Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
I thought you asked us to pick from 1, 2, 3, or 4?

Or as in the last test, are you really going to score us not on the number, but "how certain we are"?
Well, I would like to credibility-score you based on the accompanying text you write. The idea of using MD5 hashes was actually first proposed by you on this forum (I was not using MD5's before). If you had to choose between doing this test correctly and learning Chinese, what would you choose?
Click to expand...


1. thanks for the compliment in your post, but you must have me confused with someone else: I have not previously participated in any of your threads and I certainly did not propose the MD5 hash idea.

2. I would certainly learn Chinese: at least it would be useful.
 
Michel H said:
There is not just one criterion to evaluate answers, there are actually two: credibility and correctness. If "we" find that these two properties are correlated, then we may get some interesting results.
Click to expand...

Except that it isn't really "we" it is you and you alone making that assessment.

And upon what criteria will you and you alone determine acceptability?

1) Correctness. Is the correct answer provided. Straight away the test is invalid.

2) Credibility. A subjective test whose criteria exist in your mind only. We have already seen in previous iterations of this test that when pressed, you will provide putative "rules" for credibility which you will then proceed to ignore. Once again the test is invalid.
 
4.jpg

I hope this non-explicit enough and also this is the smallest sentence I can write.
 
abaddon said:
Except that it isn't really "we" it is you and you alone making that assessment.

And upon what criteria will you and you alone determine acceptability?

1) Correctness. Is the correct answer provided. Straight away the test is invalid.

2) Credibility. A subjective test whose criteria exist in your mind only. We have already seen in previous iterations of this test that when pressed, you will provide putative "rules" for credibility which you will then proceed to ignore. Once again the test is invalid.
Click to expand...
If I perceive some aggressivity in the post giving the answer, or some very bizarre statements (assuming for the sake of discussion that I am using a simple unblinded protocol), the credibility will probably go down. I strongly suspect many of you can understand this (even if you yell say otherwise). In this test, I am trying to use a rigorous method, where I cannot unconsciously favor numerically correct answers.
 
Michel H said:
If I perceive some aggressivity in the post giving the answer,
Click to expand...
Subjective opinion not relevant to the test at hand.

Michel H said:
or some very bizarre statements (assuming for the sake of discussion that I am using a simple unblinded protocol),
Click to expand...
Subjective opinion not relevant to the test at hand.

Michel H said:
the credibility will probably go down.
Click to expand...
Subjective opinion not relevant to the test at hand.

Michel H said:
I strongly suspect many of you can understand this (even if you yell say otherwise).
Click to expand...
Subjective opinion not relevant to the test at hand.

Michel H said:
In this test, I am trying to use a rigorous method, where I cannot unconsciously favor numerically correct answers.
Click to expand...
This test will fail, like all the others, because it is the same as all the others.

You get to decide which answers to accept purely on the basis of how much you like them. That is not science.
 
Michel,

Can you name any other scientific test which requires the person being tested to evaluate the credibility of the answers?
 
Michel H said:
... this answer was given by dlorde in a previous test, the number 2 he gave was correct
Click to expand...
Yay!! I'm telepathic! - at least, I was, just that once... :rolleyes:

I won £10 on the lottery the first time I bought a ticket; I haven't bought one since. I'm a rare lottery winner still in profit...

Guess what I won't be doing in this thread; I wouldn't want to lose my perfect telepathic record :p
 
Michel,
You have been told multiple times that your methodology is flawed and why it is flawed.

Consider also that there are people on this forum that know a great deal more about probability and testing methodologies than you.

You are not the subject matter expert here. Insistence on a flawed methodology in light of the above indicates you have no real confidence in the results of a valid test supporting your claim.

Move on with your life, if you are unable to get over this fundamental mental hurdle, and do something else.
 
Michel H said:
I would like that you do all a greater effort to follow the protocol explained in my first post.
Click to expand...


And I would like that you do a greater effort to understand why your protocol is not valid.

The fact that this type of protocol is used nowhere in any scientific testing should be an important place to start.
 
Michel H said:
No, I don't think so, even if your answer (in post #2) is not without merit. I would like that you do all a greater effort to follow the protocol explained in my first post.
Click to expand...

No.

Why should anyone follow that rubbish which is intentionally designed to reinforce a previous unsupported belief?
 
Michel H said:
<snip>
Click to expand...

My gosh, you sure do use a lot of words to say, "Here's a bunch of complete nonsense."


Why don't you generate a 6 digit number, PM it to a 3rd party, invite guesses and then only count exact hits? That would be a guess rate of just about 1 in a million.

Also, as a social scientist, I can tell you that instruments measuring people's opinions need to be devised, scored and normalized beforehand. You can't just say you'll evaluate credibility by giving it a score. You have to specifically define how the score is to be arrived at.

Even then, you have to take into account that people could just be lying to you. Good survey instruments have multiple ways to check truthfulness (and even ways to check if people are trying to game the test).

You've just got ... everything you're saying just adds up to nothing.
 
Last edited:
Spindrift said:
There is no such thing as telepathy and I have no idea what number you wrote for this poorly designed experiment. Therefore I am not going to simply guess a number and give you a 25% chance of being right.
Click to expand...
Spindrift and I have exactly the same answer. Telepath that, baby.
 
Michel H said:
If I perceive some aggressivity in the post giving the answer, or some very bizarre statements (assuming for the sake of discussion that I am using a simple unblinded protocol), the credibility will probably go down. I strongly suspect many of you can understand this (even if you yell say otherwise).
Click to expand...


No, you are wrong. If you do think that many of us secretly agree with you while we lie to you about it, that is one more thing you might want to talk about with your doctor.
 
Michel H said:
Hokulele, I'll try to answers the points you're making here.
(1) " By requiring people to do a simple substitution and post the accompanying MD5 hash, it is very easy for you to cheat and simply test all four combinations in the hash generator to determine which people guessed correctly."
I suspect you didn't read my opening post carefully. The objection you're making was a valid one for the opening post of my previous test, which was pointed out by Agatha, but is no longer valid for this test. Let me use an example. You decide to answer "1", you post "I am far away, but I am really almost sure your number is a xx.", and then the md5 hash of "1. yfgygh $ù^^) àçè§'"é!ç geswcpzhgf". Even if I have your MD5 hash, I am unable to determine that your numerical answer is a 1, because your hash was not produced from the string I am far away, but I am really almost sure your number is a 1.
(2) Choosing one of 4 numbers, without a great deal of repetition, is completely meaningless statistically speaking. The best solution would be to have people choose a number from a much larger range, such as 1-10000.
This is an "objection" which is made from time to time. Let me say this. If my number was 7532, the motivation for people to answer it correctly would probably be rather low, even if they can really actually do it, because of an extraordinary telepathic phenomenon without historical precedent. In addition, if many people answer in several threads I can possibly receive many answers, and theoretically reach statistical significance.
(3) Also, if you are hearing voices again, especially voices telling you to harm yourself, you really should see a health care professional to make sure it isn't a symptom of something other than telepathy.
In this thread, I would like to request that you (and other members) focus insofar as possible to telepathy aspects (and possibly technical ones, but in a smart way), rather than "medical" aspects. I suppose you can imagine the possibly bad consequences if the doctor lies, is dishonest, and gives possibly dangerous pseudo-medications.
Click to expand...
There is cogent explanation at its best.
 
Tomtomkent said:
...

The only way to validate the test is to accept ALL responses and to ONLY look at the number.

Choosing out of four numbers is too small a sample size. Ideally you want four digits chosen from 0 to 9. More complex the sequence, the less likely the chances of guessing randomly, so the more obvious a significant result is.
Click to expand...
Loss Leader said:
My gosh, you sure do use a lot of words to say, "Here's a bunch of complete nonsense."


Why don't you generate a 6 digit number, PM it to a 3rd party, invite guesses and then only count exact hits? That would be a guess rate of just about 1 in a million.
...
Click to expand...
Tomtomkent and Loss Leader, do you really think such methods could be successful, lead to positive results (i.e. hit rates higher than chance)? Or, would they be more like "perfect recipes for failure", "appropriate for a skeptic forum" ? (or appropriate, perhaps for a "Loss Leader"? ;) ). Obviously, both of you speak with great confidence about something you've probably never done, as a researcher (a successful telepathy test, although Loss Leader has provided a remarkable and numerically correct answer, in one of my tests, but as a participant).

I regret that this new test thread (of the "rigorous" kind) has now been merged with the previous test thread, also of the "rigorous kind". Obviously, this will make it a lot harder for a newcomer in the thread to find the opening post.

Newcomers in the thread, please go to post #1031 to find the opening post of this test.

It would perhaps be nice if all posters in this thread could now copy and paste the sentence above at the end of their post.

So far, only one person followed the protocol, fromdownunder, who posted:
fromdownunder said:
OK, here is my genuine answer ## I really believe, I really and truly believe.

a1d0c6e83f027327d8461063f4ac58a6
Click to expand...
(thank you, fromdownunder). I would like to get a few more protocol-abiding answers.

I have seen no valid objection against the current protocol, and I see therefore no reason to revise it. I am sorry if this test seems a little complicated but you have to realize that, if you want a rigorous procedure, there is a (little) price to pay, in terms of complexity. I thought it would be appropriate to do a rigorous test on the forum of the Randi Foundation, which tends to emphasize possible errors, the risk of erroneous beliefs, and critical thinking. A rigorous test which, I should say, is partly based on suggestions you have made yourself, on this very forum (regarding "blinding" and MD5 hashes). It is then a little strange to see so many of you attack a test that you have contributed yourself to create.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom