Merged Telepathy test: which number did I write?

[elbe]

19)
In my previous analysis, I said:

, and I need to keep my criteria fairly constant on this forum.
Writing |e^iπ| for just "1" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers , if needed) is odd, it's an element which makes this answer look suspicious to me.
CR=-5, QR=60.

Are you questioning my motives? That's pretty dishonest of you. I give you a CR of -10.

 

[Ladewig]

In the previous test ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8607740#post8607740 ), I found a {correct answer} rate equal to 100% for credible answers.

Hurray.

Congratulations on once again proving telepathy.


I won't complain about my low credibility rating. After all such complaints would be prima facie evidence of my low credibility.

Secondly, I believe that, like high dilution homeopathy, "remote viewing" and precognition are probably impossible because there is no possible physical mechanism for them.

Bravo. I salute you.
Very few people trying to prove the existence of ESP would have the fortitude to come right out and say that. You are the vanguard of the next Golden Age of psychic testing.

If you are ever invited to speak at a conference for psychic powers and phenomena, will you post the dates on this board? I really want to be there when you say, "OK, all you remote viewing folks and precognition folks - I want to say that you've got nothing; so quit wasting our time with something that has no possible mechanism. Now, I'd like to speak about my unimpeachable ESP evidence."

One last question about credibility ratings. If a subject provides a number in a very credible-sounding post, but several days later says uncredible things about the procedure, does that person get a high or low credibility score?

OK, one more question. If you ever run the test again, will you take note of all the posters who pointed out that asking people to choose a number from 1 to 4 is quite possibly the absolutely worst way of testing this type of phenomena?

Once, again. Congratulations.

 

[Aridas]

Deleted, because I can.

 

[AdMan]

TL;DR

Edited to add: Michel H, you have no knowledge of what science is about.

 

[desertgal]

TL;DR

Edited to add: Michel H, you have no knowledge of what science is about.

I think he hopes that fact will get lost in all the verbiage.

 

[Hokulele]

Michel H, here is precisely why your analysis and credibility ratings are a load of feces.

From your first "test":

<snippage>

Jodie's answer:

three

(click on the little red arrow to go to the post, to see her avatar).
This answer is very minimal. The total absence of any comment might indicate something to hide, or a small level of aggressivity. I find the expression on her face (if it's a photo of her) slightly aggressive, CR=-1.

And from your latest "test":

<snippage>

11)

4.

This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:

CR=5, QR=80.

So if an answer is brief but wrong, there is "something to hide". If it is brief but correct, it gets a pass. The fact that the same type of answer can get wildly different credibility ratings just goes to prove that you will say anything to justify the hits, and anything to discredit the misses.

Garbage.

 

[dlorde]

I think the numeric results (6,5,6,5) are suspiciously even; too even...

The 'credibility analysis' is a classic example of pseudo-scientific straw-clutching.

Giving obviously sarcastic responses higher credibility than clearly honest, serious and well-researched responses (like my own ), is selective bias of the worst kind... it's just bollocks.

 

[IXP]

17).
IXP said:
, and added later:

He/she said that he/she was getting interferences from other universes, and that he/she thought the most common guess won't be the number I wrote down. So, this answer doesn't seem reliable.
CR=-2, QR=60.


18)
This answer of abaddon is somewhat obscure, and doesn't seem directly related to telepathy. I other words, he said he answered 3 "to bring balance", not because he perceived it via ESP.
CR=-5, QR=60.

Boy, did you get that wrong.

I actually picked my number completely in the spirit of the test. I concentrated on it and answered with the number that came to mind. I should, therefore have been rated

CR = 5, QR = 100

The second comment was an attempt at humor, but I can see where you would not understand that.

IXP

 

[Ladewig]

The 'credibility analysis' is a classic example of pseudo-scientific straw-clutching.

I disagree.
I think the CR is so absurd that it doesn't even rise to the level of pseudo-science.

................

A follow-up question for Michel P.
Is it possible for you to teach CR-system to a friend or relative and then have that person do the CR analysis before that person learns which answer is correct?

Also, I noticed that while there were a few -10s, there were not any +10s. Can you give an example of what a +10 response would look like?

Also, what would you do if the receiver honestly and sincerely believed that he had a strong and clear answer of 5?

 

[Michel H]

... If a subject provides a number in a very credible-sounding post, but several days later says uncredible things about the procedure, does that person get a high or low credibility score? ...

If, in the same test, and before I do the analysis, a member of this forum first writes a very credible post, and writes later a horrible post, very critical (and unfairly) of the procedure, I think this person will get a negative credibility, but probably not CR = -10, because I would take the first post into account.

 

[Michel H]

... If you ever run the test again, will you take note of all the posters who pointed out that asking people to choose a number from 1 to 4 is quite possibly the absolutely worst way of testing this type of phenomena? ...

I don't remember that even a single member ever said that "asking people to choose a number from 1 to 4 was quite possibly the absolutely worst way of testing this type of phenomenon", although there has been criticism. What exactly don't you like in this method? Would you prefer a number from 1 to 5? Or Zener cards ? People sometimes think that increasing the number of choice possibilities (from exemple, from 4 to 5, or to 100) will lead to better results, but that's not necessarily true. People who are ready to reluctantly acknowledge that they know I wrote a "4" are not necessarily ready to admit they know I wrote a "74". The situation I am (and we are) dealing with here is a situation with people with great (telepathic) ability (in the context of an exceptional phenomenon [?]), but generally low motivation in these tests (if I understand correctly).

 

[fromdownunder]

Michel, since you have returned to this thread, you really do need to respond to this:

Michel H, here is precisely why your analysis and credibility ratings are a load of feces.

From your first "test":




And from your latest "test":




So if an answer is brief but wrong, there is "something to hide". If it is brief but correct, it gets a pass. The fact that the same type of answer can get wildly different credibility ratings just goes to prove that you will say anything to justify the hits, and anything to discredit the misses.

Garbage.

In your first "test", the answer "three" with no other words was deemed to you to be unreliable. In the second "test", "4" with no other words was taken to be evidence of telepathy.

The simple fact is, you got a random result from a stupidly random test, and then made up stuff to "prove" that you are telepathic. Absolutely pathetic method with totally predictable results.

Norm

 

[Kid Eager]

I'm still trying to get over the accusation that my guess was made from an insane asylum. I get thoughts like that every day. Doesn't everybody?

 

[Aridas]

welshdean's got a -5 for fairly spurious reasons, too. Magic number is a figure of speech, usually, these days.

 

[Ladewig]

I don't remember that even a single member ever said that "asking people to choose a number from 1 to 4 was quite possibly the absolutely worst way of testing this type of phenomenon", although there has been criticism. What exactly don't you like in this method? Would you prefer a number from 1 to 5? Or Zener cards ? People sometimes think that increasing the number of choice possibilities (from exemple, from 4 to 5, or to 100) will lead to better results, but that's not necessarily true. People who are ready to reluctantly acknowledge that they know I wrote a "4" are not necessarily ready to admit they know I wrote a "74". The situation I am (and we are) dealing with here is a situation with people with great (telepathic) ability (in the context of an exceptional phenomenon [?]), but generally low motivation in these tests (if I understand correctly).

Fascinating.

I wish I could stop reading this thread, but you keep coming up with stuff like this and I find myself addicted.

......................
ETA:
I am ready for another fix.

Upon rereading the thread, I cannot tell if you are asserting that you are among the very best telepathic transmitters or if you are the only telepathic transmitter. Would you clarify, please?

 

[LashL]

Snooooooze.

 

[Agatha]

Michel, fromdownunder's post above demonstrates that your 'credibility' method above is being influenced by your knowledge of whether the answer given matches the number you thought of.

If you must do this 'credibility' nonsense, as unscientific as it is, then you should do it blinded to whether the answer matches your number or not. One way to do that would be for you to decide on a number, give the hash (not the number) to a trusted forum member by PM, forum members who want to take part should PM that same person with their guesses. When sufficient guesses are received, the guesses can be posted with an X replacing the number. You can do your 'credibility' analysis and only after that, the numbers can be revealed.

However, none of this will be any evidence for or against telepathy.

 

[Hokulele]

Michel H, you have logged on quite recently, but haven't commented further. Do you plan to address the fatal flaws in your methodology? As it appears now, you simply seem to be hoping that the awkward questions will just go away if you ignore them long enough.

 

[Femke]

Michel, fromdownunder's post above demonstrates that your 'credibility' method above is being influenced by your knowledge of whether the answer given matches the number you thought of.

If you must do this 'credibility' nonsense, as unscientific as it is, then you should do it blinded to whether the answer matches your number or not. One way to do that would be for you to decide on a number, give the hash (not the number) to a trusted forum member by PM, forum members who want to take part should PM that same person with their guesses. When sufficient guesses are received, the guesses can be posted with an X replacing the number. You can do your 'credibility' analysis and only after that, the numbers can be revealed.

However, none of this will be any evidence for or against telepathy.

Michel,
I offer myself as a blinder: you can PM me the hash, and I am willing to receive the answers from members who want to participate. After a previously arranged period of time I will provide a list of their answers, verbatim with an X for the number. You can then post the credibility rating, and afterwards I will provide the actual numbers.

 

[Michel H]

Michel H, here is precisely why your analysis and credibility ratings are (* not convincing).

From your first "test":

<snippage>

Jodie's answer:

three

(click on the first little red arrow to go to the post, to see her avatar).
This answer is very minimal. The total absence of any comment might indicate something to hide, or a small level of aggressivity. I find the expression on her face (if it's a photo of her) slightly aggressive, CR=-1.

And from your latest "test":

<snippage>

11)

4.

This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:

CR=5, QR=80.

So if an answer is brief but wrong, there is "something to hide". If it is brief but correct, it gets a pass. The fact that the same type of answer can get wildly different credibility ratings just goes to prove that you will say anything to justify the hits, and anything to discredit the misses.

... .

Hokulele, please be polite in your posts on this forum.
You have quoted me in an incomplete way.
I did not just say (in the analysis for the second test):

...

11)

4.

This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:

CR=5, QR=80.

What I really said was:

...

11)

4.

This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:

...
A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable.
...

CR=5, QR=80.

The important sentence I wrote: "A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable." has unfortunately been omitted in your quote from my analysis.

The main reason why I gave a clearly positive credibility (CR=5) to gabeygoat, after having given a slightly negative credibility to Jodie in the first test (CR=-1, negative, but close the the positive credibility zone ]0,10] ) was the fact that my initial question, my opening post was different in the second test, and I view the change I made in the initial post as important.

The opening post of the first test was:

Hi, I invite you to participate in a simple telepathy test.

At about 16:39 on this Thursday August 9 (Brussels, Belgium time),
...

A comment might also be useful.

Thank you for participating.

...

Then, Jodie answered:

three

, and I said in the analysis, about this answer :

...
This answer is very minimal. The total absence of any comment might indicate something to hide, or a small level of aggressivity. I find the expression on her face (if it's a photo of her) slightly aggressive, CR=-1.
...

In this first test, I had received 13 valid numerical answers, and she was the only answerer who had not written the slightest little comment, or the slightest little text I could use to try to assess her credibility, when I did the analysis, even though I had said "A comment might also be useful." in the initial post.

In the beginning of the second test, I said:

Hi, I would like to invite you to participate in a (new) simple telepathy test.
...
A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable.
...

So, I replaced the sentence "A comment might also be useful." by "A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable.", in the initial, opening post of the second test. I did this because, about four months before, I had done another test, on another forum, where I noticed that all (numerically) correct and credible answers were very brief, with (almost) no text or comment, while answers with longer comments were either incorrect, or (in one case) correct but not credible. So, I felt that these brief answers were important, and that, while comments were very useful, I should also try to get across the message that very brief answers were acceptable too.

Then, in this second test, gabeygoat answered:

4.

and I said, in the analysis (about this answer):

...
This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:

...
A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable.
...

CR=5, QR=80.
...

, as mentioned above.
The higher credibility CR=+5 was consistent with my message "short answers are ok in this second test".
Obviously, two identical answers can get different credibility ratings in tests 1 and 2, if the opening post of test 1 is (significantly) different from the opening post of test 2.

Note: it may be of interest to try to go a little further in the analysis, and to compare to each other, for exemple, all three "very brief" answers (answers consisting of just the number "guessed", with no accompanying text, either in the post where the numeric guess is given, or later in the thread, but before my analysis) which were given in the two tests I have done so far in this forum.
Jodie answered (incorrectly), in the first test:

three

In the second test, gabeygoat answered (correctly):

4.

while DuvalHMFIC responded (correctly also):

4.

When I wrote and circled my numbers to "telepathically guess" on my sheet of paper, I wrote them in "digit form" ("2", or "4" in the cases of these two tests), not in "word form" ("two" or "four"), as was suggested by my two initial posts, and, interestingly, the two correct answerers also responded in digit form, the form I used myself, but not Jodie, who was incorrect. In addition, both correct answerers ended their responses with a full stop/period (this may reflect a desire to be careful in the answer), but not "incorrect" Jodie (even though her answer was a little longer). This modest additional analysis seems therefore to confirm, once again, the validity of the "credibility" approach adopted here. It also does suggest that answerers responded in a careful (and, perhaps, carefully calculated) way ("in a certain sense"), there may have be a conscious desire by many to give a "clue", to alert about the incorrectness of their answers, so that their answers become more "morally acceptable" to them.