Merged Telepathy test: which number did I write?

[Michel H]

And yet you see nothing wrong with cherry picking the answers to end up with only the answers that show a positive result?

"Cherry picking" ?, Why "cherry-picking" ? I have tried to study and comment all 13 valid answers in a careful, neutral and objective way. I found that some answers, including yours, seemed credible and reliable (I am not talking here about your latest comments) and others seemed suspicious to various extents and for various reasons that I have explained in some detail (and which had nothing to do with the numbers which were answered). I then found that all 3 credible answers were (numerically) correct. The fact that 100% of credible answers were numerically correct may have led some of you to think that this analysis was fake or rigged but I thought that I had to do this work in a sincere and genuine way. If all credible answers were correct, that's the way it is (for this test), there is nothing I can do to change that (unless perhaps some people can make me change my mind using valid and convincing arguments, which I don't think I have seen so far). Don't think I am making fun of you, I am not. Look at the best answer of this question (chosen by Voters, not by me): http://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...mY75lLjty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090601113445AAmVwcl .
There seems to be a very unusual telepathic phenomenon going on, that's what I think. If you want to use verbal violence to reject a special truth that you don't like, let me tell you that you will not find a friend in me for that kind of enterprise (and I am saying that not for you specifically, but rather to all of those on this forum who may need to hear it).

 

[Giordano]

"Cherry picking" ?, Why "cherry-picking" ? I have tried to study and comment all 13 valid answers in a careful, neutral and objective way. I found that some answers, including yours, seemed credible and reliable (I am not talking here about your latest comments) and others seemed suspicious to various extents and for various reasons that I have explained in some detail (and which had nothing to do with the numbers which were answered). I then found that all 3 credible answers were (numerically) correct. The fact that 100% of credible answers were numerically correct may have led some of you to think that this analysis was fake or rigged but I thought that I had to do this work in a sincere and genuine way. If all credible answers were correct, that's the way it is (for this test), there is nothing I can do to change that (unless perhaps some people can make me change my mind using valid and convincing arguments, which I don't think I have seen so far). Don't think I am making fun of you, I am not. Look at the best answer of this question (chosen by Voters, not by me): http://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...mY75lLjty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090601113445AAmVwcl .
There seems to be a very unusual telepathic phenomenon going on, that's what I think. If you want to use verbal violence to reject a special truth that you don't like, let me tell you that you will not find a friend in me for that kind of enterprise (and I am saying that not for you specifically, but rather to all of those on this forum who may need to hear it).

Just a heads-up: in science this is called data manipulation and has justifiably ended multiple careers. The most insidious form of data manipulation is the type you've used here: the manipulator sincerely believes that they are using valid, logical, and convincing approaches post hoc to discard "the wrong" data and focus on "the right" data. Oddly, the "right" data is the data that confirms their hypothesis, and the "wrong" data needs to be removed because it would only obscure the truth if included. The right and wrong data are defined in retrospect- the wrong data was collected on a day that was perhaps a little too hot, the pipet may have leaked when that sample was measured, two of the control mice were too fat or too thin, etc.

Sorry- the core of good scientific experimentation is that you are not allowed to discard any data after you break the code and start the analysis.

 

[Pixel42]

Sorry- the core of good scientific experimentation is that you are not allowed to discard any data after you break the code and start the analysis.

Just to clarify this a little more for you, Michel: if you had discarded the answers you didn't like before you knew what the "correct" answer was - for example if someone else had been the telepathic transmitter and had only told you what number they were transmitting after you had done your discarding of answers you consider "unreliable" - it would have been OK to do so. But your test was not blinded in this way, so it's useless. Not that it was much good in the first place, but your data manipulation makes it downright fraudulent.

 

[Femke]

"Cherry picking" ?, Why "cherry-picking" ?

Please read the posters above for a far better reaction than I could ever achieve.
Thank you Giordano and Pixel.

If you want to use verbal violence to reject a special truth that you don't like, let me tell you that you will not find a friend in me for that kind of enterprise (and I am saying that not for you specifically, but rather to all of those on this forum who may need to hear it).

Firstly: If you would really find a special truth that would rewrite science as we know it, I'd be thrilled. See my sig.

And sorry, I did not mean to come across as verbally violent. On re-reading I do not think I did use violent language, and I have not found other posters who were verbally violent. Which reactions did you find violent?

My beef was with your unscientific manipulation of the data, not you personally, and I was not attacking you, but your argument.

 

[dafydd]

"Cherry picking" ?, Why "cherry-picking" ? I have tried to study and comment all 13 valid answers in a careful, neutral and objective way. I found that some answers, including yours, seemed credible and reliable (I am not talking here about your latest comments) and others seemed suspicious to various extents and for various reasons that I have explained in some detail (and which had nothing to do with the numbers which were answered). I then found that all 3 credible answers were (numerically) correct. The fact that 100% of credible answers were numerically correct may have led some of you to think that this analysis was fake or rigged but I thought that I had to do this work in a sincere and genuine way. If all credible answers were correct, that's the way it is (for this test), there is nothing I can do to change that (unless perhaps some people can make me change my mind using valid and convincing arguments, which I don't think I have seen so far). Don't think I am making fun of you, I am not. Look at the best answer of this question (chosen by Voters, not by me): http://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...mY75lLjty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090601113445AAmVwcl .
There seems to be a very unusual telepathic phenomenon going on, that's what I think. If you want to use verbal violence to reject a special truth that you don't like, let me tell you that you will not find a friend in me for that kind of enterprise (and I am saying that not for you specifically, but rather to all of those on this forum who may need to hear it).

No.

 

[dafydd]

My beef was with your unscientific manipulation of the data, not you personally, and I was not attacking you, but your argument.

I've noticed that only members with outlandish theories react in this way when their arguments are attacked. They seem to take it personally.

 

[Michel H]

... if you had discarded the answers you didn't like before you knew what the "correct" answer was - for example if someone else had been the telepathic transmitter and had only told you what number they were transmitting after you had done your discarding of answers you consider "unreliable" - it would have been OK to do so. But your test was not blinded in this way ...

What you are saying here is not stupid, Pixel, although this difficulty has already been discussed before in this thread (see post 106). Nevertheless, I mostly disagree. Look for example at Beerina's answer:

4, because drawing a circle around it makes it look like a cool Fantastic Four logo.

It is not necessary to be a great genius to understand that this answer has a problem.
Or look at fromdownunder's answer:

I consulted Consult the Book of Armaments.

Three.

Norm

It is obvious for any reasonable and honest person that this answer is odd.
Whether you know or not that these answers are (numerically) incorrect (incorrect number given), you can nevertheless put these answers in the "suspicious and unreliable" category. The "correctness (or not) of the number" information is basically irrelevant. I think that the human brain is able to assess an answer's credibility even if its incorrectness or correctness is known, in a "a posteriori" analysis. But you have to keep your criteria fairly uniform. If you decide to be very strict in one test, and then fairly loose in the next one, then you enter the danger zone and your analysis begins to seriously loose credibility.

 

[Pixel42]

What you are saying here is not stupid

The scientific method isn't stupid? Well that's good to know.

It is not necessary to be a great genius to understand that this answer has a problem.

All the answers have a problem because nobody was receiving a number telepathically. Everybody was playing silly buggers with you. Have you really not understood that? So by your criteria, every single answer posted here needs to be discarded.

In any case it doesn't matter how you justify the discarding to yourself, if you knew what the correct answer was when you did the discarding the results are tainted.

your analysis begins to seriously loose credibility.

Your analysis never had the slightest credibility to begin with.

 

[Hokulele]

"Cherry picking" ?, Why "cherry-picking" ? I have tried to study and comment all 13 valid answers in a careful, neutral and objective way. I found that some answers, including yours, seemed credible and reliable (I am not talking here about your latest comments) and others seemed suspicious to various extents and for various reasons that I have explained in some detail (and which had nothing to do with the numbers which were answered).

Your analysis was anything but careful, neutral, or objective. In fact, your analysis was self-contradictory, as you appeared to be trying to find reasons to include the correct answers and discount the incorrect ones. Look at the following examples:

RandomElement's answer:

As I DO have ESP, the answer is unequivocably 3.

The word "unequivocably" (unlike "unequivocally", which means "in a way that is clear and unambiguous") is not mentioned on dictionary.reference.com (which is the first google.com result for "dictionary"), nor in the free dictionary (which is the second google.com result for "dictionary"), nor in the Oxford dictionary. It is, however, listed in the Merriam Webster dictionary, as a nonstandard form of "unequivocally". It is discussed on this page.
Saying that "the answer is unequivocably 3" because he (or she) has ESP sounds slightly arrogant to me. The member name "RandomElement" does not suggest top quality. CR=-4.

<snip>

calwaterbear's answer:

As I DO have ESP, the answer is unequivocably 3.

wrong oh! I do indeed have ESP, and know for a fact that he wrote 2!

calwaterbear seems to show some sensitivity when he responds to "RandomElement" 's (note this name) incorrect and non-credible answer, and he wrote a fairly nice sentence.

First off, you say you do not like arrogant answers, and yet calwaterbear's answer begins with "wrong oh!" and claims he/she "know for a fact" the answer. This sounds as arrogant as RandomElement's answer. You claiming this shows "sensitivity" is very subjective, not objective at all.

In addition, later on in your ratings, you gave devnull minus points for a "small spelling error", and yet you didn't even mention the capitalization error at the very beginning of calwaterbear's post.

This blatant inconsistency is only one reason why people find your rating system to be a poor substitute for a proper scientific test.

 

[Michel H]

Your analysis was anything but careful, neutral, or objective. In fact, your analysis was self-contradictory, as you appeared to be trying to find reasons to include the correct answers and discount the incorrect ones. Look at the following examples:




First off, you say you do not like arrogant answers, and yet calwaterbear's answer begins with "wrong oh!" and claims he/she "know for a fact" the answer. This sounds as arrogant as RandomElement's answer. You claiming this shows "sensitivity" is very subjective, not objective at all.

In addition, later on in your ratings, you gave devnull minus points for a "small spelling error", and yet you didn't even mention the capitalization error at the very beginning of calwaterbear's post.

This blatant inconsistency is only one reason why people find your rating system to be a poor substitute for a proper scientific test.

Good try, Hokulele. These kinds of objections were what I was hoping from you. To make your work more usable, though, it would perhaps be useful that you write a little analysis for one or several answers, with your recommended CR (credibility rating) value(s). I could then compare your analysis(es) with mine and reflect about which one(s) is(are) the most convincing.
I must say, however, that, so far, you fail to convince me, and you don't even come close (but your approach was good).
It's true that calwaterbear wrote "wrong" instead of "Wrong" but that's a very small error (smaller than in "Im", in my opinion, because when you write Im, you no longer write I+m and so you change the meaning; but that's perhaps debatable and the Im was not a big factor in devnull's answer). I find calwaterbear's answer nice and charming, and RandomElement's "unequivocably" answer bizarre and unpleasant. I don't think calwaterbear's answer was arrogant because I believe you have an amazing ability to guess what I think. The sentence "I know for a fact that he wrote 2!" is more centered on the person's perceptions and on me than the blunter statement "the answer is unequivocably 3." "calwaterbear was, in my opinion, sensitive because he was reacting to and contradicting RandomElement's incorrect "unequivocably" "3" (3 seems to be the number of aggressivity and political persecution) answer.

 

[Pixel42]

You came to a sceptic board and set about doing your own hilariously inept version of a silly experiment that's been done many times before with negative results. If you expected anything but ridicule in response then you seriously misjudged your audience. The fact that you don't even recognise that ridicule was all you got is just sad.

 

[Hokulele]

Good try, Hokulele. These kinds of objections were what I was hoping from you. To make your work more usable, though, it would perhaps be useful that you write a little analysis for one or several answers, with your recommended CR (credibility rating) value(s). I could then compare your analysis(es) with mine and reflect about which one(s) is(are) the most convincing.
I must say, however, that, so far, you fail to convince me, and you don't even come close (but your approach was good).
It's true that calwaterbear wrote "wrong" instead of "Wrong" but that's a very small error (smaller than in "Im", in my opinion, because when you write Im, you no longer write I+m and so you change the meaning; but that's perhaps debatable and the Im was not a big factor in devnull's answer). I find calwaterbear's answer nice and charming, and RandomElement's "unequivocably" answer bizarre and unpleasant. I don't think calwaterbear's answer was arrogant because I believe you have an amazing ability to guess what I think. The sentence "I know for a fact that he wrote 2!" is more centered on the person's perceptions and on me than the blunter statement "the answer is unequivocably 3." "calwaterbear was, in my opinion, sensitive because he was reacting to and contradicting RandomElement's incorrect "unequivocably" "3" (3 seems to be the number of aggressivity and political persecution) answer.

The parts I bolded prove that your analysis was entirely subjective, and not a scientific analysis. If people can disagree on interpretation, it isn't objective. This is only one reason why your test fails.

 

[Jodie]

Doing a careful psychological analysis of each answer or post does not violate any important scientific principle, as far as I know. But this does take some time; and it's also somewhat new (?), you don't find this kind of thing in the usual parapsychological litterature. I don't think that trying to introduce some new ideas should lead to discontent, even on a "critical thinking" website.

Using a single word answer to do "careful" psychological analysis is not careful, it's irresponsible, and sloppy science at the least. It is not a matter of introducing new ideas, it has more to do with psuedo science than anything else.

 

[Hokulele]

Look, if you want to see why this test is a problem, let's try another run of it, but with a twist. You can choose one of your credible participants to assist you and we will PM them to let them know of their participation. Please only choose one. Then, you will think of a number between and including 1 and 4.

Participants will then PM their statements to the credible assistant. This person will then remove the number, replacing it with the letter X in all cases, and post the results here for you to analyze. After you post your analysis of the masked statements, the credible assistant will post the actual numbers guessed by the participants. We can use hash generators for the original statements if you wish, to prove that the assistant is indeed credible.

Does this sound like a fair test to you?

Note, this is still not stringent enough to win the Million Dollar Challenge, but it may help determine whether or not your analysis is indeed objective and accurate.

 

[Dani]

Is this thread a joke?

 

[AdMan]

Yes, I have an engineering degree from the "Université Libre de Bruxelles" ("Free University of Brussels"), and a Ph.D. degree in Physics from the University of Minnesota.

You should ask for your money back. If your qualifications are real, and this thread isn't some kind of elaborate joke, it is astounding how you have so little understanding of the scientific method.

 

[Femke]

I've noticed that only members with outlandish theories react in this way when their arguments are attacked. They seem to take it personally.

So I noticed. I was sort of afraid I came across as harsher than I intended, but I cannot find any yellow-cardish remark in my post. Thanks for your reaction.


Michel, if you want to try Hokulele's suggestion, I am available as an assistant. If you still find me credible.

 

[Michel H]

Look, if you want to see why this test is a problem, let's try another run of it, but with a twist. You can choose one of your credible participants to assist you and we will PM them to let them know of their participation. Please only choose one. Then, you will think of a number between and including 1 and 4.

Participants will then PM their statements to the credible assistant. This person will then remove the number, replacing it with the letter X in all cases, and post the results here for you to analyze. After you post your analysis of the masked statements, the credible assistant will post the actual numbers guessed by the participants. We can use hash generators for the original statements if you wish, to prove that the assistant is indeed credible.

Does this sound like a fair test to you?

Note, this is still not stringent enough to win the Million Dollar Challenge, but it may help determine whether or not your analysis is indeed objective and accurate.

Michel, if you want to try Hokulele's suggestion, I am available as an assistant. If you still find me credible.

Your proposal is interesting, Hokulele, this sounds like an interesting protocol. (Thank you also to Femke; it is possible that I request your assistance at some point, Femke.)
However, I find it a little complicated and I am afraid that answerers (to the telepathy test) who would have to send a private message to the assistant, instead of posting directly on the forum, would be less spontaneous and relaxed, and that their answers would be too "calculated", and that a test with your procedure would end in failure because of that. It is possible that some people don't mind participating once or twice in a telepathy test which looks a little bit like a game

(with "winners" and "losers", although I have to say that none of the 13 valid answers that I got was totally bad, and most were even good, in view of what you can expect when you do such a test, I speak here from my experience; some of the comments here are more problematic, in my opinion, I have sometimes here an impression that I am on the forum of some "dangerous and violent skeptical sect" - rather frightening... but I don't want to exaggerate),

but it is also possible that, once they feel the test's goal would be to rigorously prove that I am "telepathic" (if I really am so), that would "scare" them and their worst instincts would have the upper hand.
Keep also in mind that I am still fairly new here (I have more experience on Yahoo! Answers), it is still not clear what kinds of results I might get here in the long run, with more number-guessing (for example) threads.

If a more rigorous procedure is needed (more rigorous than what I am currently doing or trying to do), I could ask people on this forum to evaluate credibilities of answers (not credibilities of their own answers, credibilities of other answers), without giving them any information (by sensory means) regarding the numerical correctness (or not) of answers beforehand. If this could produce the right number, telepathy would be proved. I could also ask people to evaluate credibilities themselves after I have provided them with all the information I have (which numbers are correct, and my own "credibility analysis"), this would be much less rigorous, but could nevertheless be interesting (in my opinion).

 

[Sledge]

What is the point of this?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Is this thread a joke?

I can no longer tell.

It did put me in mind of a bit of Burns

"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion"