Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
Well, first of all, I have been trying to transmit a 2 in this test, not a 1 or a 3. Next, I don't know what other people may have been doing during the past week. But I strongly suspect (based e.g. on testimonies, I have already mentioned some here) I am very "special", as far as telepathy is concerned (note: "special" doesn't mean "better", or "good", I am not claiming that I am better than anyone else). I suspect that, if other people tried to transmit numbers, they would be less "effective" (so to speak).
Click to expand...


That response has absolutely nothing to do with the question you were asked.
 
Michel H said:
Actually, I have a Ph.D. degree in theoretical physics from a large U.S. university (and also a Belgian engineering degree).
Click to expand...


Then there is, quite frankly, no excuse for such a poorly designed test as you have created. You should know better as a theoretical physicist. That you don't is a symptom of the current difficulties that you have in thinking clearly and should be enough of a clue to indicate to yourself, as well as the scientists on this board that your thinking is disordered.

I can only assume that you are currently not working and have not discussed your protocol with colleagues, any of whom would be able to tell you where you are going wrong. The other possibility, of course, is that you do not hold the degrees that you claim and that you only believe that you do.

I would tend towards the first explanation, that you are currently to ill to work. What does that tell you about your health Michel?
 
Michel, I assume you have had students working with you in the past, and have supervised their experimental work. If an undergraduate or a graduate student came to you with this protocol, how would you advise them? Do you, as a physicist, see any room for improvement in the experimental design?
 
scarlettinlondon said:
Michel, I assume you have had students working with you in the past, and have supervised their experimental work. If an undergraduate or a graduate student came to you with this protocol, how would you advise them? Do you, as a physicist, see any room for improvement in the experimental design?
Click to expand...
Well, if I do another test on this forum, I shall probably not use this protocol again, for two main reasons (not because it's incorrect, because of other reasons). First, it seems a little too complicated, and I am not getting enough valid answers (although this aspect could perhaps be improved by trying to explain better to participants that they need to save their character string [used to create the MD5 hash]). Secondly, it seems that the preliminary credibilities do not correlate very well with numerical correctness. Therefore, if I do a test again on this forum, I shall probably revert to a simpler method, similar to what I did in the first two tests here, but perhaps with a greater number of possibilities (for example, 10), as has been suggested my several posters.
 
Michel H said:
I usually repeat the target number regularly, rather frequently at the beginning of the test, and less often after a few days.
Click to expand...
In my interpretation, you did not respond to fromdownunder's question. Let me ask (my interpretation of) his question differently:

Can fromdownunder receive your telepathy while he is asleep. If so, how does he know he got a message while asleep? If not, how do you connect with people who are asleep? Or, for that matter, people who are concentrating on something else? Drunk? Having sex?
 
Loss Leader said:
You didn't get the result you wanted, so you're going to rejigger things until you do.
Click to expand...
I am not completely dissatisfied with the results I got in this test, I made some observations, I did not explain all of them. However, I have a feeling it was quite a bit of complexity for "not that great" results.
 
Pixel42 said:
42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything and will therefore be the number of choice for anyone jokingly participating in a silly test in which they are required to think of a number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ul...fe.2C_the_Universe.2C_and_Everything_.2842.29
Click to expand...

Well, not everyone. I chose "a suffusion of yellow" because we have to pick a number between 1 and 4. I think that's a more appropriate reference to an awesome book by the same writer in this case ;)
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
I am not completely dissatisfied with the results I got in this test, I made some observations, I did not explain all of them. However, I have a feeling it was quite a bit of complexity for "not that great" results.
Click to expand...

OK, let us make this as simple as possible, and eliminate all the complexity. Do it by a Poll on the forum. Choose 1 - 10 or 1 - 20, and simply allow people to place their number in the poll without requiring them to post. Post your number to someone on the Board who volunteers not to take part in the Poll and will keep the number secret until you decide that there are enough members who have voted.

After all, you said earlier:

Remember, however, that this test is about telepathy, not about credibility ratings.
Click to expand...

So if you do not want complexity, and as you stated, it is "about telepathy, not about credibility ratings" use the KISS principle, and throw the credibility ratings out the window. Just pick 1 - 10 or 1 - 20, post a Poll, send someone you trust the number, project your number all you want, and see how the ultimate numbers stack up against what you project.

Norm
 
Turgor said:
Well, not everyone. I chose "a suffusion of yellow" because we have to pick a number between 1 and 4. I think that's a more appropriate reference to an awesome book by the same writer in this case ;)
Click to expand...

Yay! Arthur Dent v Dirk Gently fight. Film at 11:00

Norm
 
Michel H said:
Then, I used the generator, and it gave the number "4". However, I had somehow bad memories from this number, as a target, so I decided to use "2" instead. I crossed out the "4"s I had already written, I wrote a "NO" next to them, and I wrote "2"s later, for this test. I note that your answer "42" (although it is not valid) is strongly correlated with the sequence of numbers I actually used (several people also answered "4"). You were also the only participant who gave a MD5 hash that I could really verify.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

I really do need to comment, rather late, on this "stuff I use to make my Roses grow" post. Somehow, a completely invalidated number, has impressed Michel in some way. I am so proud!

My previously invalidated number, 42, which many posters have informed Michel, is almost Universally accepted as an Internet Meme, is now somehow being interpreted by Michel for being at least in part, validation for his stupidly wrong protocol.

How far do you need to stretch tour fake "credibility ratings", Michel, because you are not willing to accept that nobody hears anything you think, and let's go a step further, nobody even cares. Suddenly you have postdicted that I appear to be back on your radar because I picked your selected number in part, even though it was a joke post.

Your Doctorate really should have included Humour 101.

Norm
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
There is perhaps something that I should add about this test, for perhaps a better understanding of the "results". When I first thought about doing a new test on this forum, my initial intention was to use a random number generator to produce the number (I didn't want to choose it myself). Then, I used the generator, and it gave the number "4". However, I had somehow bad memories from this number, as a target, so I decided to use "2" instead. I crossed out the "4"s I had already written, I wrote a "NO" next to them, and I wrote "2"s later, for this test. I note that your answer "42" (although it is not valid) is strongly correlated with the sequence of numbers I actually used (several people also answered "4"). You were also the only participant who gave a MD5 hash that I could really verify.
Click to expand...

Amazing.

I did not think there was a way to make this test less rigorous or less scientific; and yet, you have found a way to do so.

If you decide on a protocol, then once you start the test, you are not allowed to say "this part of the protocol is inconvenient for me so I will just do whatever I feel like instead."
 
Feynman said:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Click to expand...

I'd hope a theoretical physicist would recognize Feynman's bona fides
 
fromdownunder said:
Bolding mine.

I really do need to comment, rather late, on this "stuff I use to make my Roses grow" post. Somehow, a completely invalidated number, has impressed Michel in some way. I am so proud!

My previously invalidated number, 42, which many posters have informed Michel, is almost Universally accepted as an Internet Meme, is now somehow being interpreted by Michel for being at least in part, validation for his stupidly wrong protocol.

How far do you need to stretch tour fake "credibility ratings", Michel, because you are not willing to accept that nobody hears anything you think, and let's go a step further, nobody even cares. Suddenly you have postdicted that I appear to be back on your radar because I picked your selected number in part, even though it was a joke post.

Your Doctorate really should have included Humour 101.

Norm
Click to expand...
One thing that some members of this forum don't seem to understand, unfortunately, is that a protocol must be adapted to the kind of data that participants are willing to give. For example, if participants are only willing to give the correct number in "joke form", then you may have to scrutinize all sentences which are posted (and especially those which seem strange), to try discover if your number is not there, given in coded or enigmatic way, or suggested, rather than given. My situation, as a telepathy investigator, is somewhat comparable to that of a homeless man, who has to dig and look for food in garbage cans near grocery stores or supermarkets. Obviously, the food he will find there won't be high quality; similarly, conclusions I may reach after studying your "joke answers" may not be the safest, or the most convincing. You have to be consistent: if you provide me with very poor data, then no telepathy effect will be found; if you provide me with mediocre data, some telepathy may be found by the analysis, which will be marred by some doubt; if you provide excellent data, then my (still hypothetical) "telepathy" can be proved without the shadow of a doubt. My impression is that it is somewhat illusory that people will suddenly start providing very good data.
 
Michel H said:
One thing that some members of this forum don't seem to understand, unfortunately, is that a protocol must be adapted to the kind of data that participants are willing to give. For example, if participants are only willing to give the correct number in "joke form", then you may have to scrutinize all sentences which are posted (and especially those which seem strange), to try discover if your number is not there, given in coded or enigmatic way, or suggested, rather than given. My situation, as a telepathy investigator, is somewhat comparable to that of a homeless man, who has to dig and look for food in garbage cans near grocery stores or supermarkets. Obviously, the food he will find there won't be high quality; similarly, conclusions I may reach after studying your "joke answers" may not be the safest, or the most convincing. You have to be consistent: if you provide me with very poor data, then no telepathy effect will be found; if you provide me with mediocre data, some telepathy may be found by the analysis, which will be marred by some doubt; if you provide excellent data, then my (still hypothetical) "telepathy" can be proved without the shadow of a doubt. My impression is that it is somewhat illusory that people will suddenly start providing very good data.
Click to expand...


yeah.......... that's not how science works though.
 
Michel H said:
One thing that some members of this forum don't seem to understand, unfortunately, is that a protocol must be adapted to the kind of data that participants are willing to give. For example, if participants are only willing to give the correct number in "joke form", then you may have to scrutinize all sentences which are posted (and especially those which seem strange), to try discover if your number is not there, given in coded or enigmatic way, or suggested, rather than given. My situation, as a telepathy investigator, is somewhat comparable to that of a homeless man, who has to dig and look for food in garbage cans near grocery stores or supermarkets. Obviously, the food he will find there won't be high quality; similarly, conclusions I may reach after studying your "joke answers" may not be the safest, or the most convincing. You have to be consistent: if you provide me with very poor data, then no telepathy effect will be found; if you provide me with mediocre data, some telepathy may be found by the analysis, which will be marred by some doubt; if you provide excellent data, then my (still hypothetical) "telepathy" can be proved without the shadow of a doubt. My impression is that it is somewhat illusory that people will suddenly start providing very good data.
Click to expand...


Utter nonsense. Pick a number between 1 and 1 million. How much easier could it be?
 
Michel H said:
Well, if I do another test on this forum, I shall probably not use this protocol again, for two main reasons (not because it's incorrect, because of other reasons). First, it seems a little too complicated, and I am not getting enough valid answers (although this aspect could perhaps be improved by trying to explain better to participants that they need to save their character string [used to create the MD5 hash]). Secondly, it seems that the preliminary credibilities do not correlate very well with numerical correctness. Therefore, if I do a test again on this forum, I shall probably revert to a simpler method, similar to what I did in the first two tests here, but perhaps with a greater number of possibilities (for example, 10), as has been suggested my several posters.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comments.
However, while this may be an answer to the question that you wish I had asked, it is not the answer to the question which I did ask.

Let me rephrase. If one of your undergraduate or graduate students came to you with this protocol, how would you, as a theoretical physicist, advise them to improve it so that the results are valid from a scientific point of view?

If you cannot answer this question, just say so. I must however say that if you cannot answer this question, I will doubt that you have the qualifications that you claim.
 
Michel H said:
One thing that some members of this forum don't seem to understand, unfortunately, is that a protocol must be adapted to the kind of data that participants are willing to give.
Click to expand...

Hi Michel,
If you were to propose a test that could be taken seriously. Then you might actually find more people willing to take it and you more seriously.
As it is your test is a joke which seems to have been designed to give a positive answer no matter what.
 
Michel H said:
One thing that some members of this forum don't seem to understand, unfortunately, is that a protocol must be adapted to the kind of data that participants are willing to give. For example, if participants are only willing to give the correct number in "joke form" [...]
Click to expand...
As I've said several times, if the protocols proposed so far weren't an utter joke, maybe you'd get responses that weren't jokes. I haven't participated in any of the tests because they're too obviously flawed, but if you ran a real test, I'd be happy to give it a serious shot.

The grown-up me recognizes that Randi's challenge has gone unclaimed for decades, and Rhine's research has been completely debunked, and that the chance telepathy is still hiding somewhere on this planet is basically nil. The kid me that grew up on Heinlein and Van Vogt and X-Men would still love to see telepathy discovered, though. So, I'd be happy to play this game, and play it straight, if I thought it were an honest test. But it's clearly not.

[...] then you may have to scrutinize all sentences which are posted (and especially those which seem strange), to try discover if your number is not there, given in coded or enigmatic way, or suggested, rather than given.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no, that's not science. That's straight up cheating. That's worse than the crap Rhine pulled.

As has been pointed out numerous times, you could eliminate the whole problem of people supposedly lying or joking or whatever simply by giving us a large enough range that any hits would be statistically significant. The fact that you refuse to do so suggests that you know, somewhere, deep down, that telepathy ain't happening here. And the only way you'll ever convince me otherwise is to run an honest test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom