Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheSapient said:
Michel,

What would be the credibility rating of the following post, assuming that was the entirety of the post?
I don't know.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
In your example, the answerer gives very little information. But you may notice that kid meatball gave "much more" (sic) information, in this test:
kid meatball 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.
Click to expand...
 
On subjective re-evaluation of the numbers after the guesses and the numbers are known: Here’s an analogy.

The town of Dry Gulch is looking for a new sheriff. One qualification is that the successful applicant must be able to put six bullets within a ten-inch bull’s-eye target from fifty yards away. The town council watches as each applicant tries his luck, and the first three fail.

They then observe the fourth applicant. With his six-shooter the fourth applicant takes aim at a blank wall from fifty yards away, empties his revolver, re-loads it, fires again until his revolver is empty, and then repeats the process four more times.

The applicant then looks at the wall and out of the 36 bullet holes, he finds six that are within ten inches of each other. He draws a target around these six.

Now: Does he get the job?
 
TheSapient said:
I'm not asking about Kid Meatball. I'm asking you what the credibility score would be for the following post.
I don't know.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That's a hypothetical question. Actually, I usually don't give credibility ratings to people who answer "I don't know". I may, however study the answer (if there is something to study), and say whether it seems credible to me, or not.
 
Michel H said:
My first name is Michel, not Michal, Dan.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that was quite unintentional. My spell checker keeps wanting to say Michael and I have to remove the extra vowel somewhere I started removing the wrong one.


When I saw that Hokulele had answered:

, I was concerned because "2" was the first number in my opening post:
, and also the "target" of this test. But the number she had chosen to answer was actually a "1", not a "2".
Click to expand...

This is a generic problem with using numbers since they show up in many other contexts. Are numbers necessary for you or would abstract symbols work as well?


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.
Click to expand...


People are notoriously bad at picking random numbers. I've always wanted to write the psi test that used predictive analysis to guess the applicant's next guess so as to inflate their score :)

The link between a statement and the number could be subconscious. The subject would not have to consciously try. Its like word assocation. The only way to avoid there being any link would be for them to create a statement, erase their first number and substitute a truly random number generated by flipping coins or rolling dice or such.
 
Michel H said:
That's a hypothetical question. Actually, I usually don't give credibility ratings to people who answer "I don't know". I may, however study the answer (if there is something to study), and say whether it seems credible to me, or not.
Click to expand...

The credibility ratings are your own fantasy and nothing to do with science.
 
Michel H said:
That's a hypothetical question. Actually, I usually don't give credibility ratings to people who answer "I don't know". I may, however study the answer (if there is something to study), and say whether it seems credible to me, or not.
Click to expand...


If the credibility rating was like a wager that their number was correct, a CR of 0 (zero) would be the equivalent of no wager and the trial would not show in the resulting win/loss score.
 
Dan O. said:
If the credibility rating was like a wager that their number was correct, a CR of 0 (zero) would be the equivalent of no wager and the trial would not show in the resulting win/loss score.
Click to expand...

Didn't you notice the ''seems credible to me'' in his post? You seem to be agreeing with his method of throwing out the results that do not fit his illusion.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
That's a rather strong statement, dafydd. Are you sure you are the person who can decide what is scientific, and what is not?
Click to expand...

No, I am the persdon who says that you cannot judge how credible a person is by looking at a few typed lines on the net. To claim that you can do this is absurd and unscientific.
 
Michel H said:
That's a hypothetical question. Actually, I usually don't give credibility ratings to people who answer "I don't know". I may, however study the answer (if there is something to study), and say whether it seems credible to me, or not.
Click to expand...

So what exactly could a person who is not hearing a number from your telepathy say that would get a high credibility rating and be included in your final analysis?
 
Michel H said:
That's a rather strong statement, dafydd. Are you sure you are the person who can decide what is scientific, and what is not?
Click to expand...

You, yourself, have admitted there are no protocols for your credibility system. That makes it unrepeatable, and therefore unscientific.
 
Michel H said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you can communicate, "I don't know" means no communication happened, so it would be a miss as far as demonstrating communication is concerned.
 
Hokulele said:
If you can communicate, "I don't know" means no communication happened, so it would be a miss as far as demonstrating communication is concerned.
Click to expand...

And if the person actually heard the transmitted number in their head and decided to lie about it? We are about as far from science as we can get.
 
Of course, all of these issues would be moot if Michel would just start with a large set of possible numbers. Right now he is claiming that about 100% of participants hear his number, and 25% of those report it honestly. If we start with a range of numbers that is sufficiently large, like 1 to 1,000,000,000, and 25% of participants get it right, no one would be care about the issues caused by his credibility scores or the fact he omits people who say they "don't know".
 
Michel H said:
That's a rather strong statement, dafydd. Are you sure you are the person who can decide what is scientific, and what is not?
Click to expand...

That's the beauty of science, anyone with a small amount of knowledge of the scientific method can.
 
TheSapient said:
Of course, all of these issues would be moot if Michel would just start with a large set of possible numbers. Right now he is claiming that about 100% of participants hear his number, and 25% of those report it honestly. If we start with a range of numbers that is sufficiently large, like 1 to 1,000,000,000, and 25% of participants get it right, no one would be care about the issues caused by his credibility scores or the fact he omits people who say they "don't know".
Click to expand...

He comes here with a claim that he is telepathic, we ask him for proof and part of the proof is that he claims that he is telepathic. There's flaw there. Surely a scientist would spot it.
 
kid meatball said:
That's the beauty of science, anyone with a small amount of knowledge of the scientific method can.
Click to expand...

If I was claiming to be telepathic I would test it with a friend and a pack of cards and I would soon discover that I got it right one out of fifty-two times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom