Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
I think my method can work too (though it doesn't have a hash in this test), and is more sensitive, in order to possibly detect a real telepathic effect. I do believe you will probably do your test in a rigorous fashion (like you probably did last time, I read all your thread), but it seems to be inspired by a skeptical philosophy, and seems to be designed to fail. Which, in a sense, is logical, because people really probably do not know most of your thoughts (fortunately for you). As far as I know, you are not a "telepathic phenomenon", an individual with an "overdimensioned telepathy" like myself (it seems) ;) .
Click to expand...

There's the giveaway- the test doesn't fail if the "telepath" does; in fact, the test succeeds either way. That you can't see this says a lot about the rigor of your own test. I mean, come on- a test with only one in three odds against the right answer (one in four if, for some reason, you've actually chosen "I don't know" as the correct one) is "more sensitive" than one with one in 100,000?
 
Michel H said:
I reserve, however, the right to analyse answers for credibility, in an open and public way. This may be controversial, especially on this forum, but is also essential, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


And the fact that you continue to insist on this continues to make your "tests" completely worthless as actual scientific experiments.
 
AdMan said:
And the fact that you continue to insist on this continues to make your "tests" completely worthless as actual scientific experiments.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I can quote Dan O. :
Dan O. said:
...

Several posters here have been insistent on stripping the Credibility Rating from Michel's protocols, saying that it was unscientific, claiming that it would invalidate the results. I quite frankly don't think any of those posters have a clue about science.
Click to expand...
People, please do answer, participate in the test! Is it 1, is it 2, is it 3, or is it "I don't know"? (doesn't take long)
 
Michel H said:
Perhaps I can quote Dan O. :

People, please do answer, participate in the test! Is it 1, is it 2, is it 3, or is it "I don't know"? (doesn't take long)
Click to expand...


No, I won't pretend to participate in your worthless test, because no matter what I guess you will twist it during your supposed analysis to make it fit the outcome that you want.

You can't tell when people are making fun of your "experiment," and yet you think you can analyze the answers for "credibility"? It's laughable, and certainly not science.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
I did get some positive reactions in my previous tests, e.g.
Click to expand...
No you didn't.

psionl0 said:
I think you might have that backwards. You need the mutual respect before you can dispense with the anti-rigging measures and I don't see a lot of respect going your way.
Click to expand...
That was sarcasm.

Ashles said:
Well this is certainly one of the most robustly controlled experiments I have encountered.
Click to expand...
That was sarcasm.
jdc324 said:
Totally worth the wait.
Click to expand...
That was sarcasm.
Ladewig said:
...
Congratulations on once again proving telepathy.
...You are the vanguard of the next Golden Age of psychic testing.
...
Click to expand...
That was sarcasm.
 
oody said:
Number 1. I feel it strongly. Now if you'll pardon me, I must spend a penny.
Click to expand...

As others have said, Michel is utterly unable to detect humour. If 1 happens to be the right answer he will take this as a hit, even if you explain the joke.
 
Giordano said:
I realize that people feel it might be amusing to respond, or might help Michel H to reach a logical and perhaps helpful conclusion about his telepathy powers. I can only urge posters to look at the history of Michel H's telepathy threads and to act appropriately. My own decision is that responding has not been helpful.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Michel H. Is convinced beyond all reason that he has powerful and undeniable telepathic powers. While it might be tempting to make jokes at his expense, please note that nothing is gained by teasing him or laughing at him.

His fixation is unshakable and there is no explanation, no suggested protocol, and no list of flaws that will sway his opinion in any possible way.

Not responding to requests for numbers might be the most respectful approach.
 
Ladewig said:
I agree.

Michel H. Is convinced beyond all reason that he has powerful and undeniable telepathic powers. While it might be tempting to make jokes at his expense, please note that nothing is gained by teasing him or laughing at him.

His fixation is unshakable and there is no explanation, no suggested protocol, and no list of flaws that will sway his opinion in any possible way.

Not responding to requests for numbers might be the most respectful approach.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Even a sarcastic suggestion of a number will be construed as a hit. Hence, my potato answer. Nonetheless, I am certain that Michel will find a way to purloin even that answer into a hit in some way. "You only specified "a" potato, hence a hit" or some such contrivance. I am fully aware that we are enjoined by the MA not to wheel out amateur diagnoses online, but this might be one of the few cases where the support and assistance of the community very well might be a good thing, and to heck with the MA.
 
Michel H said:
I think my method can work too (though it doesn't have a hash in this test), and is more sensitive, in order to possibly detect a real telepathic effect. I do believe you will probably do your test in a rigorous fashion (like you probably did last time, I read all your thread), but it seems to be inspired by a skeptical philosophy, and seems to be designed to fail. Which, in a sense, is logical, because people really probably do not know most of your thoughts (fortunately for you). As far as I know, you are not a "telepathic phenomenon", an individual with an "overdimensioned telepathy" like myself (it seems) ;) .
Click to expand...

No it is not good. Firstly because without a hash or some way to publish & safeguard the number , you cannot show that evidence to anybody else. It stays a personal belief. A hash allows that because it is published, and nigh impossible to provide a collision for short string , e.g. "my number is 15441" cannot be asily changed to "my number is 75437".

Secondly I already told you why with 3 digits it is not a good test. because of bias. For example in some country some low digit number are very lucky (7) or in other very unlucky (3). So you will bias for or against such numbers.

thirdly I know that I have tendency to take the middle of an interval, and i am not alone. Some other take toward the starts or the end. I do not know if this is 33% but my gut feeling tells me it is not after having made people randomly guess 1 to 10 I got a lot of 5 and 7. 1,2,3 ? There is no middle except 2. So you will bias a LOT of people onto one digits.

Both reason alone are enough to make the test very very bad, but to that I add that because the probability of finding by chance is no NEAR the hit probability, you will have a very high chance just by mathematical fluctuation of people choice to get by accident the number. That does not mean telepathy exists that means the test is bad. The distribution of choice is far too compact. A good test would make sure that people choosing a random number would be distributed far and wide.

That is basically why loss leader is a good test, but yours is extremely bad.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
oody said:
Number 1. I feel it strongly. Now if you'll pardon me, I must spend a penny.
Click to expand...
As others have said, Michel is utterly unable to detect humour. If 1 happens to be the right answer he will take this as a hit, even if you explain the joke.
Click to expand...
"Even if you explain the joke"? Which joke? If there is a joke there, please explain it to me (you, Pixel, or anyone else, this may be important for my credibility analysis). I am currently having some difficulties figuring out what this sentence (of oody) means (perhaps because of my limited knowledge of the English language and culture). Please help!
 
Michel H said:
"Even if you explain the joke"? Which joke? If there is a joke there, please explain it to me (you, Pixel, or anyone else, this may be important for my credibility analysis). I am currently having some difficulties figuring out what this sentence (of oody) means (perhaps because of my limited knowledge of the English language and culture). Please help!
Click to expand...
Number 1 and spending a penny are both euphemisms for peeing.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070704183822AA0VbQq

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/spend-a-penny.html
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
Number 1 and spending a penny are both euphemisms for peeing.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070704183822AA0VbQq

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/spend-a-penny.html
Click to expand...
Ah ok, this may be very important for my anal- uh I mean analysis of credibility. Thank you very much indeed, Pixel, I greatly appreciate your quick and clear explanation. Also, feel free to point it out if there is anything else that I did not quite understand (especially in connection with language, more than methodology, I believe ;) ).
 
You don't seem to understand sarcasm and you certainly don't understand scientific methodology or you would not persist with these ridiculous tests.
 
Michel H said:
...Success in a test like this is by no means automatic or guaranteed. Normally, success is achieved only if the rate, the percentage of correct answers exceeds 33%. And this must occur repeatedly, often enough, in order to really prove anything.
Click to expand...
With a small number of responses and a choice of three numbers, it's quite likely that you can get considerably more than 33% of responses for any one of the numbers just by chance.

To have any chance of a significant result with just three numbers you'd need a very large number of responses. This is why a much larger range of numbers is more appropriate when you're likely to have a small number of responses; it enables you to clearly distinguish between chance results and the effect you're testing for.

But, of course, we've said all this many times already and you ignore it.
 
Michel H said:
"Even if you explain the joke"? Which joke? If there is a joke there, please explain it to me (you, Pixel, or anyone else, this may be important for my credibility analysis). I am currently having some difficulties figuring out what this sentence (of oody) means (perhaps because of my limited knowledge of the English language and culture). Please help!
Click to expand...
Sheesh. "Number 1" and "spend a penny" are common euphemisms for urination. Consider yourself fortunate that no higher number was deployed.

Oh, sorry, you won't get that either. Number 2 is a euphemism for defecation.
I don't make these up. Nor does Pixel42. I find it astonishing that you are entirely oblivious to such terms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom