Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
Why only four numbers? The fewer the number of choices, the greater the likelihood of random fluctuations being misinterpreted as proof of telepathic abilities.
Merged Telepathy test: which number did I write?
- Thread starter Michel H
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy telepathy test
- Status
Why only four numbers? The fewer the number of choices, the greater the likelihood of random fluctuations being misinterpreted as proof of telepathic abilities.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Michel has already revealed that the hash number he's posted encodes one of those four numbers. If I was designing a protocol from scratch I would certainly use more numbers.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Pssh. No need to jump to drugs as a theory. That would actually be fairly low on my list of likely explanations, for that matter. After all, the research would tend to be based on stories and myths that were likely made up or only loosely based in reality as well as being filtered through a rather arbitrary lens.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
It's different cuz one was 1-5 and this is 1-4
It's like two entirely different worlds.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Well no, it isn't. Michel_H said that valid answers were 1-4+"I don't know". Somehow he failed to work out that these were five answers resulting in a 20% probability and insisted it was "only" 25%.
I am going with the hypothesis that the next tests will be 1-3 and so forth until your only choice is 1.
elbe
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2008
- Messages
- 4,983
Now I'm no statistician (because statistics is an evil thing) but would it really make it a 1 in 5 chance with the addition of "I don't know"? You can't actually be right with that answer and both the poller and pollee knows that. I guess, for my thinking, it's like saying a roulette spin has a 1 in 38 chance with the addition of the 'not playing' option.
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
No, It was explicitly stated as a fifth option, not as an absentia. It is de facto a fifth option according to the terms dictated.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Nope, the "I don't know" was added as an explicit fifth option.
ETA: And you are wrong, the choice offered was not 1-5 but 1-4 + "I don't know". That is five choices. Ergo 20% chance. Michel is simply trying to skew the numbers by offering a non-choice choice which will not be counted in his results.
Last edited:
abaddon, there are indeed five choices ("1", "2", "3", "4" and "I don't know"), but there are only four numerical choices. This gives a 25% probability (not 20%) to each of the four numbers.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
It was tongue in cheek, I predict it
it'll be a number 1-2 and even just telling us to pick the #1
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
When he gets down to just "I don't know" as the only choice, he might get a meaningful result.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
But it gives a 20% probability to each of the answers that you have defined as valid.
Unless you are shifting your goalposts and are now excluding "I don't know" from any results you may glean.
"But it gives a 20% probability to each of the answers that you have defined as valid."
No, it doesn't. Each of the four numbers has a probability equal to .25 if there is no telepathy, and chance only is responsible for the results. This means that, if I get 40 answers, and there is no telepathy, I should expect about 10 (10=.25x40) ones, about 10 twos, about 10 threes and about 10 fours, the four numerical outcomes (1, 2, 3 and 4) are "equiprobable". Since p1=p2=p3=p4=p (the four numbers are "on the same footing" when there is no telepathy), and p1+p2+p3+p4=1, then, necessarily p=.25 (not .20). The "probability" of answering "I don't know" ,when there is no telepathy, is not known, it is probably equal to neither .25, nor .20 and will probably vary, from one forum to another.
"Unless you are shifting your goalposts and are now excluding "I don't know" from any results you may glean."
No, I don't want to do that. I want to read and study all your answers, expressed in a free way. Look at the analysis of my previous test (ninth line):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8607740#post8607740 . Did I ignore people who answered "I don't know"? No, I didn't.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
No, but your "credibility rating" analysis is nonsense and is a clear example of confirmation bias. You're not going to engage in that kind of pseudoscience again with this latest "test" to twist results in your favor, are you? Haven't you learned anything about why actual scientific tests should be blind?
Last edited:
As far as I know, there was no "confirmation bias" in my analysis of September 2012, although there was a small(?) difficulty, related to the fact that I knew if the answers were numerically correct (or not) when I assigned their various CR's. But I explained why I chose these credibilities. I didn't say:"Well, my number to guess was 2, and this person answered 2, so this person is obviously nice and very good, and I can only give her a high credibility rating." Such an approach would not be serious.
The "confirmation bias" is something different, it's a tendency by some people to pay attention to events that seem to confirm their ideas, and to ignore events that do not seem to confirm their ideas, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias . I did not ignore incorrect answers, I analyzed them like the others, I studied all 13 valid answers, not just the 3 which were correct. If I had retained in my study of the results only the three correct answers, and added: "Well, as to the nine other answers, they were not good, so I don't want to discuss these, feeling a little tired now, it's late- bye bye- end of this analysis, that would have been a confirmation bias, I suppose, but I didn't do that.
Actually, I think it is important to read carefully each answer, not just add their number in your statistics, because you must allow for the possibility that some people might be lying. Lying is a phenomenon which does exist in human society, we know that. I cannot insert micro-electrodes into people's neurons to find out, with some apparatus, the information they have really captured. I see little texts associated with most answers, I read the numbers they decided to answer, they decided to answer, and I look for some clues which might perhaps indicate if the person is sincere, or not.
Mm...does this person sound sincere or not (assuming I don't know the target number), let's see...That's the question...
jdc324 answered this, right after my 2012 analysis: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8607747#post8607747 (thank you jdc324). He didn't say it was nonsense or pseudoscience. Has anyone said such a thing after one of your posts?
Last edited:
jdc324 was being sarcastic in his/her previous reply.
I reiterate what I have said before: you will not get meaningful results from a test such as this. If you insist on rating answers subjectively for 'credibility', then you would need to introduce blinding so that you do not know which answers are right or wrong. If you want to do such a test, I am willing to be the person to whom everyone sends their answers, once a protocol is established.
However, telepathy has never been demonstrated to exist. Believing that you can transmit your thoughts to others, or that others can transmit their thoughts to you, have both been demonstrated to be symptoms of some mental illnesses. I recall that you talked of being diagnosed with such an illness, and that you also heard hostile voices in your head. So I urge you to see your doctor and explain to him/her that you have these symptoms, and take his/her advice about medication and treatment.
I reiterate what I have said before: you will not get meaningful results from a test such as this. If you insist on rating answers subjectively for 'credibility', then you would need to introduce blinding so that you do not know which answers are right or wrong. If you want to do such a test, I am willing to be the person to whom everyone sends their answers, once a protocol is established.
However, telepathy has never been demonstrated to exist. Believing that you can transmit your thoughts to others, or that others can transmit their thoughts to you, have both been demonstrated to be symptoms of some mental illnesses. I recall that you talked of being diagnosed with such an illness, and that you also heard hostile voices in your head. So I urge you to see your doctor and explain to him/her that you have these symptoms, and take his/her advice about medication and treatment.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,404
Michael, I'm not quite clear on whether we are being asked if we know the answer or if we're being asked to guess the answer to see if we know it without being aware that we do.
I'm assuming it's the former since the latter would render the "don't know" option obsolete.
So my vote is "I don't know"
Nobody knows. We can't hear you. Telepathy is not real.
I'm assuming it's the former since the latter would render the "don't know" option obsolete.
So my vote is "I don't know"
Nobody knows. We can't hear you. Telepathy is not real.
- Status