Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Michel H]

Michel,

I am still curious about this.

Michel,

Can you describe the mechanism behind your latest objection? You are saying you can send a number into the mind of a remote person.....unless they later send someone a private message in an internet forum that is any different than the wording they used to report their results in that same forum?

How does their PM block your ability? How long must they refrain from sending PMs to other users? If they wrote something else in some other medium, say a shopping list, what would happen to your telepathy?

Does their PM go back in time and stop you from sending your number? Or does your telepathy look into the future and find out that participants have written something?

No, no, I am not saying that sending a message in a unexpected wording changes anything in this tendency I apparently have, to involuntarily send "thoughts" into the minds of people (remote or not).

 

[dafydd]

Quite well? Well, that, I don't know... I believe I have done a reasonably good job so far

No.

 

[AdMan]

This is an example of an answer I found credible:

... I do indeed have ESP, and know for a fact that he wrote 2!

, and this is an exemple of an answer that I did not find credible:

The last time I partcipated in this guessing game I was accused of being in a mental institution and therefore my response was invalid.

I'm now in a high-sided elastic banjo with an eskimo parasol, so rest assured that my response is both fluffy and perky.

The number I'm seeing is XX.

I think it is likely I am not the only one who can come to these conclusions.

How do you know calwaterbear was being serious? I happen to think both of them were joking and making fun of your test, so per my analysis their CR should be equally negative.

 

[abaddon]

No, I don't have "credibility protocols".
This is an example of an answer I found credible:
, and this is an exemple of an answer that I did not find credible:

Seriously? You claim not to have protocols, while in the next breath apply those protocols you claim not to have? Really?

 

[Michel H]

How do you know calwaterbear was being serious? I happen to think both of them were joking and making fun of your test, so per my analysis their CR should be equally negative.

I find no element in calwaterbear's answer, leading me to believe his answer is not serious.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I find no element in calwaterbear's answer, leading me to believe his answer is not serious.

Or as it turns out, Not conductive to your number fudging.

 

[AdMan]

I find no element in calwaterbear's answer, leading me to believe his answer is not serious.

This is a skeptics' forum, and he is saying he has ESP. That doesn't raise a flag? Sure, we get members who actually believe that, but they are a small minority, so the odds are he wasn't being serious, especially given how poorly designed your test was. Did it at least occur to you to ask if he was actually serious or joking?

 

[bruto]

I find no element in calwaterbear's answer, leading me to believe his answer is not serious.

That says a lot about not only your credulity but your thoroughness. It's easy enough to look up a person's posting history and discover much about him. If you're waiting for calwaterbear to buck up your claims, don't hold your breath.

 

[fromdownunder]

I find no element in calwaterbear's answer, leading me to believe his answer is not serious.

Your naiveivity is quite touching. Sweet even, and a bit like watching a kitten playing with a ball of wool.


For somebody who thinks that they have telepathic powers, you display an amazing ability to be not capable of reading or actually understand anything about real people.

Norm

 

[Michel H]

This is a skeptics' forum, and he is saying he has ESP. That doesn't raise a flag? Sure, we get members who actually believe that, but they are a small minority, so the odds are he wasn't being serious. Did it at least occur to you to ask if he was actually serious or joking?

calwaterbear's answer doesn't sound like a joke at all, in my opinion. In addition, when you do telepathy tests, I think it is better to try to exercise tact and restraint, and to try not to offend people by an inappropriate insistence. I suspect this is a field where many people do not behave in a very rational way. This is another answer you will perhaps find interesting:

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

It was written by Loss Leader, who is a moderator on this forum.
Both answers (by calwaterbear and Loss Leader) were numerically correct.
It is perhaps also of interest to mention that Randi published in 1982 a book entitled: "Test Your ESP Potential: A Complete Kit With Instructions, Scorecards, and Apparatus." (see link1, link2). This may perhaps surprise some people, who view Randi more as a skeptic than a parapsychologist (of course). According to his wikipedia article, he 'prefers to describe himself as an "investigator" '.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, I have a Ph.D. degree in physics from a large U.S. university. I have done some more research in physics at home in recent years, but I haven't had time to publish it yet.

And I'm the King of Siam.

 

[Resume]

And I'm the King of Siam.

Well, if you . . . only . . . okay fine.

 

[AdMan]

calwaterbear's answer doesn't sound like a joke at all, in my opinion. In addition, when you do telepathy tests, I think it is better to try to exercise tact and restraint, and to try not to offend people by an inappropriate insistence. I suspect this is a field where many people do not behave in a very rational way. This is another answer you will perhaps find interesting:

It was written by Loss Leader, who is a moderator on this forum.
Both answers (by calwaterbear and Loss Leader) were numerically correct.
It is perhaps also of interest to mention that Randi published in 1982 a book entitled: "Test Your ESP Potential: A Complete Kit With Instructions, Scorecards, and Apparatus." (see link1, link2). This may perhaps surprise some people, who view Randi more as a skeptic than a parapsychologist (of course). According to his wikipedia article, he 'prefers to describe himself as an "investigator" '.

Oh, boy, you are completely self-deluded--and very confused--if you think Randi doesn't think of himself as a complete skeptic when it comes to the supernatural. I assume you've never heard him speak, or read his books, have you? You should look up some of his Youtube videos to educate yourself. Or try reading Flim-Flam, although "Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions" gives away the conclusion.

And I would say Loss Leader was not being serious with that post either.

Here's the thing--I look at the quoted posts in context. I look at the fact that this is the James Randi Educational Foundation forum. I look at the members' posting histories. I understand how most people actually are. And I conclude they were joking, just as was Kid Eager with his guess. So based on all that, I give a negative CR to calwaterbear's and Loss Leader's posts.

If you still don't understand how this shows that your use of a "credibility rating" is completely unscientific, then I say, with a high CR, that either you pulled your PhD in physics degree out of your ass or that that's where it belongs.

 

[Michel H]

Your naiveivity is quite touching. Sweet even, and a bit like watching a kitten playing with a ball of wool.


For somebody who thinks that they have telepathic powers, you display an amazing ability to be not capable of reading or actually understand anything about real people.

Norm

naiveivity? This is a word I didn't know. I don't know what goes on in people's minds, I try to understand them, I read them, sometimes I listen to them. I have to rely on the words they use, they decide, they choose to use. And I don't think having a tendency to involuntarily send one's "thoughts" into people's minds is a "power". This is important, because, if you try to explain people you have a "power" that they haven't got, people might get offended. This is basic human psychology.

 

[AdMan]

naiveivity? This is a word I didn't know.

Stop being disingenuous and pretending you don't know what was meant.

 

[AdMan]

Hey Michel, looking into some of Randi's/the JREF's work on this, since you brought it up, led me to the JREF's "Do You Have ESP?" educational module. It's aimed at middle- and high-school students, but I think you'll find the following guidelines helpful in designing your tests, since you haven't been following most of them. Highlighting added so that you don't miss key things.

Inexperienced experimenters may commit the mistake of only accepting data that are favorable. Never drop portions of the data because they are only average or negative. Those data are just as important. Another pitfall to avoid is optional stopping. It’s important that you declare a number of trials in advance and stick with that number. It is easy to quit while you’re ahead and avoid the inclusion of negative results.

All tests are subject to random effects that can’t be controlled. With a larger number of trials, it becomes more likely that these random factors will cancel each other out and that a real phenomenon will be detected if it exists.

Experimenters can influence the performance of subjects through conscious or unconscious bias being introduced into the experiment. If this behavior is not controlled, this can substantially affect research results. Experimenters can also unknowingly be a source of information affecting the subject’s response (i.e. facial expressions). The use of the technique known as "double-blind" is essential to ESP testing. In double-blind trials, neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment.

You will be able to avoid the above problems and produce more meaningful data by adhering to the following five rules . . .

Rule 1: Declare in advance whether your set of tests will be an actual test or only a dry run. If it is an actual test, count it in the final evaluation. If not, do not count it and only keep it for reference.

Rule 2: Always complete a set of tests by conducting the number of trials that was decided upon and recorded before the start of the test. Further tests may be run, but these must be set up and recorded in the same manner as the previous one, with the number of trials decided upon and recorded ahead of time.

Rule 3: Set the number of trials as large as seems practical. Because you may be limited by the length of your class period, that number may be 100. If you have more time, increase your sample to 250 or 500.
Rule 4: Keep a careful record of test conditions established for each test, as well as variations from one test to another. By this means, you may find that some otherwise trivial factor is seriously affecting the test results.

Rule 5: An outside judge, unaware of expected results, must be used to record and total the scores on the data sheets.

Read the whole PDF. I think you'll learn more than a little.

 

[Akhenaten]

This is important, because, if you try to explain people you have a "power" that they haven't got, people might get offended.

I think you've misunderstood something.

When you tell people that you have super powers and they start backing away from you slowly, it doesn't mean they're offended.

This is basic human psychology.

If only you knew.

 

[Michel H]

Hey Michel, looking into some of Randi's/the JREF's work on this, since you brought it up, led me to the JREF's "Do You Have ESP?" educational module. It's aimed at middle- and high-school students, but I think you'll find the following guidelines helpful in designing your tests, since you haven't been following most of them. Highlighting added so that you don't miss key things.
...
Read the whole thing. I think you'll learn more than a little.

Thank you, I found this interesting, Adman (I clicked on the link you gave). Although, saying I'll learn anything from this is perhaps a far cry... I suspect this "module" may have been (partly?) based on the Randi's 1982 book I mentioned above.

 

[AdMan]

Thank you, I found this interesting, Adman (I clicked on the link you gave). Although, saying I'll learn anything from this is perhaps a far cry... I suspect this "module" may have been (partly?) based on the Randi's 1982 book I mentioned above.

That's why I quoted it, since you brought up the book.

The module describes a scientific way to test for telepathy and other "modes" of ESP.

And I do think that since you failed to follow many of those guidelines in your own tests, they will serve at least as a reminder from the days when you were working on your doctorate, of how to do actual science.

 

[AdMan]

Michel H, do you now understand why your "Credibility Rating" is not scientific? You can define it how you want to, and I can define it how I want to, so it's meaningless. And even if you could define a completely objective, clear and precise way to measure this (a necessary first step, which you're far from reaching), you would need an outside judge, unaware of expected or wanted results, to measure it for each participant.

You are a biased person looking for a result, so you cannot be this judge. You should remember that from your high school science classes. Or read the JREF module.