Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[RoboTimbo]

If "skeptics” could follow instructions there wouldn't have been any problem.

No, the problem was Michel not following his protocol. He changed his own blinded credibility ratings after knowing the answers given. Why does your "skepticism" not allow you to think that that isn't a problem?

Michel has explained why the rating is necessary multiple times.

It was a rhetorical question. Everyone except Michel knows why he uses credibility ratings. I was hoping to get him to realize it.

 

[dafydd]

That is a typical "skeptic" response to what was presented as only a personal observation. Randi has taught you well.

You misunderstand the purpose of these forums. They are not personal blogs.

 

[dafydd]

You are welcome to participate in the test, Pixel42, like other forum members are. If you really think you have perceived no number from me via telepathy, you may then answer "I don't know":
. And perhaps also , one day, the "miracle" will happen, you'll be able to say my number credibly (?).
Be warned it is quite possible I examine your answer carefully for credibility, your opinions seem to vary (although you seem to be a careful person). It is not my goal to try to impose a certain point of view to others here, especially if it is wrong, people are entitled to their free opinions. I see myself as a "scientist" and a truthseeker. Don't forget you have a personal responsability, like others. I hope you're not getting paid by the pharmaceutical industry to spread and promote lies (frankly, I doubt it). If I do a rigorous test again on this forum, I will probably emphasize more that, if the text sent to the assistant is any different from the posted one, the answer will be considered as protocol violating (although it will still be considered with great interest). One of my goals is to keep improving the "protocol" with regard to rigor and clarity, while keeping it simple and pleasant (if possible). And all smart suggestions for improvement are of course welcome.

You can judge the veracity and the character of a person by an answer on the internet? Are you claiming to have a second superpower? When you say checking for credibility you mean 'I reiect all answers that do not fit my delusion'.

 

[Pixel42]

You are welcome to participate in the test, Pixel42, like other forum members are. If you really think you have perceived no number from me via telepathy, you may then answer "I don't know"

"I don't know" is not a useful response. Your protocol can do nothing with it.

And perhaps also , one day, the "miracle" will happen, you'll be able to say my number credibly (?).

If you do another test I will again try to "hear" your number and participate if I feel the slightest inclination to choose a particular number.

Be warned it is quite possible I examine your answer carefully for credibility,

As long as you do so before you know whether I've picked the correct number I care not how or why you do it.

your opinions seem to vary

Don't forget you have a personal responsability, like others.

Indeed.

I hope you're not getting paid by the pharmaceutical industry to spread and promote lies (frankly, I doubt it).

One of my goals is to keep improving the "protocol" with regard to rigor and clarity, while keeping it simple and pleasant (if possible). And all smart suggestions for improvement are of course welcome.

Don't abandon the single improvement that made your protocol approach the required rigor as soon as it's clear it's not giving the answer you want, would be my first suggestion.

 

[kid meatball]

You are welcome to participate in the test, Pixel42, like other forum members are. If you really think you have perceived no number from me via telepathy, you may then answer "I don't know":
. And perhaps also , one day, the "miracle" will happen, you'll be able to say my number credibly (?).
Be warned it is quite possible I examine your answer carefully for credibility, your opinions seem to vary (although you seem to be a careful person). It is not my goal to try to impose a certain point of view to others here, especially if it is wrong, people are entitled to their free opinions. I see myself as a "scientist" and a truthseeker. Don't forget you have a personal responsability, like others. I hope you're not getting paid by the pharmaceutical industry to spread and promote lies (frankly, I doubt it). If I do a rigorous test again on this forum, I will probably emphasize more that, if the text sent to the assistant is any different from the posted one, the answer will be considered as protocol violating (although it will still be considered with great interest). One of my goals is to keep improving the "protocol" with regard to rigor and clarity, while keeping it simple and pleasant (if possible). And all smart suggestions for improvement are of course welcome.

I said "I don't know" and you didn't even consider my answer at all.

 

[Dan O.]

Not sure what you mean by that. What statement?

I thought that would have been obvious from the consistent use of that term elsewhere in that post:

...
If telepathic reception is not something we are consciously aware of, we would have to pull the answer from our unconscious. This is the element of writing the first statement that comes to mind about the first number that comes to mind. If your mind is in sync with Michel's at that time, he will register a high credibility for your statement and if his theory is correct, the high credibility for the statement will cooralate with the correctness of the number.

...

But I'm going to rain on your and Michel's parade and say right now that there is no way that the JREF MDC would ever accept this test. The problem is that there can be a cooralation between the statement and the number contained in the statement that would allow the claimant to score better than chance and there is no way to separate these two elements.

 

[dafydd]

Randi has a perfectly valid test for dowsing. Why don't all the applicants just take that test instead of mucking about with designing their own protocol?


The answer is that not all the applicants are claiming to be able to dowse.

It doesn't matter what the super power claim is, every applicant has failed. What does that tell you?

 

[Pixel42]

I thought that would have been obvious from the consistent use of that term elsewhere in that post

Sorry, I was expressing (badly) general bewilderment, I'll try again.

Please give an example of how a statement might correlate with a number within it in a way which would allow the claimant to score better than chance. I don't understand how that would work.

 

[Dan O.]

One of my goals is to keep improving the "protocol" with regard to rigor and clarity, while keeping it simple and pleasant (if possible). And all smart suggestions for improvement are of course welcome.

I stated my concern that this test would never be acceptable by the JREF MDC. But I will help you develope your test to pass muster with the JREF skeptics.

My first suggestion is to eliminate the possibility of the subjects sending different messages. Have the subjects send only one statement including the received number to the trusted assistant by PM and let the trusted assistant mask the number before forwarding the set of statements to you. You then post the set of statements along with the CR score you assigned to each. Then the trusted assistant posts the complete statements with the unmasked number and your assigned CR score.

 

[Dan O.]

Sorry, I was expressing (badly) general bewilderment, I'll try again.

Please give an example of how a statement might correlate with a number within it in a way which would allow the claimant to score better than chance. I don't understand how that would work.

I'm tempted to just say I was mistaken and let Michal get on with his test. But I am too honest for that.

I'll give you three:

"I'm seeing a square with the number xx."​

"I'm thinking of patriotic colors and the number xx.​

"xx is the loneliest number." ​

These are of course obvious cases.

 

[Pixel42]

I'll give you three:

"I'm seeing a square with the number xx."​

"I'm thinking of patriotic colors and the number xx.​

"xx is the loneliest number." ​

Ah right, got you (at last ). Allowing free form statements enables posters to (deliberately or inadvertently) include such clues.

 

[Dan O.]

It doesn't matter what the super power claim is, every applicant has failed. What does that tell you?

So you would test Michal by handing him a pair of bent wires and asking him to prove his claim by finding water?

 

[Dan O.]

Ah right, got you (at last ). Allowing free form statements enables posters to (deliberately or inadvertently) include such clues.

Exactly. If Michal continued to experiment with this protocol he would have eventually developed the skill to pick up on those clues. It would have been fun to watch the skeptics bafflement as they see a paranormal ability demonstrated in front of them but it would be only a magic trick. And, if Michal didn't know it was a trick it would be detrimental to him.

 

[Pixel42]

Exactly. If Michal continued to experiment with this protocol he would have eventually developed the skill to pick up on those clues. It would have been fun to watch the skeptics bafflement as they see a paranormal ability demonstrated in front of them but it would be only a magic trick. And, if Michal didn't know it was a trick it would be detrimental to him.

I think I have a little more respect for my fellow JREF posters than you do. I would certainly have been careful not to include such clues if I had participated, and I'm sure that if anyone had done so inadvertently at least one poster would have noticed and pointed it out quite quickly.

But I think you're right that the possibility would be enough for JREF to consider the protocol inadequate for the MDC.

 

[Michel H]

I said "I don't know" and you didn't even consider my answer at all.

Well, you said:

I don't get what this test is supposed to find. Are you testing to see if anybody who responds is telepathic, or is this a test of your own ability to project some sort of vision to potential telepaths?

My answer is I don't know.

, and I didn't find it important to comment on your answer in the final analysis of this test, which focused more on people who provided numerical answers. Your answer was valid, though, because you answered one of the five valid possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4 and "I don't know". Perhaps, in another test, I shall try to comment more on answers by people who answered "I don't know" (if any).

 

[Hokulele]

Well, you said:

, and I didn't find it important to comment on your answer in the final analysis of this test, which focused more on people who provided numerical answers. Your answer was valid, though, because you answered one of the five valid possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4 and "I don't know". Perhaps, in another test, I shall try to comment more on answers by people who answered "I don't know" (if any).

What you would have to do is include those in your hit/miss percentages.

 

[Michel H]

Exactly. If Michal continued to experiment with this protocol he would have eventually developed the skill to pick up on those clues. It would have been fun to watch the skeptics bafflement as they see a paranormal ability demonstrated in front of them but it would be only a magic trick. And, if Michal didn't know it was a trick it would be detrimental to him.

My first name is Michel, not Michal, Dan.
When I saw that Hokulele had answered:

The first number that came to my attention is xx, so that is my choice for this test.

, I was concerned because "2" was the first number in my opening post:

Hi, I invite you to participate in a new telepathy test.

At about 20:17 on this Monday October 21 (Brussels, Belgium time), I wrote carefully ...

, and also the "target" of this test. But the number she had chosen to answer was actually a "1", not a "2".
It is true that the text participants write should never give away their number. They should not write e.g. :
My answer is xx, a square has xx equal sides.
But that's fairly obvious, I think. It is possible that Hokulele actually never intended to allude to the first "2" in my opening post.

 

[Michel H]

What you would have to do is include those in your hit/miss percentages.

No, Hokulele, I think I have to politely disagree
The "hits" are the answers equal to "2" (in this test), while the "misses" are the answers equal to "1", "3" or "4". Answers "I don't know" are neither hits nor misses.

 

[Hokulele]

No, Hokulele, I think I have to politely disagree
The "hits" are the answers equal to "2" (in this test), while the "misses" are the answers equal to "1", "3" or "4". Answers "I don't know" are neither hits nor misses.

If you are testing whether or not you successfully communicated with someone telepathically, "I don't know" is a clear miss.

 

[Michel H]

If you are testing whether or not you successfully communicated with someone telepathically, "I don't know" is a clear miss.

Not, not necessarily a clear miss, because the answer may not be credible, and the person may have lied.
The hit rate corresponding to chance alone (no telepathy) should be equal to 25%, in a four-possibility test, and should not depend upon the number of people who answered "I don't know". You can then assess how (un)successful you have been by comparing your hit rate to 25%, you can no longer do that if you put the {I don't know}s in your hit rate.