I think" because of an unusual telepathy phenomenon?

My (first) name is Michel, I live near Brussels (Belgium).

Yahoo member im answered:
Well, I nearly always know what you think ....

This is just an example. One may ask the question whether people who don't accept that this is evidence are not in great need of the psychological treatment themselves (even if they try to impose one to others).

 

[Pixel42]

Why do you believe the occasional person who seems to agree with you that you are telepathic rather than the much larger number of people who don't?

Why do you assume it's the vast majority who are lying, rather than the tiny minority?

If the few examples of people seeming to agree with you (in reality choosing to have a bit of fun with you) is evidence that you are telepathic then why isn't the much greater number of examples of people telling you they cannot hear your thoughts much more compelling evidence that you are not?

 

[Michel H]

...
The typical delusions of a typical schizophrenic are not going to start a scientific revolution.
...

I am not a "typical schizophrenic", because "typical schizophrenics" don't have a Ph.D. in physics degree from a large U.S. university (as far as I know). And if you look at the answers I have received in my tests, some of them are clearly not typical either (post 1726).

 

[AdMan]

I am still open to the possibility that I am not telepathic, not to the possibility that is "all in my mind", because I have received testimonies indicating I am "telepathic".

This sounds like a blatant lie, see for example post 1726.

Yet more examples showing that you are completely unable to detect sarcasm or humor? I think we've had more than enough of those.

 

[Pixel42]

I am not a "typical schizophrenic", because "typical schizophrenics" don't have a Ph.D. in physics degree from a large U.S. university (as far as I know).

John Forbes Nash was a Nobel prize winning mathematician. He also had the typical delusions of a typical schizophrenic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.

And if you look at the answers I have received in my tests, some of them are clearly not typical either (post 1726).

Sarcastic replies on a thread like this are pretty typical of this forum.

 

[AdMan]

I am not a "typical schizophrenic", because "typical schizophrenics" don't have a Ph.D. in physics degree from a large U.S. university (as far as I know). And if you look at the answers I have received in my tests, some of them are clearly not typical either (post 1726).

I don't believe schizophrenia is related in any way to intelligence, and intelligence does not protect you from schizophrenia. So pointing out how intelligent you are in no way helps to show that you are not schizophrenic, especially given your other beliefs and symptoms.

 

[Michel H]

Why do you believe the occasional person who seems to agree with you that you are telepathic rather than the much larger number of people who don't?

Why do you assume it's the vast majority who are lying, rather than the tiny minority?

If the few examples of people seeming to agree with you (in reality choosing to have a bit of fun with you) is evidence that you are telepathic then why isn't the much greater number of examples of people telling you they cannot hear your thoughts much more compelling evidence that you are not?

One reason is that people who deny that I am telepathic frequently display some kind of aggressivity or violence, and are therefore less credible. And this brings me back to the essential concept of credibility, about which I created this thread. Another reason is that my mother once told me very seriously and kindly that I was "telepathic", and I have only one mother (later, she proved it in telepathy tests, that she has refused to repeat). It seems very hard to imagine that my mother, who is a serious person (she apparently once obtained a patent for a nuclear engineering company) would have said such a thing without basis.

 

[AdMan]

One reason is that people who deny that I am telepathic frequently display some kind of aggressivity or violence, and are therefore less credible. And this brings me back to the essential concept of credibility, about which I created this thread. Another reason is that my mother once told me very seriously and kindly that I was "telepathic", and I have only one mother (later, she proved it in telepathy tests, that she has refused to repeat). It seems very hard to imagine that my mother, who is a serious person (she apparently once obtained a patent for a nuclear engineering company) would have said such a thing without basis.

So one of the main reasons you believe you are telepathic is because your very serious (and only one) mother (who got a patent at one point, never mind that has nothing to do with this at all) told you you were telepathic?

Are you serious?

How in the world would you think this would add any credibility to your claims?

Prove your telepathy in a proper double-blind test and win a million dollars, and then we will believe you.

 

[Michel H]

John Forbes Nash was a Nobel prize winning mathematician. He also had the typical delusions of a typical schizophrenic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.

But that doesn't mean that PhDs in Physics or Nobel prizes in Economics are typical schizophrenics. You may also note that his "symptoms" started appearing in 1959, about one year after I was born . This might not be a complete coincidence, in my opinion.

Sarcastic replies on a thread like this are pretty typical of this forum.

You may do the instructive exercise of comparing my threads to those of other "psychic claimants". You will see some big differences, I think, of which post 1726 gives examples.

 

[Pixel42]

But that doesn't mean that PhDs in Physics or Nobel prizes in Economics are typical schizophrenics.

What makes a schizophrenic a typical schizophrenic is their symptoms, not their profession. Your symptoms (paranoia, hearing hostile voices, believing others can hear your thoughts) are typical symptoms of schizophrenia, therefore you are a typical schizophrenic. So was Nash, despite his (extraordinary, especially given his illness) accomplishments.

You may also note that his "symptoms" started appearing in 1959, about one year after I was born . This might not be a complete coincidence, in my opinion

Oh good grief.

You may do the instructive exercise of comparing my threads to those of other "psychic claimants". You will see some big differences, of which post 1726 gives examples.

I've followed many such threads, and sarcastic responses are all too common even when the nature of the OP's problems are clear from the beginning. The only thing different about this one is that you initially presented as a serious researcher, so it took a while for many posters (including me) to realise that such responses were inappropriate.

 

[AdMan]

You may do the instructive exercise of comparing my threads to those of other "psychic claimants". You will see some big differences, I think, of which post 1726 gives examples.

That post yet again shows you are incapable of detecting sarcasm and humor.

 

[fromdownunder]

Usually, as a rule, when several answers are given I retain only the last one (the last ones in this case, since there are two credibilities which should be given here). However, since you seem to be in a mood to make changes, I think your two credibilities would be more interesting if they were different, corresponding to the two different hypothetical answers in post 1674.

OK, I will give you two different answers to the questions.

One of the question's credibility is 3.999999999
The other question's credibility is 4.000000001

Is that better? If you don't like this one, I can give you another answer. Which answer would you prefer? Tell me and I will give you the answer you want if that will make it easier.

Norm

 

[fromdownunder]

Michel, did you post a letter in the past week and start thinking about stamps? Because I got a sudden urge to buy this:

I wonder whether or not your telepathic power is suddenly urging me to buy stamps from Belgium.

Norm

 

[fromdownunder]

I've followed many such threads, and sarcastic responses are all too common even when the nature of the OP's problems are clear from the beginning. The only thing different about this one is that you initially presented as a serious researcher, so it took a while for many posters (including me) to realise that such responses were inappropriate.

I still need evidence for this. I am not convinced that Michel is all the he seems to be. As long as he claims to be normal, I will treat him as such, and respond accordingly.

Norm