Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
Most people are very reluctant to change their beliefs. What appears to be dishonesty may be the visible ramification of their unwillingness to test or even question those beliefs.

I tried to point this out to you earlier using role reversal. Put yourself in their shoes, you have a strongly held belief, try to propose a test that has the potential to disprove that belief. Such an exercise turns out to be much more difficult than one would initially think.
Click to expand...

Odd then that so many sceptics at one time or other were on the other side of the fence and yet managed to successfully change their minds with critical thinking.

There is a point when reluctance to change looks a lot like delusion.
 
Nay_Sayer said:
Does this factor in ignoring the outcome and sifting data to my liking such as Michel has done?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, I have never done such a thing. Unfortunately, many of you seemed to ignore my results, preferring perhaps to look at incorrect statements written by other people, rather than at my serious analyses. Many of you seemed to prefer to remain in your imaginary "skeptical" world, in which psychic claimants are deluded (and possibly dishonest) individuals, instead of entering the real world (?).
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
As far as I know, I have never done such a thing. Unfortunately, many of you seemed to ignore my results...<snip>
Click to expand...

No. You have exactly the opposite problem. Most people do NOT want to discount 75% of the results. Most people would want evidence that those who answered "wrong" were deliberatley telling a lie.

You have ignored outcomes and sifted results. This has been pointed out to you for a veryt long time by the majority of posters in this thread. If you are unaware of these actions, then you must seriously question your aptitude for data gathering and handling.
 
Tomtomkent said:
No. You have exactly the opposite problem. Most people do NOT want to discount 75% of the results. Most people would want evidence that those who answered "wrong" were deliberatley telling a lie.

You have ignored outcomes and sifted results. This has been pointed out to you for a veryt long time by the majority of posters in this thread. If you are unaware of these actions, then you must seriously question your aptitude for data gathering and handling.
Click to expand...
No, I have not ignored outcomes, I have done a credibility analysis (this is different), made necessary by (I suppose) your relatively low motivation in my tests.
 
Michel H said:
As far as I know, I have never done such a thing. Unfortunately, many of you seemed to ignore my results, preferring perhaps to look at incorrect statements written by other people, rather than at my serious analyses. Many of you seemed to prefer to remain in your imaginary "skeptical" world, in which psychic claimants are deluded (and possibly dishonest) individuals, instead of entering the real world (?).
Click to expand...

Two points on your "serious analysis":

1) You have admitted you have no protocols or procedures for your "credibility ratings". Heck, in your recent post you seem to be saying you developed the idea of rating results to explain why your tests showed no telepathy.

2) When blinded, your ratings failed completely.

Your self testing seems to consist of two parts. You fail to demonstrate telepathy abilities. You make up rules after the tests are complete to change the results.
 
Michel H said:
No, I have not ignored outcomes, I have done a credibility analysis (this is different), made necessary by (I suppose) your relatively low motivation in my tests.
Click to expand...

Motivate me. Let's win the MDC together, and let me have 10% of the take. If you don't trust me, how about someone you know and like? Offer them $100,000 to honestly report the numbers you believe they are receiving.
 
Michel H said:
No, I have not ignored outcomes, I have done a credibility analysis (this is different),
Click to expand...
No. This is an excuse. You have absolutely zero evidence people "heard" your broadcast and lied. You have zero evidence to suopport youe excuses. What you have done does not show us anything other than you like to think the results that are positive are more credible.

Michel H said:
made necessary by (I suppose) your relatively low motivation in my tests.
Click to expand...

You suppose? Not a great start. And the motivation of other people? Why do you not suppose that people could not hear your telepathic broadcast?
 
Michel H said:
I am ready to consider any alternative theory, however, a mediocre insistance on this forum that I must probably have some chemical imbalance in my brain will probably not convince me, because I have received a fairly large number of testimonies telling me that I am "telepathic", even on this forum, for example this post
Click to expand...

Do you really think that's a testimony telling you you're telepathic?

Michel H said:
(in addition to positive results of tests, countless apparent observations of telepathy, for example when car drivers, or even birds, make noises in a way which is apparently correlated with my thoughts).
Click to expand...

Come on, now. Think about that for a minute. That sounds like you are treating coincidences as if they are significant.
 
Michel H said:
I have received a fairly large number of testimonies telling me that I am "telepathic", even on this forum, for example this post (i
Click to expand...

Thank you for reminding us of that post. You gave it a credibility rating of 8. That post it self was almost the same as this one, which you rated a -4.

This is a great example of what a farce your credibility rating system is. You rate the one with the answer you like very high. You rate the one with the answer you don't like like low. You base your low rating on the fact that there is a single typo in that post. You completely ignore the single typo in the post you did like.
 
Last edited:
TheSapient said:
I'm sorry, but this is just funny. He was clearly making fun of the test. And he wasn't even referring to you. He was pretending that he, himself, had ESP.
Click to expand...
ESP means extra-sensory perception, which is not bad for someone who is a percipient in a telepathy test.
 
Tomtomkent said:
How is somebody else claiming ESP testemony of your own power?
Click to expand...
How is somebody else claiming ESP testimony of your own power?
This is a rather strange question. The testimony about me as a telepathic "agent" (although my presumed telepathic emissions are involuntary) has to be brought by other people, not by myself. And it's better when it is verified.
 
Michel H said:
How is somebody else claiming ESP testimony of your own power?
This is a rather strange question. The testimony about me as a telepathic "agent" (although my presumed telepathic emissions are involuntary) has to be brought by other people, not by myself. And it's better when it is verified.
Click to expand...


But you don't trust other people.


Michel H said:
You're probably talking about your post 313. However, your method requires a "trusted friend", and I have no trusted friend in the field of telepathy.
Click to expand...


You appear to be snookered.
 
Michel H said:
How is somebody else claiming ESP testimony of your own power?
This is a rather strange question. The testimony about me as a telepathic "agent" (although my presumed telepathic emissions are involuntary) has to be brought by other people, not by myself. And it's better when it is verified.
Click to expand...

But.... If he divined the number through his own ESP (which he did not, the post was a joke) it makes no comment on YOUR ability all. Only his. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask how in blue blazes you decided to take the credit for somebody elses amazing ability.

Oh, and if you think that means your claim is verified then you are clearly trying way too hard to convince yourself.
 
Michel H said:
No, I have not ignored outcomes, I have done a credibility analysis (this is different), made necessary by (I suppose) your relatively low motivation in my tests.
Click to expand...
That sounds just like another way of saying that lacking good data you made some up. Because people did not take the test, you took it for them.
 
It's laughable to see all the pseudo skeptics falling over themselves trying to find fault with the test protocol when all they are really doing is applying their preset bias denying telepathy. They try so desperately to find a way to discredit the test where in fact the only real fault was the one that Michel himself brought up. Their math skills were tested with a very simple probability problem and they punted it. I found it particularly amusing when they suggested seeking a test with a local skeptics group before comming back here. It's as if they feel they are better qualified to test claims because they are hanging off the coattails of the JREF.

I had made a couple of minor critiques of the protocol but most really aren't all that important. the one critique that is important is that of falsifiability. If a test cannot change ones belief then what is the point in conducting the test. Both the pseudo skeptics and Michel have failed to address this issue.
 
Dan O. said:
It's laughable to see all the pseudo skeptics falling over themselves trying to find fault with the test protocol when all they are really doing is applying their preset bias denying telepathy. They try so desperately to find a way to discredit the test where in fact the only real fault was the one that Michel himself brought up. Their math skills were tested with a very simple probability problem and they punted it. I found it particularly amusing when they suggested seeking a test with a local skeptics group before comming back here. It's as if they feel they are better qualified to test claims because they are hanging off the coattails of the JREF.

I had made a couple of minor critiques of the protocol but most really aren't all that important. the one critique that is important is that of falsifiability. If a test cannot change ones belief then what is the point in conducting the test. Both the pseudo skeptics and Michel have failed to address this issue.
Click to expand...
We didn't need to be desperate to see the flaws in his 'test'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom