Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Akhenaten]

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

Clearly those answers weren't credible enough.

...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 successful, I really do not care. You are the one with the problem, not me.

Norm.

At least he's consistent.

 

[Michel H]

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

...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.

It's so great that I got post 1675 after post 1675 (just kidding). Nevertheless, I think I must admit again there is some truth in what you said.
So, I shall say, instead of saying that I got no answer at all to my opening question, that I only got a few answers of very low quality to this question (in order to be more accurate ). I am sure you can do better. So, I repeat: I request that each of you gives a credibility rating (between -10 and 10) to each of the two hypothetical answers in the OP (post 1674). I think this might really help me greatly in my telepathy research. Thank you.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

What a weird and frightening fantasyland you have invented for yourself to live in.

My impression from the tests (especially on this forum) is that there are few people who really "don't know".

Everybody else's impression is that nobody knows.

Doesn't the fact that different people can draw different conclusions from exactly the same tests tell you anything at all?

Perhaps "impressions" aren't the same as "scientifically repeatable results".

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.

No, it would be useful for you to finally comprehend what's been explained to you over and over - the credibility issue is what turns your alleged ESP tests into a complete joke.

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.

To say that you're overthinking things here is the understatement of the millenium.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

I think this might really help me greatly in my telepathy research. Thank you.

You're not doing any telepathy research. In fact, you adamantly refuse the help of those here who have offered it.

 

[AdMan]

It's so great that I got post 1675 after post 1675 (just kidding). Nevertheless, I think I must admit again there is some truth in what you said.
So, I shall say, instead of saying that I got no answer at all to my opening question, that I only got a few answers of very low quality to this question (in order to be more accurate ). I am sure you can do better. So, I repeat: I request that each of you gives a credibility rating (between -10 and 10) to each of the two hypothetical answers in the OP (post 1674). I think this might really help me greatly in my telepathy research. Thank you.

There is no such thing, except in your own mind, as a "credibility rating". It is a purely subjective rating you've been giving which is utterly worthless from a scientific point of view. It springs from your own desire to believe you are telepathic and not accept you are likely very deluded due to an illness you may be suffering from.

Are you willing to consider that possibility?

 

[Michel H]

... you try to justify your unjustifiable belief that your tests are succesful ...

No evidence at all for telepathy?

... 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, and if you haven't felt it, you don't know what it's like. ...

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

All three answers above were numerically correct (this was verified rigorously using MD5 hashes). I also analysed many other answers using my credibility technique.

 

[Pixel42]

This is why I always wince when I see jokey or sarcastic responses during Michel's tests. It's been clear from the start that Michel is unable to detect humour or sarcasm.

 

[AdMan]

All three answers above were numerically correct (this was verified rigorously using MD5 hashes). I also analysed many other answers using my credibility technique.

All three answers were very obviously sarcastic. They were not serious. They were making fun of your test. The fact you're unable to understand this makes it clear you really cannot evaluate the "credibility" of an answer.

 

[fromdownunder]

Deleted.

Norm

 

[Michel H]

This is why I always wince when I see jokey or sarcastic responses during Michel's tests. It's been clear from the start that Michel is unable to detect humour or sarcasm.

I detected no humour or sarcasm in the three answers quoted above, after an experience of several years of (online) telepathy testing. I might also add that the author of the third answer cited above, Loss Leader, is a moderator (who is still very active, "in spite of" what he said) and this might give his answer special credibility (it might perhaps be argued that he is the most active moderator in the most active paranormal forum (with a scientific orientation) in the world). He, however, seemed to change his mind later, something that I deplore (I also disagree with some of his moderator decisions, but it's not the end of the world). I can also reveal to you that a psychiatrist in a large university hospital near my home also fairly clearly admitted that I was "telepathic" (I think that took place in 1998).

 

[AdMan]

I detected no humour or sarcasm in the three answers quoted above, after an experience of several years of (online) telepathy testing. I might also add that the author of the third answer cited above, Loss Leader, is a moderator (who is still very active, "in spite of" what he said) and this might give his answer special credibility (it might perhaps be argued that he is the most active moderator in the most active paranormal forum (with a scientific orientation) in the world). He, however, seemed to change his mind later, something that I deplore (I also disagree with some of his moderator decisions, but it's not the end of the world). I can also reveal to you that a psychiatrist in a large university hospital near my home also fairly clearly admitted that I was "telepathic" (I think that took place in 1998).

You detected no humor or sarcasm because I think you are unable to because of your condition, but, believe me, the posts weren't serious. Loss Leader I believe wasn't acting as a moderator when he posted, and he wasn't being serious either, IMO.

The big reveal that a psychiatrist admitted you were "telepathic" is worthless without any evidence, as you'll know, having posted here for a while.

 

[MikeG]

I detected no humour or sarcasm in the three answers quoted above, .......

..... I can also reveal to you that a psychiatrist in a large university hospital near my home also fairly clearly admitted that I was "telepathic".......

You've admitted you don't "get" sarcasm. Let me help you: your psychiatrist was being sarcastic.

 

[Pixel42]

I detected no humour or sarcasm in the three answers quoted above

Which proves my point, as it could hardly be more obvious to everyone else that these posts were not meant seriously.

I can also reveal to you that a psychiatrist in a large university hospital near my home also fairly clearly admitted that I was "telepathic" (I think that took place in 1998).

I am quite sure you misunderstood whatever it was your psychiatrist said, just as you misunderstood these three posts.

 

[Pixel42]

You detected no humor or sarcasm because I think you are unable to because of your condition, but, believe me, the posts weren't serious.

Of course we can easily tell this, because we have the advantage of knowing for a fact that we can't hear Michel's thoughts. As long as Michel is convinced that we can all hear his thoughts but that most of us are lying about it he must continue to fail to detect the humour and sarcasm in posts like the ones he quotes, so that he can instead believe they are rare cases of honesty.

 

[Daylightstar]

This is why I always wince when I see jokey or sarcastic responses during Michel's tests. It's been clear from the start that Michel is unable to detect humour or sarcasm.

I suspect he actually can detect it, but that he rejects it as such only to attempt to use it to bolster his claim.

 

[Daylightstar]

All three answers were very obviously sarcastic. They were not serious. They were making fun of your test. The fact you're unable to understand this makes it clear you really cannot evaluate the "credibility" of an answer.

I suspect he actually knows it was intended as such. I also suspect that he will use anything to bolster his claim or manufacture a 'result'.

Anything to support the irrational belief.

 

[Michel H]

You've admitted you don't "get" sarcasm. ...

No, I don't think I ever said such a thing.

 

[SezMe]

So, I repeat: I request that each of you gives a credibility rating (between -10 and 10) to each of the two hypothetical answers in the OP (post 1674). I think this might really help me greatly in my telepathy research. Thank you.

It seems to be a reasonable request so I'll try to respond. I give credibility ratings of -3.8309 and 9.000000034. I hope the level of significant digits is acceptable to further your research.

So, what, if anything, do you deduce from my response?

ETA: The order of my numbers may, or may not, coincide with the order of your numbered questions.

 

[MikeG]

No, I don't think I ever said such a thing.

You missed the sarcasm in 3 of the most blatantly sarcastic posts it is possible to imagine, and admitted that you had. So, yes, you did say such a thing.

 

[Michel H]

It seems to be a reasonable request so I'll try to respond. I give credibility ratings of -3.8309 and 9.000000034. I hope the level of significant digits is acceptable to further your research.

So, what, if anything, do you deduce from my response?

ETA: The order of my numbers may, or may not, coincide with the order of your numbered questions.

Thank you very much, Sezme, I think your answer to my request for credibility ratings is one of the best so far (and perhaps even the best). However, I think I detect a possible nonzero level of sarcasm (or attempted sarcasm) in your answer (because your credibility ratings have so many significant digits). In addition, I find your ETA somewhat unclear and concerning. So, I would say "good, but could be better"."