Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
You're just jealous that, purely by chance, some of us turned out to be psychic
I haven't made my guess yet, I might be retrospectively psychic.
I'm picking up the number. . . 4?
Damnit.
Merged Telepathy test: which number did I write?
- Thread starter Michel H
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy telepathy test
- Status
I haven't made my guess yet, I might be retrospectively psychic.
I'm picking up the number. . . 4?
Damnit.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
Just 11 posts to first Monty Python reference. Probably not a record, but impressive.
This is true, Bell, I agree with you (about the dependence problem). The (binomial) probability p = 1.6 % I gave above was obtained under the assumptions that chance only is responsible for the results, that the probability of answering "2" in a valid and credible (numerical) answer was equal to 1/4 (note that this is not so obvious because people may "like" answering "2" more or less than the other three numbers), and that answers (in this case, by calwaterbear [post #52], Femke [post #61] and dlorde [post #172]) are independent. Possible dependence effects are neglected (in obtaining this probability); should that be a real problem, I could ask people to answer before they (possibly) read others' answers. Keep in mind, though, that, even if you read others' answers before you answer, that should not raise the (average) {correct anwer} rate above 25 % when there is no telepathy, because copying from people who don't know doesn't help. This can be proved mathematically:
Let A = event "you answer correctly"
Bi = event "I write "i" on my sheet of paper"
Because B1, B2, B3 and B4 form a partition in sample space, they are a mutually exclusive list of all possible outcomes for my experience "I write a random number" ( P(B1 or B2 or B3 or B4) = P(B1) + P(B2) + P(B3) +P(B4) = 4*(1/4) =1 ), then, from the total probability law
P(A) = P(A|B1)P(B1) + P(A|B2)P(B2) + P(A|B3)P(B3) + P(A|B4)P(B4)
= p1*(1/4) + p2*(1/4) + ...
= (p1+p2+p3+p4) * (1/4) = 1 * (1/4) =1/4,
where pi is the probability of answering "i" in the hypothetical "no telepathy" situation (pi is not exactly known, "pi = 1/4" is just an approximation, but we do know that p1 + p2 + p3 + p4 = 1). In other words, if I wrote "1", the probability of answering correctly is equal to p1 ( the probability of answering "1"), and similarly for 2, 3, 4. Now the overall probability (valid when the number I wrote is not known) is equal to the average of p1, p2, p3 and p4, which is equal to 1/4, even if the pi's are not exactly equal to 1/4.
References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_total_probability ,
http://cosmologist.info/teaching/STAT/CHAP1.pdf .
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Thank you for proving you don't have telepathy.
xtifr
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,299
In the (probably vain, but why not, it might help the bystanders) attempt to inject some actual education into this thread, lets see if we can spot all the things that went wrong with Michel's flawed experiment.
I'll lead off with the flawed assumption that asking someone to pick a number between one and four has an equal chance of getting any of the four possible answers. People aren't random, and the pattern of choices will reflect their psychology. Ask about any range, and the answers will tend to cluster around the middle. Few people will choose an extreme end of a range. So, 2 and 3 should have been the most common choices. Beyond that, people seem to think that odd numbers are more "random" than even ones. And people in general (though it may be less true with this crowd) think that 3 is a lucky number. With a large sampling, three should be the most common answer, with two a distant second, and one and four almost no one's choice.
This is completely at odds with Michel's assumption that each number would have an equal chance of being picked. Flaw one: he completely ignored psychology.
Anyone want to take the next flaw? I know, there's so many to choose from, but this is an opportunity to eductate people, and this is supposed to be an educational forum.
I'll lead off with the flawed assumption that asking someone to pick a number between one and four has an equal chance of getting any of the four possible answers. People aren't random, and the pattern of choices will reflect their psychology. Ask about any range, and the answers will tend to cluster around the middle. Few people will choose an extreme end of a range. So, 2 and 3 should have been the most common choices. Beyond that, people seem to think that odd numbers are more "random" than even ones. And people in general (though it may be less true with this crowd) think that 3 is a lucky number. With a large sampling, three should be the most common answer, with two a distant second, and one and four almost no one's choice.
This is completely at odds with Michel's assumption that each number would have an equal chance of being picked. Flaw one: he completely ignored psychology.
Anyone want to take the next flaw? I know, there's so many to choose from, but this is an opportunity to eductate people, and this is supposed to be an educational forum.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Attachments
Femke, I shall try to answer to you.
In the English language (to my knowledge at least), "Yay!" indicates pleasure or approval, not just playfulness, see this dictionary page for details; and this word seems to be also used in Dutch, see these Google results https://www.google.be/search?q="yay..._qf.&fp=453f4f7a4e6e2492&biw=910&bih=470&bs=1.
I indeed notice that you posted in the thread you mention about 28 hours before you answered to my telepathy test (this URL: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8525830#post8525830 ). But, on this page of the "Olympic thread" (50 posts for me), I do not see a single "original and intriguing number" preceding a post; I just see PeaceCrusader writing his approximate date and time at the beginning of each of his posts (see for example here and here).
In English, "OS" usually means "Operating System", not "Opening Post", which is "OP", and not "OS".
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.
You said "Yay, another number-pickin' thread!". To me, this means that you expected a new test, with the idea that it would be something "positive" (because of the interjection "Yay!"). You didn't say "Oh no!, not another number-guessing thread! Spare us please! This is more than I can stand!".
And even if you had not "anticipated" a new test, favorably or not, this would not have been a sufficient reason to reject your answer as non-credible.
So, from all of this, I conclude that your post #184 is not credible, I give it a credibility CR=-8. But I still think that your answer (post #61) was good and credible.
devnull
Philosopher
Well...... Good then.
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
devnull
Philosopher
What was mine? No credibility because my name is from /dev/null, and someone used that for the name of a virus or something?
Yes. Really careful psychological analysis that
Yes. Really careful psychological analysis that
It was not the only reason, devnull, see my post #177.What was mine? No credibility because my name is from /dev/null, and someone used that for the name of a virus or something?
Yes. Really careful psychological analysis that
Keep also in mind that a negative credibility does not necessarily mean a bad answer.
devnull
Philosopher
Oh yes, there was also spelling errors and the fact that I didnt classify telepathic communication as "guessing".
Based on this:
Your credibility = -100 million trillion * (inifinity - 1).
Femke
Goddess of the Glowing Sunsets
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 466
You caught me there. English is not my first language, and I should have said that it was _intended_ to be an indication of playfulness. Sorry.
OMFSM. You see one page in a more than 50-page thread and you conclude that what I am saying is incorrect. Okay, noted.
My apologies. I was still in Dutch mode, OS is the Dutch abbreviation of Olympische Spelen (Olympic Games). I was still referring to the Olympic thread.
Do you have a scientific background? In my study (I have a PhD in botany) I was never taught I could discard results that I did not like. That is not standard scientific practice.
And besides, this is nothing like a careful psychological analysis. This is cherry picking.
I do not understand what you are saying here.
So after I told you that my post #61 was not as credible as you wanted it to be, it is still credible. That would have nothing to do with the fact that it happened to contain the number you wanted?
Okay.
Femke, I shall try to answer to some of the things you said
I don't think I ever criticized your post #61. I think it was the best answer to my telepathy test (or, at least, one of the bests).
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 said: "According to that logic, you should disregard my answer too, because my remark was not intended as showing anticipation for a next test." Sorry, I disagree, Femke, because, even if your answer was "not intended as showing anticipation for a next test", or was not showing anticipation for a next text (note: it is hard for me to know what your intentions are, I usually don't know what you think, I base some of my decisions on what you said, not on what you thought), that would have been no ground for discarding your answer as non-credible.
I don't think I ever criticized your post #61. I think it was the best answer to my telepathy test (or, at least, one of the bests).
First of all, jdc324, please distinguish between "credibility rating" and "quality rating". A negative credibility rating does not necessarily mean that the answer is bad, I didn't say that your answer was bad.
You said:
"Even before...I had guessed that the number was 3. Amazing. ...Then I remembered I'd seen something once about people typically picking certain numbers when asked "think of a number between 1 and n". ...the numbers 3 and 7 ... are the most common answers if you ask people to name a number between 1 and 10...Funnily enough, three seems to be the most popular choice so far."
So, to me, this means that you explained that your answer was probably related to a tendency of people to answer "3" or "7" when they're asked to name a number between 1 and 10 (and therefore, probably, to answer "3" when they're asked to name a number between 1 and 4). You stated a hypothesis which might explain why you thought so quickly that 3 was the correct answer (according to you) and this hypothesis seemed to be backed by the data so far (and, therefore, was apparently true). But the big trouble of course with this "explanation" or "mechanism" ("People tend to answer 3 more often") is that a number 3 obtained in this way is completely unrelated to the number I wrote on my sheet of paper at the time I have indicated. I remind you that your answer was an answer to a telepathy test in which I was asking you (plural) to tell me which number I had written on my sheet. Knowing which number people tend to answer, and which number (obtained by means of a random number generator) I wrote, are two completely different things.
You didn't say, for example: "I really think you wrote a 3 on your sheet at the time you said. I think I perceived it through a sixth sense that we all have. I don't think this was related to a possible reported tendency of people to answer 3 when they're asked to guess a one-digit number (see this reference: ...), I think it was more related to ESP." (such an answer would have been credible, I suppose)
I gave your answer a negative credibility because your number was apparently not obtained through a telepathic process from the number I wrote, and I see no reason to change that.
I may be wrong of course, but i don't really expect cooperative and friendly people who guess my number through telepathy to give confusing explanations about a possible (or even "probable") cause which is unrelated to a telepathic process involving the number I wrote.
I also note that you added a spoiler button to your answer, which may indicate a reluctance to show important information.
In addition, I think I have noted in my telepathy tests that 3 is the "number of aggressivity" (I got quite a few "3"s in my test, and I have also noted quite a bit of aggressivity towards me on this forum), I think this might be related to Hitler's coming to power in Germany in 1933 (I think "S" also tends to be the "letter of aggressivity" because of "SS", the Nazi organization). The mere choice of the number "3" in your answer might therefore be an expression of some aggressivity (of course, the number 3 may also be chosen by the random number generator sometimes).
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,395
In all seriousness, I think you mean 'credulity', not 'credibility'.
When are you going to address the issue of bias in the subjective selection (i.e. cherry picking) you've been doing?
jdc324
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2007
- Messages
- 581
Ah, but the thing is that my guess was made before I remembered that people had a tendency to pick certain numbers and before I googled to see if I could find out whether the number I picked was one of those numbers more likely to be picked. At the time I gave my answer, I didn't actually know which number people tend to answer.
My number was obtained via the telepathic process I like to refer to as "guessing".
Also: I don't think that the number 3 is related to aggression, Hitler, or the letter S. I mean, I suppose it could be... but I currently have no reason to think it is.
Femke
Goddess of the Glowing Sunsets
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 466
Seriously?
And yet you see nothing wrong with cherry picking the answers to end up with only the answers that show a positive result? My promotor would have laughed me off Leiden University if I'd done that in my thesis.
Exactly! You do not know what I was thinking. Yet you expanded on what I was thinking in your appreciation of my correct guess.
Maybe I had a few too many Doms and my finger hit 2 instead of the 4 I intended. Maybe I am really telepathic and am modest about it. Maybe I was just goofing around because I did not take it seriously.
You do not know that, and that is why you should not rely on tests like these to establish telepathy. This should have been mentioned in the classes about proper scientific test design, and data set handling.
Thank you, just know that I (like most posters in this thread) do not believe that you've proven anything here, apart from your misunderstanding of the scientific method.
Please tell me you were joking?
Femke
TheDoLittle
Disco King Discombobulator
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,842
What was mine? No credibility because my name is from /dev/null, and someone used that for the name of a virus or something?
Yes. Really careful psychological analysis that
I'd hate to think of how he would deduce my credibility with my chosen nickname...
- Status