Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Dan O.]

Perhaps I can help a little here. In my first thread on this forum, on June 21, 2012, I wrote:

And Pixel42 quoted from that very post in the post from that thread which I linked to. Other posters mentioned your posts on yahoo where you made essentially the same disclosures, 3 years ago.

Since I started following this discussion quite late, I was a bit taken by the disclosure. But then I did some research. The issue does still concern me but I don't see it as critical. I'd much rather get back to discussing the scientific investigation of presumed paranormal events. That's what this section of the forum is all about.

 

[Pixel42]

I have to admit that I had forgotten that, or possibly had confused Michel with a different poster. I'm 60, my memory is not what it was. Also the conclusion that it is better not to engage with such posters at all is one I only came to recently, and it's still not one I'm sure of.

 

[TheSapient]

Perhaps I can help a little here. In my first thread on this forum, on June 21, 2012, I wrote:

Michel,

I missed your most concerning posts. I am no longer interested in your telepathy claims. I'm just going to ask you to please seek medical input on the voices you are hearing.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Perhaps I can help a little here. In my first thread on this forum, on June 21, 2012, I wrote:

Thank you. I overlooked that. Please tell your doctor about it.

 

[Michel H]

In the previous test, I did provide an honest answer. It was rejected for no other discernible reason than that it was not the answer that Michel wanted.
...

In the previous test, you did provide a valid answer, which was:

3 to bring some balance to the force

However, although this answer is valid, I do not find it credible: you answered "3" as if you had some political goal (?), which could be served by answering "3". You should have (ideally at least) responded just what you perceived (thanks to your telepathy or ESP abilities), not the number which seemed the most likely to you to "bring balance". You could also have answered "I don't know" if you really didn't know.

 

[abaddon]

In the previous test, you did provide a valid answer, which was:

However, although this answer is valid, I do not find it credible: you answered "3" as if you had some political goal (?), which could be served by answering "3". You should have (ideally at least) responded just what you perceived (thanks to your telepathy or ESP abilities), not the number the seemed the most likely to you to "bring balance". You could also have answered "I don't know" if you really didn't know.

Rubbish. I provided an honest answer, and appended a whimsical comment. Your credibility test is simply a nonsense you have invented to get the answers you want.

ETA: And wait just a minute, my answer was valid, but after the fact you decided it wasn't credible? It somehow went from an answer you consider valid to being not valid? Just because you didn't like it?

 

[Michel H]

...
ETA: And wait just a minute, my answer was valid, but after the fact you decided it wasn't credible? It somehow went from an answer you consider valid to being not valid? Just because you didn't like it?

No, a valid answer is an answer which is "1", or "2", or "3", or "4", or "I don't know" (five possibilities). "42" or "eleventy" are not valid answers. So, your answer was definitely valid (you answered "3"). But I did not, and still do not find it credible, for the reason I have just explained. This idea of credibility seems to be very critical in my online telepathy tests. I suspect that, in many cases, adding an odd and whimsical comment to your answer will make it uncredible. In the analysis of my first test on this forum, I listed a few reasons why an answer may not be credible:

...
Credible answers (i.e. those with a positive CR) are ideally kind and smart, while non-credible answers (which get a negative CR), are those which do not sound serious, sincere and reliable. Reasons why an answer may not be credible are:
• It is too aggressive.
• It contains one or several incorrect statements.
• It is odd or bizarre.
• The answerer says that his/her answer is not related to telepathy.
• The answer contains a very large number of spelling or syntaxic errors.
...

 

[TheSapient]

No, a valid answer is an answer which is "1", or "2", or "3", or "4", or "I don't know" (five possibilities). "42" or "eleventy" are not valid answers. So, your answer was definitely valid (you answered "3"). But I did not, and still do not find it credible, for the reason I have just explained. This idea of credibility seems to be very critical in my online telepathy tests. I suspect that, in many cases, adding an odd and whimsical comment to your answer will make it uncredible. In the analysis of my first test on this forum, I listed a few reasons why an answer may not be credible:

Michel,

When you know what numbers the participants have provided before applying your credibility ratings, you end up with a 100% success rate. When you do your credibility ratings blind to the numbers provided, your results end up to be consistent with random chance.

Why do you think this happens?

Further, you admit that "I don't know" is a valid answer, but also admit you do not consider it.

But most importantly, get yourself to a doctor. Now.

 

[devnull]

Rubbish. I provided an honest answer, and appended a whimsical comment. Your credibility test is simply a nonsense you have invented to get the answers you want.

ETA: And wait just a minute, my answer was valid, but after the fact you decided it wasn't credible? It somehow went from an answer you consider valid to being not valid? Just because you didn't like it?

You're just figuring all of this out now????????

 

[Michel H]

Michel,

When you know what numbers the participants have provided before applying your credibility ratings, you end up with a 100% success rate. When you do your credibility ratings blind to the numbers provided, your results end up to be consistent with random chance.

Why do you think this happens?

...

The correct answer rate for people who abided by the recommended protocol, in this test, is 2/3 = 67%, which is much higher than the approximately 25% expected from chance alone. This result however, although encouraging, is not statistically significant, because of the smallness of the sample (3 people only). This means that it would have to be repeated several times, in order to obtain a "proof" of telepathy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The correct answer rate for people who abided by the recommended protocol, in this test, is 2/3 = 67%, which is much higher than the approximately 25% expected from chance alone. This result however, although encouraging, is not statistically significant, because of the smallness of the sample (3 people only). This means that it would have to be repeated several times, in order to obtain a "proof" of telepathy.

What's the answer to the question he actually asked?

 

[xtifr]

The correct answer rate for people who abided by the recommended protocol, in this test, is 2/3 = 67%

No, the correct answer rate for people who abided by the recommended protocol is 2/6. The fact that you retroactively re-judged the credibility of answers after having the numbers revealed was itself a violation of the protocol, and can be ignored, as it rendered the entire test meaningless.

 

[Michel H]

No, the correct answer rate for people who abided by the recommended protocol is 2/6. ...

No, that's not true. stanfr, Kid Eager and gabeygoat did not follow the recommended protocol because the answers they sent to the "assistant" Agatha were different from the ones they posted previously in the thread (see post #149 for details). This is not what I said in the opening post.

 

[TheSapient]

The correct answer rate for people who abided by the recommended protocol, in this test, is 2/3 = 67%, which is much higher than the approximately 25% expected from chance alone. This result however, although encouraging, is not statistically significant, because of the smallness of the sample (3 people only). This means that it would have to be repeated several times, in order to obtain a "proof" of telepathy.

Wrong. You can't change the protocol after the fact. You said it "may be useful" that "you send your (full) answer, in the form of a private message, to either Agatha". You CHOSE to not make it a requirement.

But let's accept your new claim that your credibility system requires word-for-word copies of answers PM'ed to someone. In your prior test, where you say you had a 100% success rate, we have not seen a single PM that does what you claim to need. 100% failure rate for you.

But really, ask yourself why you have to change the protocols after each of these tests to fudge the data. Who exactly are you trying to fool? Yourself? Why do you feel the need to do that?

And you've been told over and over how to make a compelling, simple test where number fudging is not going to help you. This is an open admission you know you need to manipulate the data to get the results you want. But if you know you are a fraud, and you know we all know it, why do you keep doing this?

 

[Akhenaten]

No, the correct answer rate for people who abided by the recommended protocol is 2/6. ...

No, that's not true. stanfr, Kid Eager and gabeygoat did not follow the recommended protocol because the answers they sent to the "assistant" Agatha were different from the ones they posted previously in the thread (see post #149 for details). This is not what I said in the opening post.

Fiddlesticks.


You changed the rules after the results were revealed.

viz

Two of those were numerically correct ( the answers by Ladewig and Femke, this is what Agatha found in her analysis), this gives us a correct answer rate (CAR) equal to CAR = 2/6 = 33%, which a little higher than the CAR expected from chance alone, which is about 25%. However, a closer look reveals that three of these answerers (stanfr, Kid Eager and gabeygoat) gravely violated the recommended protocol explained in the opening post, because they had sent to Agatha a text which was different from the one they had posted in the thread.

One (let alone three) cannot "gravely violate" something that is no more than a recommendation. You only upgraded this recommendation to the status of a rigid requirement post hoc.

 

[Michel H]

...
One (let alone three) cannot "gravely violate" something that is no more than a recommendation. You only upgraded this recommendation to the status of a rigid requirement post hoc.

I believe that sending a different answer to the assistant goes again the spirit of this test, which is to assess credibilities of the answers in a blind way, i.e. without knowing the number. Let me take an example: you go to a furniture store, and you choose and buy over there a piece of furniture that you like a lot. You also ask for the furniture to be delivered to your house, but, when you receive the furniture a week later, you find out it's not the one you ordered. What would be your reaction?
The answers by stanfr, Kid Eager and gabeygoat are still valid, however (see for example post #297, that you quote). But they didn't do what I recommended.

 

[Michel H]

...
But let's accept your new claim that your credibility system requires word-for-word copies of answers PM'ed to someone. In your prior test, where you say you had a 100% success rate, we have not seen a single PM that does what you claim to need. 100% failure rate for you.
...

I certainly do not say that "my credibility system" always "requires word-for-word copies of answers PM'ed to someone". Blinding, and an assistant, were introduced in this test to make the test more rigorous, to make sure I don't get influenced by my knowledge of the number when choosing credibilities. I believe that the analyses of my first two "unblinded" tests remain valid. Please be careful about the words you use, TheSapient.

 

[Akhenaten]

...
One (let alone three) cannot "gravely violate" something that is no more than a recommendation. You only upgraded this recommendation to the status of a rigid requirement post hoc.

I believe that sending a different answer to the assistant goes again the spirit of this test, which is to assess credibilities of the answers in a blind way, i.e. without knowing the number.

Your beliefs about "the spirit of the test" DO NOT constitute a protocol.

I would have thought a high school student would understand this and yet it continues to elude someone with an alleged scientific background.

Let me take an example: you go to a furniture store, and you choose and buy over there a piece of furniture that you like a lot. You also ask for the furniture to be delivered to your house, but, when you receive the furniture a week later, you find out it's not the one you ordered. What would be your reaction?

I would point out that I ordered a specific piece of furniture and did not merely make a suggestion to the salesperson, of course.

The answers by stanfr, Kid Eager and gabeygoat are still valid, however (see for example post #297, that you quote). But they didn't do what I recommended.

Then your protocol was deficient to start with. That still doesn't mean you get to tighten it up after the results are revealed and doing so invalidates at least your ridiculous 66% claim, if not the entire test.

 

[Dan O.]

The correct answer rate for people who abided by the recommended protocol, in this test, is 2/3 = 67%, which is much higher than the approximately 25% expected from chance alone. This result however, although encouraging, is not statistically significant, because of the smallness of the sample (3 people only). This means that it would have to be repeated several times, in order to obtain a "proof" of telepathy.

You are quite right. So many ot the posters are all thumbs when it comes to this stuff. By that I mean that they can repeat the rule of thumb but beyond that they don't really understand.

 

[TheSapient]

I certainly do not say that "my credibility system" always "requires word-for-word copies of answers PM'ed to someone". Blinding, and an assistant, were introduced in this test to make the test more rigorous, to make sure I don't get influenced by my knowledge of the number when choosing credibilities. I believe that the analyses of my first two "unblinded" tests remain valid. Please be careful about the words you use, TheSapient.

Please explain exactly when and why your credibility system requires an exact PM to be sent to a third party. Do you know before the test begins, and if so, why don't you make it a requirement?

I get you don't want to answer this, but I urge you to think about it. Why is having magical powers so important to you that openly manipulate test results?