Telepathy

[King of the Americas]

Well, don't I feel like a fool. If you say 1/5000 then 1/5000 it is.


This does not seem to be statistically sound.


Let me make this completely clear: If you do not want to do a test, then you shouldn't do a test. I wouldn't want you to perform in any way if you have no desire to succeed. As far as I'm concerned, no test should be conducted until you agree that it is something you can do and that you want to do.

Be advised, however, that nobody on this forum will allow you to claim you have any sort of extrasensory power without reminding you that you refused to test it. You are backing out, whether you call it that or not. And something that lacks evidence simply cannot be said to exist.

I wish you the best.

I get it.

Consider the ramifications, from my perspective, if I were to suffer ANY kind of success...

In all honesty, I would rather NOT know anyone possesses telepathy, especially myself. That's too much responsibility!

Maybe telepathy exists, maybe it doesn't...

 

[Giordano]

0= no ability

1= A little luck, or tiny bit of ability

2= Really lucky, or something bumping the lowest end of measurability is happening

3= Go to Vegas

4 or more= ...ummm...

Ya know, suddenly, I think this is a really bad idea.

[snip]

It is absolutely crucial when designing a scientific test iof this nature to define in advance what is to be measured and to define in advance what is to be considered a hit versus what is a miss. This is true of all prospective studies including mainstream ones such as those of clinical drug efficacy. The Randi Million Dollar Challenge understood this very well.

This is particularly important for tests of ESP because of the way humans often try to retrofit success: - "Well the target number was 16 and I guessed a 6, so I was partially correct. The next target number was 9 and I guessed 8, which is awfully close to the hit number and so I was partially correct. The last target number was 23 and I guessed 9, which was the prior target number which must have stayed in my brain, so I was partially correct. Therefore I have ESP, but I'm just not perfect at it..."

So the different levels of success you list would seriously undermine the validity of any test you might undergo. You need to define (in agreement with the other posters) very specifically and in advance what the participants would be a statistically valid proof.

As the saying goes, close only counts when throwing horseshoes or hand grenades.

 

[Giordano]

I get it.

Consider the ramifications, from my perspective, if I were to suffer ANY kind of success...

In all honesty, I would rather NOT know anyone possesses telepathy, especially myself. That's too much responsibility!

Maybe telepathy exists, maybe it doesn't...

Okay, I guess my comments are moot.

But unless you can turn it off and keep it off, would you having ESP still impact your life whether you knew for certain or not?

 

[Startz]

I said I would so I will, but I don't want to anymore...

If I do well, or bad, the ultimate result will be unpleasant, especially the better I do!

If you don't have reason to believe you have telepathic ability, there is no reason to do a test.

And saying "I will" (future tense) doesn't count. Either agree to a test that Loss Leader has proposed or propose another test with clearly defined success and failure.

 

[Donn]

Beauty is in who's eyes...?

The truth, however, is not.

 

[Donn]

I get it.

Consider the ramifications, from my perspective, if I were to suffer ANY kind of success...

In all honesty, I would rather NOT know anyone possesses telepathy, especially myself. That's too much responsibility!

Maybe telepathy exists, maybe it doesn't...

This is a dizzying whirligig of spin. Well done!

 

[Rara]

yep,one of the "great" excuses,that one.

 

[Loss Leader]

I said I would so I will, but I don't want to anymore...

In all honesty, I would rather NOT know anyone possesses telepathy, especially myself. That's too much responsibility!

I'll make this easy for you: I absolutely will not do a test under these conditions. I will not push you to do something reluctantly. I will not beg you to please consider doing it for science. For one thing, you now have a built in excuse. "I didn't want to do it so my powers weren't focussed but if I had focussed, I would have gotten every card."

Should you become confident that you have any such power, I would be happy to continue trying to design an appropriate protocol. Otherwise, I consider my involvement ended.

Maybe telepathy exists, maybe it doesn't...

Maybe. But what we can say is that you have generated no evidence that it does. In fact, I know of no repeatable evidence of telepathy ever. As I said before, don't expect to be able to make such claims on this forum without being challenged.

 

[Humots]

Yeah, you're right; I realised I was solving the wrong problem. Still, 40% is more then 25%, so I've got an excuse

Dave

Thanks for the confirmation.

I guess KotA won't be inviting us over to play poker any time soon.

 

[Humots]

2+2 is still 4, right?

Or are you doing new maths?

Would you please point out what is wrong with the following:

Actually, it may be much better.


First, are the second 5 cards picked with replacement (returning the card picked to the deck) or without replacement?

If the pick is with replacement, then every time a card is picked, the probability that it is not one of the specified 5 cards is 47/52.

The odds of doing this 5 times successfully is (47/52)⁵, or about 0.60.

So the odds of picking at least one of the specified 5 cards is about 1.0 - 0.60 = 0.40, a 40% chance.

If the pick is done without replacement, then the probabilities are:

Card 1: 47/52 (of 52 cards, 47 are not in the specified set)

Card 2: 46/51 (of 51 cards, 46 are not in the specified set)

Card 3: 45/50 (of 50 cards, 45 are not in the specified set)

Card 4: 44/49 ...

Card 5: 43/48 ...

Then the probability of picking 5 cards not in the specified set is

47/52 x 46/51 x 45/50 x 44/49 x 43/48 = (about) 0.59, or 59%.

So the odds that at least one card in the specified set is picked is 1.0 - 0.59, a 41% chance.

If I've done this right, then there is a 40% or better chance of picking a card in the selected set, with or without replacement.

Dave Rogers agrees with me, by the way.

 

[Loss Leader]

If I've done this right, then there is a 40% or better chance of picking a card in the selected set, with or without replacement.

This is similar to the birthday problem. A science teacher bets his class of 30 students that at least two of them share a birthday. It seems counter-intuitive, but the math is the math.

 

[Startz]

The issue is whether the matches have to be in order. LL stares at a card and someone writes down a guess. Then repeat until five cards have been drawn.

If they have to be in order, then the odds of one match or more are about 9.3%. (Two or more about 0.37%.)

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is similar to the birthday problem.

However, not identical to the birthday problem, which is why my 25% was wrong

Dave

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I get it.

Consider the ramifications, from my perspective, if I were to suffer ANY kind of success...

In all honesty, I would rather NOT know anyone possesses telepathy, especially myself. That's too much responsibility!

Maybe telepathy exists, maybe it doesn't...

That's not what you said in your OP.

Recent events and displays of well researched data has indicated to me, that 'telepathy' or the ability to extend one's consciousness beyond one's cranium is a real measurable phenomena, that has its basis in natural selection...


After a few youtube searches I found some rather astounding test results.

If you don't want to do the test yourself, why don't you link to some of the "well researched data" and "astounding test results" instead? That way, we can examine the claim without you having to suffer all the terrible consequences you think might happen if we test you?

 

[King of the Americas]

That's not what you said in your OP.



If you don't want to do the test yourself, why don't you link to some of the "well researched data" and "astounding test results" instead? That way, we can examine the claim without you having to suffer all the terrible consequences you think might happen if we test you?

Okay, when I get time I'll post some peer reviewed research...Right now I am reading-The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence
by Frank R. Baumgartner Suzanna De Boef Amber E. Boydstun. AND I have to re-write a prospectus, by tomorrow at 6. And there's a naked woman like 8 feet away who wants my body!

When I tell you do your own research, I mean I don't have the time myself!

Check out a study done on how criminals act when camera monitors are being watched vs. just recorded!

 

[Donn]

There's such a pong of narcissism in the air after you post. Whatever could it be?

 

[MetalPig]

This is similar to the birthday problem. A science teacher bets his class of 30 students that at least two of them share a birthday. It seems counter-intuitive, but the math is the math.

Our teacher said that and people were like "yeah, it's them", pointing at the twins in the second row.

 

[Dave Rogers]

When I tell you do your own research, I mean I don't have the time myself!

See, this is a common problem round here. Someone posts saying something like "I've read a lot of studies into [insert paranormal phenomenon here] and I'm convinced it's real," but when asked to post the studies that support this they suddenly don't have time to do the research that they just said they'd already done. It makes one tend to doubt, to put it as politely as possible, that their point of view is as well informed as they initially claimed.

Dave

 

[TheSapient]

Okay, when I get time I'll post some peer reviewed research...Right now I am reading-The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence
by Frank R. Baumgartner Suzanna De Boef Amber E. Boydstun. AND I have to re-write a prospectus, by tomorrow at 6. And there's a naked woman like 8 feet away who wants my body!

When I tell you do your own research, I mean I don't have the time myself!

Check out a study done on how criminals act when camera monitors are being watched vs. just recorded!

I don't think anyone is asking you to do any new research here. You are just being asked to tell us what materials you have been reading/watching that you find so compelling. It would take far less time to post your sources than to constantly tell people you don't have time to tell people.

 

[Loss Leader]

Okay, when I get time I'll post some peer reviewed research...Right now I am reading-The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence
by Frank R. Baumgartner Suzanna De Boef Amber E. Boydstun. AND I have to re-write a prospectus, by tomorrow at 6. And there's a naked woman like 8 feet away who wants my body!

When I tell you do your own research, I mean I don't have the time myself!

Check out a study done on how criminals act when camera monitors are being watched vs. just recorded!

The funniest thing about your post is that you obviously copied and pasted a name of a smart-sounding book. That's why the three authors are listed by their full names with no commas or anything else between them.

Fake news. Sad.