Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Michel H]

Well, you will have your work cut out for you since you had not a single hit. I cannot predict what nonsense you will invent out of whole cloth to purloin some manner of imaginary hit, but I am certain that you will indeed do so in some way beyond the best imaginings of A.C. Clarke or Tolkien. You will promptly declare unilateral victory. How do I know this? Telepathy? Psychic power? Some eldritch skill? Nope. It's just what you always do.

I am not fooling about here. Seek professional assistance.

You are correct when you say that I did not get a single hit in this latest test. Let's face it: the results of this test, obtained on this forum, are not great. Nevertheless, I think it may be possible to make some interesting observations about the results, even if they are, let's face it, not of very high quality. Do you remember what I said about a correlation between correctness and credibility? Do you think this correlation still exists here? Do you think there is a pattern, or no pattern (just randomness)? Could this indicate telepathy? I invite you to think a little bit about that. And, if necessary (or if some people are interested), I could say a few words about results (recently) obtained on other sites.

Also, I would appreciate that you (or other members here) stop saying "Seek professional assistance" (or other similar things). I suppose this roughly means "Dude, you're crazy". I find that very offensive (especially as I might well be the least crazy member of this forum, as I think I have abundantly demonstrated). I remind you that the Membership Agreement says: "Address the argument, not the arguer." (Rule 12). When you tell someone he's crazy, not only do you aggress that person, you even aggress that person in a rather serious way, in my opinion.

 

[Michel H]

Nobody said 3 and I think that fewer than 3 people even gave you a guess. How much analysis does that require?

Please take a look at my answer to abaddon above.

 

[The Moog]

Also, I would appreciate that you (or other members here) stop saying "Seek professional assistance" (or other similar things). I suppose this roughly means "Dude, you're crazy".

Actually it means the people here believe you are in need of help that noone here is qualified to provide.

(especially as I might well be the least crazy member of this forum, as I think I have abundantly demonstrated).

Actually you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are completely detached from reality and totally incapable of recognising humour or sarcasm.

I remind you that the Membership Agreement says: “Address the argument, not the arguer." (Rule 12).

You have presented no argument to address.

When you tell someone he's crazy, not only do you aggress that person, you even aggress that person in a rather serious way, in my opinion.

It is unfortunate that mental illness has such a stigma in this society.

 

[abaddon]

You are correct when you say that I did not get a single hit in this latest test. Let's face it: the results of this test, obtained on this forum, are not great. Nevertheless, I think it may be possible to make some interesting observations about the results, even if they are, let's face it, not of very high quality. Do you remember what I said about a correlation between correctness and credibility? Do you think this correlation still exists here? Do you think there is a pattern, or no pattern (just randomness)? Could this indicate telepathy? I invite you to think a little bit about that. And, if necessary (or if some people are interested), I could say a few words about results (recently) obtained on other sites.

Also, I would appreciate that you (or other members here) stop saying "Seek professional assistance" (or other similar things). I suppose this roughly means "Dude, you're crazy". I find that very offensive (especially as I might well be the least crazy member of this forum, as I think I have abundantly demonstrated). I remind you that the Membership Agreement says: “Address the argument, not the arguer." (Rule 12). When you tell someone he's crazy, not only do you aggress that person, you even aggress that person in a rather serious way, in my opinion.

You have no results because everyone is fed up with your pointless tests and how you manipulate any responses.

And to be honest, I don't know you at all, but whether you choose to believe it or not as you wish, I am genuinely concerned for your well-being. That being the case, it would be remiss of me not to at least make some attempt however futile that might prove.

 

[fromdownunder]

Sorry, double post.

Norm

 

[fromdownunder]

Do you remember what I said about a correlation between correctness and credibility?

Yes, you believe (after the event) that every correct answer provides evidence of your ability, and that every incorrect answer is a deliberate lie.

Do you think this correlation still exists here?

Yes, I do. Nobody here accepts that you are telepathic, and say so in every post, sometimes with subtlety, and sometimes with a sledge hammer.

Do you think there is a pattern, or no pattern (just randomness)?

See above. The pattern is we are asking you to do a properly controlled test and stop doing stupid three number tests which provide evidence for nothing whatsoever. What next? Pick one of two integers?

Could this indicate telepathy?

No. It indicates what has been said all along. Do a proper controlled test.

I invite you to think a little bit about that. And, if necessary (or if some people are interested), I could say a few words about results (recently) obtained on other sites.

I actually would be interested, as long as you include links to the original answers so that people here can look at the responses for themselves (that is the "scientific" method)

Also, I would appreciate that you (or other members here) stop saying "Seek professional assistance" (or other similar things). I suppose this roughly means "Dude, you're crazy".

No, what it means is "seek help" If you can find one quote on this entire thread that says that you are crazy, I will apologise. And I have a 41 year old daughter who has a fairly extreme case of OCD. I don't think she is crazy, but I know that she has a mental illness that improves somewhat with treatment, so I know where these posters are coming from.

I find that very offensive (especially as I might well be the least crazy member of this forum, as I think I have abundantly demonstrated).

Evidence?

I remind you that the Membership Agreement says: “Address the argument, not the arguer." (Rule 12). When you tell someone he's crazy, not only do you aggress that person, you even aggress that person in a rather serious way, in my opinion.

No, the subject here is telepathy. You believe it exists, and we are doing is asking for the evidence. And, as you have personally admitted, you have sought help for this in the past. And again, nobody has said that you are crazy, so please stop projecting.

Norm

 

[Michel H]

Nobody said 3 and I think that fewer than 3 people even gave you a guess. How much analysis does that require?

It is perhaps of some interest to mention that proving telepathy does not necessarily require scoring better than chance. If, in a very hostile skeptic environment, participants score consistently less well than chance (this is called "psi-missing" in parapsychology), this may (paradoxically perhaps) prove telepathy.
"Psi-missing" is defined on this page.
It is possible also to compare test results obtained on a (somewhat) "hostile" site to test results gotten on a more "friendly" site. If the hit rate is consistently better on the "friendly" site, you can prove telepathy this way. This is actually the kind of stuff I have observed in my latest test (but with only two answers here, which is not much).

 

[abaddon]

It is perhaps of some interest to mention that proving telepathy does not necessarily require scoring better than chance. If, in a very hostile skeptic environment, participants score consistently less well than chance (this is called "psi-missing" in parapsychology), this may (paradoxically perhaps) prove telepathy.
"Psi-missing" is defined on this page.
It is possible also to compare test results obtained on a (somewhat) "hostile" site to test results gotten on a more "friendly" site. If the hit rate is consistently better on the "friendly" site, you can prove telepathy this way. This is actually the kind of stuff I have observed in my latest test (but with only two answers here, which is not much).

That is not going to fly. It is your claim that everyone receives your thoughts or does and proceeds to lie about it. Using that measure, you are baldly stating that since nobody in your latest test received your thoughts either all of us are liars for reasons you are unable to explain or you are not at all telepathic. Pick one.

 

[jsfisher]

It is perhaps of some interest to mention that proving telepathy does not necessarily require scoring better than chance. If, in a very hostile skeptic environment, participants score consistently less well than chance (this is called "psi-missing" in parapsychology), this may (paradoxically perhaps) prove telepathy.
"Psi-missing" is defined on this page.
It is possible also to compare test results obtained on a (somewhat) "hostile" site to test results gotten on a more "friendly" site. If the hit rate is consistently better on the "friendly" site, you can prove telepathy this way. This is actually the kind of stuff I have observed in my latest test (but with only two answers here, which is not much).

If you deem this as a hostile site, and that will push your likely hit rate below expectation in a statistically significant way, then you have a testable hypothesis. Why not construct a fair test of that hypothesis?

 

[Michel H]

That is not going to fly. It is your claim that everyone receives your thoughts or does and proceeds to lie about it. Using that measure, you are baldly stating that since nobody in your latest test received your thoughts either all of us are liars for reasons you are unable to explain or you are not at all telepathic. Pick one.

Actually, I don't think participants in my tests are "full liars", they are more "half liars", because they tend to make their answers not credible when they answer incorrectly. This is probably one of the most fundamental findings I have made in these online telepathy tests. Most people (it seems to me) are neither completely honest, nor completely dishonest, they are "somewhere in the middle", they choose the compromise that seems morally acceptable to them.

 

[Michel H]

If you deem this as a hostile site, and that will push your likely hit rate below expectation in a statistically significant way, then you have a testable hypothesis. Why not construct a fair test of that hypothesis?

I think it is better to beware of very rigid and complicated protocols, I don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past. People must be relaxed and spontaneous to answer well.

 

[jsfisher]

I think it is better to beware of very rigid and complicated protocols, I don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past. People must be relaxed and spontaneous to answer well.

Protocols need not be complicated. The one thing that really needs to be in your testing, though, is a bit of double-blinding. You are making decisions about credibility, for example, with the full knowledge of whether the guess was a hit or a miss.

Such sources of bias like that need to be contained, and that isn't hard to do.

 

[Loss Leader]

Protocols need not be complicated. The one thing that really needs to be in your testing, though, is a bit of double-blinding. You are making decisions about credibility, for example, with the full knowledge of whether the guess was a hit or a miss.

Such sources of bias like that need to be contained, and that isn't hard to do.

It's easier than that. Just omit "credibility" completely. There is no way to measure it objectively, no way to assign it a number, and no way to do so in a blind manner.

Just use simple statistics.

You asked for a number from 1 to 3. The odds of getting it right by chance were 1/3. The odds of getting it wrong by chance were 2/3. 2 people gave you answers (according to you); both of them were wrong. That's completely consistent with random chance.

There are no conclusions you can draw about telepathy from your very small sample and very, very poorly designed test.

 

[abaddon]

Actually, I don't think participants in my tests are "full liars", they are more "half liars", because they tend to make their answers not credible when they answer incorrectly. This is probably one of the most fundamental findings I have made in these online telepathy tests. Most people (it seems to me) are neither completely honest, nor completely dishonest, they are "somewhere in the middle", they choose the compromise that seems morally acceptable to them.

It isn't a finding. It's a blatant slur and you should be ashamed of it. Had you conducted an honest test, I would genuinely have been interested to see where it went and honestly participate therein. But you chose not to do so. You intentionally chose to attempt to set up dishonest tests and I have no interest in those. Pick a number from one to four? Please. You get to pick and choose between answers you may or may not like? Please. You get to insist upon post dictum rules? Please.

The only thing I can conceive is that you have something going down. It is an illness, sure. AFAIK, nobody has called you "crazy" or any such epithets in this thread. Hell, I have had a friend suicide and a second at risk of such. I would not call either "crazy". What have I had? Hernias, TB, DVT, collapsed lungs, clots on the lung, sure I have had it all. But it is no different than the illness that you have. Recognise it and treat it. Not for me. Not for this or any other board you frequent. Do it for you. Do it now.

 

[fromdownunder]

Actually, I don't think participants in my tests are "full liars", they are more "half liars", because they tend to make their answers not credible when they answer incorrectly.

So, you really think we all hear your thoughts and every one of us lie in our responses. Got it

Norm

 

[SezMe]

It is perhaps of some interest to mention that proving telepathy does not necessarily require scoring better than chance. If, in a very hostile skeptic environment, participants score consistently less well than chance (this is called "psi-missing" in parapsychology), this may (paradoxically perhaps) prove telepathy.

Can I summarize.

Scores higher than chance => telepathy exists
Scores lower than chance => telepathy exists

Wonderful racket you have going there.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Scoring consistently lower than chance in scientific tests would count as a phenomena.

 

[jsfisher]

Can I summarize.

Scores higher than chance => telepathy exists
Scores lower than chance => telepathy exists

Wonderful racket you have going there.

If I recall correctly, in the hay-days of parapsychology research (1970's or so), there were research studies that concluded a test subject might have good days and bad days with respect to testing and that each were indicative of paranormal abilities in the subject, even though the average across all days was indistinguishable from chance.

 

[Sideroxylon]

If I recall correctly, in the hay-days of parapsychology research (1970's or so), there were research studies that concluded a test subject might have good days and bad days with respect to testing and that each were indicative of paranormal abilities in the subject, even though the average across all days was indistinguishable from chance.

And even before as this kind of thing was covered in Martin Gardners Classic Fads and Falacies.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fads_and_Fallacies_in_the_Name_of_Science

 

[devnull]

This test is now over (the answer, the number I wrote and circled was a "3").

We all knew that, merely from your reaction to the guesses of 1 and 2.

Why do you think that is Michel?

Until you remove these subjective parts of your test, you are wasting your time.