RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
LOL.
Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?
- Thread starter Michel H
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy telepathy test
- Status
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2011
- Messages
- 415
And when you apply your credibility ratings without knowing the answers, you also get results similar to chance. The ONLY way you get the results you want is look at the answers, throw out the ones that don't support your beliefs, and then come up with rationalizations for doing so.
Everything about your test is about fudging the results. You refuse to use a large number of possible numbers. You can't fudge the results if no one guesses your number by chance.
You refuse to produce a protocol for your credibility ratings. You can't fudge the numbers if you can't make up rules after the face.
You can't accept the results of your test of your credibility ratings. Again, you can't fudge the numbers if you can't make up rules after the face.
You say you have a PhD in physics. That means you understand full well what you are doing here.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Why do you think that is, Michel, seriously?
You're blatantly admitting you insert your CR "analysis" in order to get the results you want.
Well, I assume it is related to the psychology of people, you may call this a common lack of honesty (from participants in telepathy tests) if you want. People seem to have a honest side, but it is limited. People are honest in telepathy in the sense that, when they lie, you can "see it", or "guess it", from the words they use (in favorable cases). They are not honest (in my opinion) in the sense that they just tell the truth. Thinking that participants in telepathy tests, "the people"
, are perfectly honest, while "claimants" like myself are always highly suspicious, and likely cheaters, is a great error, in my opinion. However, you don't have to agree with me, you are entitled to your own opinion. It is possible that you are still young, and that you have many illusions about this human society.AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Well, I assume it is related to the psychology of people, you may call this a common lack of honesty (from participants in telepathy tests) if you want. People seem to have a honest side, but it is limited. People are honest in telepathy in the sense that, when they lie, you can "see it", or "guess it", from the words they use (in favorable cases). They are not honest (in my opinion) in the sense that they just tell the truth. Thinking that participants in telepathy tests, "the people"
I have no illusions that you are doing anything actually scientific by applying an entirely subjective "Credibility Rating" to get the results you want.
I struggle to understand, given your background, how you think that is even remotely acceptable.
You are simply not doing science, and you are being dishonest, as a supposed scientist, by pretending you are. You should know that.
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2011
- Messages
- 415
Well, I assume it is related to the psychology of people, you may call this a common lack of honesty (from participants in telepathy tests) if you want. People seem to have a honest side, but it is limited. People are honest in telepathy in the sense that, when they lie, you can "see it", or "guess it", from the words they use (in favorable cases). They are not honest (in my opinion) in the sense that they just tell the truth. Thinking that participants in telepathy tests, "the people"
How do you explain the complete failure of your credibility system in this last test?
Given what you wrote above you seem to be saying that the reason your results are consistent with random chance is that everyone knew what number you wrote down, but exactly 25% of people are honest, and the rest are not.
I'm going to ask this again. Why don't you just use a really large number of potential numbers to really suss out the effect of chance? I know why you don't answer, but your continued silence is also telling.
Is the objective of this study to see if Michel has a power? Since Michel is the originator...if several receivers (i`ll call them) are receptive to Michels thoughts, above statistical odds, this proves Michel is in possession of a power? What about each receiver? Arent they of equal power? Does it matter if say 2 or 3 people receive what Michel sends, that since he outnumbers the receivers, that it must be him that has such overwhelming powers that he can say `come into` an ordinary mind? If that is the thinking, what is the basis of that thinking? While pondering all this....do any of you remember like 20 years ago(long ago, i cant recall exactly) there was this famous yogi guru, i`m thinking the one tied to the Beatles(i think he owned like 37 Rolls Royces or something)...remember this guy?...Anyhow, he wanted the world to pray for something on this one given day at some particular time, in hopes that our aggregate minds would cause his hope to occur. From my recollections, nothing was achieved. Michel, do you recall this? And do you have any thoughts in regard to this, and in any way how this is similar or different from what you are trying to do here? One thing that i felt he had going for him, and all the potential participants is the fact it required joint concentration. With your test, other than you thinking of some number at only one point in time, and writing it down...i`m not sure where the telepathy would come from at say those times you are NOT concentrating on your number almost in some Zen-like state, and a participant happened along only when you had the number written down, but there was no more concentration really on your part. Know what i mean?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Well, it's possible that I get 30% on a Monday, but, the next day, perhaps people will think I need to get 20%
I am not again the idea of asking people to guess, for example an integer, a digit between 0 and 9 (inclusive). It could be nice for a quick proof, or for strong statistical evidence. But I suspect it will be psychologically harder for people to admit they know (through telepathy) I wrote a one-digit number, than to admit I wrote a number between 1 and 4 (inclusive). When they say I wrote a number between 1 and 4, they are giving away less information, they are perhaps feeling more secure. I may end up with no correct answer, that's always disappointing. This problem may be much more concerning, serious and annoying than just doing a statistical analysis, with a known mathematical tool. It is important to use a realistic and practical approch, preferably based on experience. I don't have a good memory of tests with a one-digit number as a target I did on Yahoo! Answers.
Well, I wouldn't say I have a "power", no. A power is something you can control. Also, I don't really need to "concentrate" a lot. Keep in mind also that people have a memory, and that I repeat the number during tests. As to your yogi guru millionaire, what you are talking about sounds more like telekinesis to me.
Last edited:
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Michel, what you need to do, if you want to continue with this kind of approach and refuse to accept that your use of CR is unscientific, is to get rid of the need to apply it. Simply ask everyone to write exactly "I choose X" or simply "X", and to send in the number they are thinking of for X to an independent observer, who doesn't know the target number. You should outright reject any submission that is more than simply that. A simple poll would work as well, if you don't take into account any comments (though, ideally, no participant should see what anyone else is selecting). Then there is no need to subjectively evaluate each submission, and you are one step closer to something actually scientific.
Until you try something that is more scientific and rigorous than what you've done so far (and I'd forgotten you had tried doing tests on Yahoo! Answers
), your results are worthless.
Until you try something that is more scientific and rigorous than what you've done so far (and I'd forgotten you had tried doing tests on Yahoo! Answers
), your results are worthless.
Last edited:
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
If you simply want to stick to the numbers 1 - 4, here is another option. Find somebody you trust not to attempt to fudge the answers.
You go into one room with a RNG, and generate a number between 1 and 4, write it down, and mentally project this number to your trusted friend for 60 seconds. After sixty seconds, he writes the number down.
Repeat 50 times, then compare answers. See what % of hits you get with exact correlation on both your lists. The whole thing will take less than an hour, and you probably need one other person in each room to ensure that there is no cheating, or hidden communication devices.
Let us know the result.
Norm
You go into one room with a RNG, and generate a number between 1 and 4, write it down, and mentally project this number to your trusted friend for 60 seconds. After sixty seconds, he writes the number down.
Repeat 50 times, then compare answers. See what % of hits you get with exact correlation on both your lists. The whole thing will take less than an hour, and you probably need one other person in each room to ensure that there is no cheating, or hidden communication devices.
Let us know the result.
Norm
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Good test, but may I suggest altering the highlighted text to "then have someone else compare the answers"?
I'm sure most of us are in no doubt that if Michel does the comparing himself then a major part of the process would be eliminating most, if not all, of the non-matches because of their lack of credibility.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
It really is not at all difficult to design a simple scientific test for telepathy or ESP in general (as mentioned earlier, the JREF itself provides guidelines for school kids to do so) but it must be done carefully and rigorously.
That Michel apparently fails to understand this and wants to mess it up with unscientific concepts such as a subjective, ill-defined "Credibility Rating" is bizarre, unless the intent is to intentionally deceive.
That Michel apparently fails to understand this and wants to mess it up with unscientific concepts such as a subjective, ill-defined "Credibility Rating" is bizarre, unless the intent is to intentionally deceive.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
If Michel's intent is to deceive us then I find the exercise even more bizarre.
Regardless of his own conviction that this ridiculous 'credibility rating' is a valid tool, he can't possibly have convinced himself that anyone else is going to buy it.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Are you saying that the people who guessed the correct number in this or your previous tests actually know that they obtained this information through telepathy? That they telepathically "heard" you and chose to write down the number they heard, whilst those who guessed wrong telepathically "heard" the right number and chose to write down a different one?
Yes, I presume that's what's happening. There seems to exist a strong telepathic phenomenon, and failures in tests generally seem to result more from an unwillingness to fully cooperate than from somehow a lack of telepathic signal.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Last edited:
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
And this sums up Michel H's entire case in a nutshell. People who give right answers are right, people who give wrong answers are liars. He will never be convinced otherwise. He is right, the rest of the planet is wrong.
There is no hope left of any rationality left for this one. Perhaps the Philosophy Degree overrode the Physics degree and Michel H has forgotten everything scientific that he ever learned.
Norm
Last edited:
- Status