Merged Telepathy test: which number did I write?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow. So that's how science works? The careful, solemn application of subjective opinion to a bunch of obviously facetious joke responses. Cool.
 
Michel H said:
If I retain only the numerical answers which are both valid and credible (i.e. with a positive CR value), only the answers by calwaterbear, Femke and dlorde remain. Since they are all correct (i.e. they all answered correctly "2"), I obtain a 100% correct answer rate (among credible answers). This result holds true if introduce a credibility threshold and limit my final analysis to answers which get a minimum credibility rating equal to 5, for example (because, after analysis, I gave a CR-value equal to +8 to all of these three answers). The probability for this is equal to p = 1/(4^3) = 1.6 %.
Click to expand...

Amazing! 100% success rate, and all you had to do was make up some ridiculous reasons to discard all the answers that weren't right! You must be an amazing psychic.

I especially like how "impatience" is a good sign (when they get the right answer), but someone having an aggressive looking avatar or username is enough to disqualify them when they give the wrong answer. Why, it's as if you're just making up reasons to disqualify people so you get the answer you want!
 
Michel H said:
snip
Femke's answer:

What she said about the number of goals in the ladies hockey final was right (see http://www.london2012.com/hockey/ ). She roughly said implicitly that her number was correct in an original way (because I shall be more likely to come back on this forum, and do more telepathy tests if I get many correct answers, rather than no right answer at all). She seemed to be looking forward to another test (see her "Yay"), which was nice of her. CR=8.
Click to expand...

I am pleased with your kind words, however, you are reading more in my post than intended. "Yay" was an expression of playfulness, I just came from the epic Olympic thread by PeaceCrusader, where every post is preceded by an original and intriguing number (if you have a few days to kill, it is a recommended read). I just seized the opportunity of inserting yet another number relating to the OS.


However, I am not impressed with your mangling of the data. If you take all posts with numbers, you'll get a success rate of approximately 25%, which is exactly as predicted by chance alone. Boosting success rate by discarding the wrong answers because of a flippant remark, a nasty avatar or a scary name is not scientific.
According to that logic, you should disregard my answer too, because my remark was not intended as showing anticipation for a next test.

Femke
 
Michel H said:
13 people gave valid numerical answers (either "1", or "2", or "3", or "4"), out of which 3 (23.1 %) were correct
Click to expand...
So for those who chose a number in the range you specified, the results were pretty exactly what would be predicted by random chance. No surprise there.

Michel H said:
If I retain only the numerical answers which are both valid and credible (i.e. with a positive CR value), only the answers by calwaterbear, Femke and dlorde remain. Since they are all correct (i.e. they all answered correctly "2"), I obtain a 100% correct answer rate (among credible answers). This result holds true if introduce a credibility threshold and limit my final analysis to answers which get a minimum credibility rating equal to 5, for example (because, after analysis, I gave a CR-value equal to +8 to all of these three answers). The probability for this is equal to p = 1/(4^3) = 1.6 %.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, this cherry picking of the data by rating the answers on some vague "credibility" scale in order to claim a "100% correct answer rate" is completly dishonest.

It gives your whole "test" a "credibility" rating of 1x10-100
 
I got a credibility rating of -3 because I offered a possible explanation for why I might have chosen my answer.

I demand a recount!
 
What nonsense. If you are going to discard all the answers you don't like (and which just happen to be all the wrong answers), you invalidate the test. This test had no semblance of scientific rigour or accuracy anyway, but that is no excuse for cherry picking the answers you like and discarding the rest.
 
Agatha said:
What nonsense. If you are going to discard all the answers you don't like (and which just happen to be all the wrong answers), you invalidate the test. This test had no semblance of scientific rigour or accuracy anyway, but that is no excuse for cherry picking the answers you like and discarding the rest.
Click to expand...

That's just mean. How is he supposed to pass the test if you insist on allowing wrong answers to count?
 
Mashuna said:
I especially like how "impatience" is a good sign (when they get the right answer), but someone having an aggressive looking avatar or username is enough to disqualify them when they give the wrong answer. Why, it's as if you're just making up reasons to disqualify people so you get the answer you want!
Click to expand...

Well of course it is. :)
 
Femke said:
Boosting success rate by discarding the wrong answers because of a flippant remark, a nasty avatar or a scary name is not scientific.
According to that logic, you should disregard my answer too, because my remark was not intended as showing anticipation for a next test.

Femke
Click to expand...

I don't suppose anyone cares that that is my real face. It's rude to make personal remarks, the OP said aggressive looking, not nasty. :-)
 
Last edited:
Congratulations on the "telepathy" test, AKA the "Let's see how many people can guess the answer" thread.

Your results? 1 out of 4 people will get it right. Wow, what are the odds?
 
IceSage said:
Congratulations on the "telepathy" test, AKA the "Let's see how many people can guess the answer" thread.

Your results? 1 out of 4 people will get it right. Wow, what are the odds?
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say roughly one in four.
 
Jodie said:
I don't suppose anyone cares that that is my real face. It's rude to make personal remarks, the OP said aggressive looking, not nasty. :-)
Click to expand...

My sincere apologies, I did not look at the specific avatars he was referring to. Your avatar is very nice.

Femke
 
Bell said:
Or 2.5

(1 + 2 + 3 + 4) / 4
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed that I didn't get an honorary mention. My guess was pretty close.

Bell said:
No.

It proves that out of 20, 15 people randomly choose the number you picked. Increase the number of people by a 10 fold, a 100 fold or even a 1000 fold, the number of the answers would start to approach each other.

Roll a die six times, what results do you get? Roll a die a thousand times, what results do you get now?
Click to expand...

Bell said:
Also, each die roll is independent of the previous roll, i.e. a die does't remember.

Whereas on a forum, the posters could be influenced (unconsciously) by posts made by previous posters.
Click to expand...

Also, Michel H, would you mind addressing my posts above? Thanks a bunch!
 
I have a very, very strong feeling that the number written was 2.

<reads entire thread>

Woo hoo! I was right! Without even cheatin' or nothin'! I'm psychic!
 
Michel H said:
... and finally (last but not least) dlorde's answer:

This answerer seems impatient to see the end of this test, which is a good sign (it's logical to expect that those who have answered correctly should be eager that the test ends, because this end should bring them good news, this is not so true for those who have answered incorrectly). He/she also shows an interest for my test.
Click to expand...
Wow, so incisive :rolleyes: You were right about the impatience, but you totally missed the irony in my post. It should be trivially obvious that this 'test' can't tell who's telepathic and who isn't. Your post-hoc validation of my 'eagerness' is a classic interpretive error; I was impatient to hear the BS explanation of the results, my interest in your test was out of sheer disbelief that you could think it was worth anything.

I must say, you've outdone all my expectations. Surely you can't possibly be serious - this is all a big wind-up, isn't it?

Beautiful avatar ("The Waterseller of Seville" of Spanish painter Velazquez).
Click to expand...
Thanks :) If you're serious about this 'test', it's a pity your appreciation of art isn't matched by your apparent appreciation of experimental method and maths.

If I retain only the numerical answers which are both valid and credible (i.e. with a positive CR value), only the answers by calwaterbear, Femke and dlorde remain. Since they are all correct (i.e. they all answered correctly "2"), I obtain a 100% correct answer rate (among credible answers). This result holds true if introduce a credibility threshold and limit my final analysis to answers which get a minimum credibility rating equal to 5, for example (because, after analysis, I gave a CR-value equal to +8 to all of these three answers). The probability for this is equal to p = 1/(4^3) = 1.6 %.
Click to expand...

Excellent! a classic mix of confirmation bias and hindsight bias (with possibly a little Texas Sharpshooter fallacy). Is this really a test of how many bias errors and fallacies we can find in your experiment?
 
Mashuna said:
Amazing! 100% success rate, and all you had to do was make up some ridiculous reasons to discard all the answers that weren't right! You must be an amazing psychic.

I especially like how "impatience" is a good sign (when they get the right answer), but someone having an aggressive looking avatar or username is enough to disqualify them when they give the wrong answer. Why, it's as if you're just making up reasons to disqualify people so you get the answer you want!
Click to expand...

You're just jealous that, purely by chance, some of us turned out to be psychic :p
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom