ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags telepathy , telepathy test

Closed Thread
Old 7th November 2013, 06:26 PM   #161
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, nobody can prevent me to retain, in my final (statistical) analysis of the results, only the answers by members of this forum who abided by the recommended protocol.


I don't think anybody gives a hoot what you do with the answers. They're utterly meaningless.

Not least because you didn't even stick to the protocol yourself.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 07:59 PM   #162
xtifr
Graduate Poster
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, nobody can prevent me to retain, in my final (statistical) analysis of the results, only the answers by members of this forum who abided by the recommended protocol. The fact I got a better result by doing so seems to confirm the validity of credibility ideas I have tried to develop before
You seem to have completely misunderstood the purpose of this test. We already established that this test was not capable of demonstrating anything about anyone's psychic abilities. The sole purpose of this test--the only reason anyone participated--was to do a blind measurement of your credibility rankings. And you failed completely! The fact that you then tried to "fix" your results once the data was visible is completely irrelevant to anyone or anything, and only demonstrates that your ability to learn from your mistakes is extremely limited.

You can retain whatever you want, but your non-blinded conclusions/revisions are utterly meaningless.
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it."
-- Anonymous Slashdot poster
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
-- James Nicoll
xtifr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 08:01 PM   #163
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,745
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, nobody can prevent me to retain, in my final (statistical) analysis of the results, only the answers by members of this forum who abided by the recommended protocol. The fact I got a better result by doing so seems to confirm the validity of credibility ideas I have tried to develop before: careful people, who take the time necessary to carefully read the opening post, seem to answer better. I think I have already explained in great detail why no MD5 hash was not a disqualifying factor.
So you have reduced the total number of acceptable answers to three, and claim that two of them fit your post-hoc criteria, therefore telepathy. Did you spend all this time doing it just to justify in your own mind that you are right? Do you think that any test with three points is significant? If so, you are beyond help when it comes to the scientific method. Or that you can simply wish away stuff you originally agreed to, and then changed your own criteria after you saw the result?

You do understand that not one person on this thread "heard" your number and that everyone was simply making fun of your "scientific" (BWAHAHAHAHAHA) method.

OK, stay with your delusions, and rationalise them in your own mind as much as you wish. But it would be better if you do not want to make a fool of yourself, to keep them private (i.e., don't make your self congratulating rationalisations public), and not make your idea, and your test more silly than it already looked in the first place.

Norm

Last edited by fromdownunder; 7th November 2013 at 08:03 PM.
fromdownunder is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 10:29 PM   #164
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
TheSapient, I am a little bit surprised by your comment. If people (as I recommended) send their full answers to Agatha, and also post publicly their answers in this thread, after having replaced their guessed numbers by "xx", then automatically the two texts are almost identical (this fact is already implied by the recommended protocol). However, if I do a more or less similar test again, I think I'll stress the importance of sending to the referee exactly your answer (and not a different one) [unless, of course, I make another change to the protocol, which hopefully will be well understood].
You are surprised that I'm asking why you would wait until after the test is over to create requirements for the participants?

Of course, we all know what will happen if you create another test. You will create a wildly convoluted protocol. Some people were participate. The results will show you do not have telepathic powers. You will then create a new protocol as an excuse to disqualify the people who didn't give you the answers you wanted.

Last edited by TheSapient; 7th November 2013 at 10:36 PM.
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 10:59 PM   #165
FrederickEason
Critical Thinker
 
FrederickEason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 312
What was the point of this test again?
__________________
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens

"It's easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help."
- Isaac Asimov
FrederickEason is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 11:30 PM   #166
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
You are surprised that I'm asking why you would wait until after the test is over to create requirements for the participants?

Of course, we all know what will happen if you create another test. You will create a wildly convoluted protocol. Some people were participate. The results will show you do not have telepathic powers. You will then create a new protocol as an excuse to disqualify the people who didn't give you the answers you wanted.
TheSapient, the sentence:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...
It may also be useful (I recommend it) that you send your (full) answer, in the form of a private message, to either Agatha, ...
was part of the opening post of this thread, and was therefore posted before I saw any of the results of this test. When I wrote the initial post (and therefore the protocol) of this test, I frankly didn't even suspect (perhaps because of a lack of imagination) that some people might send to the "helper" a text different from the blinded text (with "xx") they post in the thread. This came as a complete surprise to me, it was unexpected. And I believe this is a violation of the recommended protocol I posted before I knew any result. My goal here is not to please or entertain skeptics. I am not going to alter the results of the test, to make sure they magnificently meet your most skeptical expectations. When I think I see some interesting effects (and this tends to occur rather often, I think), I try to report them fairly and honestly, not to ignore them. Generally speaking, I suspect many of the people here who claim to "represent Science" or to be "guardians of Science" actually have probably very little (if any) real experience of scientific research, and this is a problem, to be constantly taught lessons be people who clearly don't know much about science, but naively believe (perhaps) they know everything because they post on a "skeptical" forum (there have been some good remarks too). One important rule of actual scientific research is that it is necessary to be very careful (not "sloppy" or negligent). In the example of this test, the fact some people posted one message with "xx", and sent another message to Agatha is something that I can certainly not neglect, even if this exasperates or enrages some of you because it raises the hit rate of the test.

Last edited by Michel H; 8th November 2013 at 12:15 AM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 11:41 PM   #167
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by FrederickEason View Post
What was the point of this test again?
Frederick, I think this little note I have posted previously:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...
Note: I do these tests because I believe I have a particular tendency to (telepathically) communicate my thoughts to others, and I am seeking to prove this through online telepathy experiments.
answers your question.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 11:50 PM   #168
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,745
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
zIn the example of this test the fact some people posted one message with "xx", and sent another message to Agatha is something that I can certainly not neglect, even if this exasperates or enrages some of you because it raises the hit rate of the test.
This was not a test. It was a joke. and everybody, except you understands this.

Norm
fromdownunder is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 11:52 PM   #169
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,214
I cant believe this thread is into its 5th page now, at the JREF. I could see this on Facebook. They love stuff like this there. They love IQ tests/simple simon guessing games, like......Mary`s father had 5 daughters, named Nana, Nene, Nini, Nono...what was the 5th daughter`s name? Lol
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.

Last edited by Iamme; 7th November 2013 at 11:54 PM.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 11:57 PM   #170
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,256
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
TheSapient, the sentence:

was part of the opening post of this thread, and was therefore posted before I saw any of the results of this test. When I wrote the initial post (and therefore the protocol) of this test, I frankly didn't even suspect (perhaps because of a lack of imagination) that some people might send to the "helper" a text different from the blinded text (with "xx") they post in the thread. This came as a complete surprise to me, it was unexpected. And I believe this is a violation of the recommended protocol I posted before I knew any result. My goal here is not to please or entertain skeptics. I am not going to alter the results of the test, to make sure they magnificently meet your most skeptical expectations. When I think I see some interesting effects (and this tends to occur rather often, I think), I try to report them fairly and honestly, not to ignore them. Generally speaking, I suspect many of the people here who claim to "represent Science" or to be "guardians of Science" actually have probably very little (if any) real experience of scientific research, and this is a problem, to be constantly taught lessons be people who clearly don't know much about science, but naively believe (perhaps) they know everything because they post on a "skeptical" forum (there have been some good remarks too). One important rule of actual scientific research is that it is necessary to be very careful (not "sloppy" or negligent). In the example of this test the fact some people posted one message with "xx", and sent another message to Agatha is something that I can certainly not neglect, even if this exasperates or enrages some of you because it raises the hit rate of the test.
The exasperation is at the complete abandonment of anything that resembles a plausible experimental methodology, or reasonable experimental controls.

The above narrative would appear to indicate that you are unwilling or unable to recognise these truths. If you're serious, by all means test it. Properly.

You tell me a page number, line number and word number. I'll walk over to the bookshelf and grab a book at random and PM you with that word and that word only. If you can actually transmit anything telepathically, you can then do so and the responses will be collated.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 12:03 AM   #171
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,745
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
... even if this exasperates or enrages some of you because it raises the hit rate of the test.
So do you seriously believe that a scientific test that has three data points specifically and subjectively suggested by you is valid? Keep digging that hole Alice, eventually you will finish up in Wonderland.

Norm

Last edited by fromdownunder; 8th November 2013 at 12:04 AM.
fromdownunder is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 01:18 AM   #172
FrederickEason
Critical Thinker
 
FrederickEason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 312
A tally of the guesses:

Code:
Post #7   - Ashles        - 3
Post #8   - Jensen        - xx (never revealed)
Post #9   - phunk         - 3
Post #12  - RoboTimbo     - 3
Post #16  - Hokulele      - xx (revealed to be 1)
Post #25  - shemp         - 7
Post #26  - Ladewig       - xx (revealed to be 2)
Post #30  - fromdownunder - xx (never revealed)
Post #33  - Akhenaten     - 2 and 4
Post #41  - superfreddy   - 3
Post #44  - stanfr        - xx (revealed to be 1)
Post #54  - Nay Sayer     - 3
Post #69  - Kid Eager     - xx (revealed to be 4)
Post #94  - fagin         - Roman numeral XX
Post #103 - devnull       - eleventy
Post #120 - femke         - xx (revealed to be 2)
Post #124 - gabeygoat     - xx (revealed to be 4)
So that's 2/17 correct if you count only answers which were exactly 2. 3/17 if you count Akhenaten guessing both 2 and 4. 4/17 if you count "eleventy". 5/17 if you count "Roman numeral XX".

I don't see any psychic ability present.
__________________
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens

"It's easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help."
- Isaac Asimov
FrederickEason is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 01:22 AM   #173
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, nobody can prevent me to retain, in my final (statistical) analysis of the results, only the answers by members of this forum who abided by the recommended protocol. The fact I got a better result by doing so seems to confirm the validity of credibility ideas I have tried to develop before: careful people, who take the time necessary to carefully read the opening post, seem to answer better. I think I have already explained in great detail why no MD5 hash was not a disqualifying factor.

And yet, my incorrect answer had a higher credibility rating than Ladewig's correct answer. How do you explain that?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 02:26 AM   #174
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
And yet, my incorrect answer had a higher credibility rating than Ladewig's correct answer. How do you explain that?
Well, Hokulele, I have never claimed that correct answers always have a higher credibility ratings that incorrect ones. I depend of course a lot upon "integrities", "probities", "honesties" of responders (it seems that, in the field of telepathy, these words should generally be written between quotation marks ). Also, I need perhaps to gain more experience, and to better learn to detect, to "smell" correct answers in a high security test, what I am trying to do here (and on other forums) is still very new. Now, if you have decided inside yourself to answer in a very perverse way, there is no way I can overcome or try to "break" this "wall". Experience has taught me that, fairly often (not always) people tend to answer with a degree of honesty (most people are neither completely honest, nor completely dishonest, there is a level of humanity (humaneness) in most of you). Like in real life, people often are aggressive when they lie, friendly when they say the truth. It is possible that, as the test becomes more and more rigorous, people will try to not show any sentiment or emotion in their answer, in a very inhumane attempt to try to hide a (supposedly) real telepathic phenomenon. But people are human beings, not stones, and I don't think failure is a certainty, that success is impossible. I really don't know what the future will bring. And I don't know what I could add to this either , except perhaps to say that your answer was in a sense careful because the answer you sent to Agatha was the answer you posted (with the replacement xx → 1).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 02:33 AM   #175
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by FrederickEason View Post
A tally of the guesses:

Code:
Post #7   - Ashles        - 3
Post #8   - Jensen        - xx (never revealed)
Post #9   - phunk         - 3
Post #12  - RoboTimbo     - 3
Post #16  - Hokulele      - xx (revealed to be 1)
Post #25  - shemp         - 7
Post #26  - Ladewig       - xx (revealed to be 2)
Post #30  - fromdownunder - xx (never revealed)
Post #33  - Akhenaten     - 2 and 4
Post #41  - superfreddy   - 3
Post #44  - stanfr        - xx (revealed to be 1)
Post #54  - Nay Sayer     - 3
Post #69  - Kid Eager     - xx (revealed to be 4)
Post #94  - fagin         - Roman numeral XX
Post #103 - devnull       - eleventy
Post #120 - femke         - xx (revealed to be 2)
Post #124 - gabeygoat     - xx (revealed to be 4)
So that's 2/17 correct if you count only answers which were exactly 2. 3/17 if you count Akhenaten guessing both 2 and 4. 4/17 if you count "eleventy". 5/17 if you count "Roman numeral XX".

I don't see any psychic ability present.
Good, FrederickEason. But, in this "high security" test, answers where the guessed number is posted explicitly are in principle not accepted. People were supposed to replace their guessed numbers by "xx". Always read carefully (at least) the opening post before criticizing a thread.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 02:36 AM   #176
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,745
Michel H, why do you think people would need to "lie" about actually hearing the number you mentally sent?

Norm
fromdownunder is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 02:47 AM   #177
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Michel H, why do you think people would need to "lie" about actually hearing the number you mentally sent?

Norm
Well, perhaps they don't really need to lie, perhaps they just often choose to.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 03:13 AM   #178
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,745
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, perhaps they don't really need to lie, perhaps they just often choose to.
I think that this statement says everything about Michel that needs to be said. All summed up in 14 words.

If "they" chose the right answer they were correct, if "they" chose the wrong answer they were deliberately lying.

Michel, do you even understand how pathetic this argument really is?

Norm

Last edited by fromdownunder; 8th November 2013 at 03:17 AM.
fromdownunder is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 06:14 AM   #179
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,841
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
... I suspect many of the people here who claim to "represent Science" or to be "guardians of Science" actually have probably very little (if any) real experience of scientific research, and this is a problem, to be constantly taught lessons be people who clearly don't know much about science, but naively believe (perhaps) they know everything because they post on a "skeptical" forum (there have been some good remarks too). One important rule of actual scientific research is that it is necessary to be very careful (not "sloppy" or negligent).
As someone who does have a career of scientific research behind him, I feel confident in saying that it is you who clearly have no idea of how to conduct an experiment like this. Your approach has been inadequate in every respect, from your description of the phenomenon, the hypothesis to be tested, the experimental design, the protocol, the recruitment of subjects, the data collection, the analysis, the discussion, and the conclusion.

Other than that, it was quite entertaining.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 06:27 AM   #180
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,841
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This correct answer rate is much higher than the (approximately) 25% expected from chance alone, and seems to support my telepathy hypothesis (the assumption that I have a propensity to communicate my thoughts to others everywhere on the surface of this planet).

The probability of obtaining a hit rate equal to, or larger than 2/3 (if chance alone is responsible for the results, and assuming a probability of 25% of answering correctly), called the p-value, is equal to: p = 15.6%. This is not statistically significant, because of the smallness of the sample (3 valid answers only).
If it is not statistically significant, then it clearly does not 'seem to' support your telepathy hypothesis.

Let's not forget what you said earlier:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...Keep in mind that (tentative) conclusions are (usually) drawn only after many answers have been given, after a statistical analysis has been done for the large collection of answers.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 07:35 AM   #181
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
If it is not statistically significant, then it clearly does not 'seem to' support your telepathy hypothesis.
...
The results of this test seem to support my telepathy hypothesis (in my opinion, at least), in the sense that the hit rate is (significantly) higher than 25% (not just 27 or 28% for example). "Support" does not mean "standalone proof" ; each wheel of your car (if you have one) provides "support", but you (generally) need four wheels before you can drive your car. I also found some qualitative and semi-quantitative evidence in favor of telepathy at the end of post #127, and in my two previous (unblinded) tests on this forum. In a statistical analysis, the "hit rate" is important too, not just the more "pedantic" p-value. It is true, however, that one cannot rule out that this fairly high hit rate might just reflect some random, statistical fluctuation, with no (para)psychological meaning. If (and only if) this kind of result can be repeated several times, then a statistically significant result (p-value smaller or equal to 5%) might be obtained, probably rather easily.

Last edited by Michel H; 8th November 2013 at 07:59 AM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 08:16 AM   #182
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, Hokulele, I have never claimed that correct answers always have a higher credibility ratings that incorrect ones.

True, but let's use your methods and reasoning on the three answers you considered to be valid.

Two of those were given the highest credibility rating assigned in this "test", and one was given the lowest. Of the ones given the highest rating, only one was correct, and the lowest was also correct. This means that 2/3 of the answers, or 66%, had an inverse relation between correctness and credibility. Therefor, the vast majority of the time, your credibility analysis was wrong, and your conclusion that the two are related in a positive fashion is false. The statistics clearly show a negative relation.

Quote:
I depend of course a lot upon "integrities", "probities", "honesties" of responders (it seems that, in the field of telepathy, these words should generally be written between quotation marks ). Also, I need perhaps to gain more experience, and to better learn to detect, to "smell" correct answers in a high security test, what I am trying to do here (and on other forums) is still very new. Now, if you have decided inside yourself to answer in a very perverse way, there is no way I can overcome or try to "break" this "wall". Experience has taught me that, fairly often (not always) people tend to answer with a degree of honesty (most people are neither completely honest, nor completely dishonest, there is a level of humanity (humaneness) in most of you). Like in real life, people often are aggressive when they lie, friendly when they say the truth. It is possible that, as the test becomes more and more rigorous, people will try to not show any sentiment or emotion in their answer, in a very inhumane attempt to try to hide a (supposedly) real telepathic phenomenon. But people are human beings, not stones, and I don't think failure is a certainty, that success is impossible. I really don't know what the future will bring. And I don't know what I could add to this either , except perhaps to say that your answer was in a sense careful because the answer you sent to Agatha was the answer you posted (with the replacement xx → 1).

If you ask anyone who knows me, I am far more aggressive when being honest than when lying.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 08:55 AM   #183
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
True, but let's use your methods and reasoning on the three answers you considered to be valid.

Two of those were given the highest credibility rating assigned in this "test", and one was given the lowest. Of the ones given the highest rating, only one was correct, and the lowest was also correct. This means that 2/3 of the answers, or 66%, had an inverse relation between correctness and credibility. Therefor, the vast majority of the time, your credibility analysis was wrong, and your conclusion that the two are related in a positive fashion is false. The statistics clearly show a negative relation.




If you ask anyone who knows me, I am far more aggressive when being honest than when lying.
Hokulele, I think one writes "therefore" (= consequently), not "therefor" (detail). I am having some difficulty following your reasoning. Anyway, keep in mind I am trying to prove telepathy here (already hard enough, perhaps impossible), not necessarily a correlation between correctness and credibility, especially for a very small sample. I did actually perceive some agressivity in your (incorrect) answer. Actually, I suspect the answers in the unblinded tests were perhaps generally more "sincere", of better quality. But it is good also to be able to do something more rigorous.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 09:06 AM   #184
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Hokulele, I think one writes "therefore" (= consequently), not "therefor" (detail). I am having some difficulty following your reasoning. Anyway, keep in mind I am trying to prove telepathy here (already hard enough, perhaps impossible), not necessarily a correlation between correctness and credibility, especially for a very small sample.

My reasoning is that if you only take your "valid" answers, 66% show a negative relation between your credibility ratings and their accuracy. In other words, when blinded, a lower credibility rating is more likely to correspond to a correct guess, and a higher credibility rating is more likely to correspond to an incorrect guess.

If you now claim you are *not* trying to show a correlation, why did you write this, earlier?

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This seems to confirm the finding I reported at the end of my previous test, namely that that (numerically) incorrect answers tend to be less credible.

To your other points:

Quote:
I did actually perceive some agressivity in your (incorrect) answer.

Odd, I was sincerely posting my response, and why I responded that way. Your analysis of my response was interesting, in that you found it "aggressive", however, since you suspected (wrongly) that I had posted the correct number, you did everything you could to avoid giving me a negative credibility rating. This just goes to show how your biases are affecting your ratings.

Quote:
Actually, I suspect the answers in the unblinded tests were perhaps generally more "sincere", of better quality. But it is good also to be able to do something more rigorous.

If you noted a lack of sincerity in the responses to your more recent "tests", I would suggest that is due more to exasperation on the part of the respondents, than the blinding or lack thereof.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 09:54 AM   #185
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
...
If you now claim you are *not* trying to show a correlation, why did you write this, earlier?
Quote:
This seems to confirm the finding I reported at the end of my previous test, namely that that (numerically) incorrect answers tend to be less credible.
I wrote this about a larger sample, of 6 answers. I think I have generally observed a correlation between credibility and correctness (examples given in previous threads, observed on other forums too). This correlation is interesting, I think, but my main goal is to try to prove telepathy, not correlation.

Quote:
Your analysis of my response was interesting, in that you found it "aggressive", however, since you suspected (wrongly) that I had posted the correct number, you did everything you could to avoid giving me a negative credibility rating. This just goes to show how your biases are affecting your ratings.
No, I don't rate for credibility in this way (or, at least, I try not to)

Quote:
If you noted a lack of sincerity in the responses to your more recent "tests", I would suggest that is due more to exasperation on the part of the respondents, than the blinding or lack thereof.
Ah ok, try to calm down the agressivity then. Perhaps a good first step would be to write politely 'to your more recent tests', with no quotation marks around "tests". I make great efforts to try to post clearly, and I have often disappointed by the lot of nonsense criticism I am getting on this forum, by people who don't even seem to have read me carefully. You are not the worst. Besides, I have an impression that blinding is detrimental to sincerity, but rigor is important too.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 10:11 AM   #186
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
TheSapient, the sentence:

was part of the opening post of this thread, and was therefore posted before I saw any of the results of this test. When I wrote the initial post (and therefore the protocol) of this test, I frankly didn't even suspect (perhaps because of a lack of imagination) that some people might send to the "helper" a text different from the blinded text (with "xx") they post in the thread. This came as a complete surprise to me, it was unexpected. And I believe this is a violation of the recommended protocol I posted before I knew any result. My goal here is not to please or entertain skeptics. I am not going to alter the results of the test, to make sure they magnificently meet your most skeptical expectations. When I think I see some interesting effects (and this tends to occur rather often, I think), I try to report them fairly and honestly, not to ignore them. Generally speaking, I suspect many of the people here who claim to "represent Science" or to be "guardians of Science" actually have probably very little (if any) real experience of scientific research, and this is a problem, to be constantly taught lessons be people who clearly don't know much about science, but naively believe (perhaps) they know everything because they post on a "skeptical" forum (there have been some good remarks too). One important rule of actual scientific research is that it is necessary to be very careful (not "sloppy" or negligent). In the example of this test, the fact some people posted one message with "xx", and sent another message to Agatha is something that I can certainly not neglect, even if this exasperates or enrages some of you because it raises the hit rate of the test.
The fact that you put that sentence in your original post shows that a) you thought about what people were going to be sending to Agatha, b( you knew what they sent might not be a word-for-word match to what they posted openly in the thread, and c) you did not consider this important enough to make any rules regarding it.

As to our credentials, I am published in a variety of ecology and infomatics related journals. But what difference does that make? You change your protocols after your tests to get the results you want. My CV is irrelevant the lack of integrity of your procedures.
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 10:25 AM   #187
FrederickEason
Critical Thinker
 
FrederickEason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 312
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Good, FrederickEason. But, in this "high security" test, answers where the guessed number is posted explicitly are in principle not accepted. People were supposed to replace their guessed numbers by "xx". Always read carefully (at least) the opening post before criticizing a thread.
Then it's 2/6. Still not psychic.
__________________
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens

"It's easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help."
- Isaac Asimov
FrederickEason is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 10:45 AM   #188
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
The fact that you put that sentence in your original post shows that a) you thought about what people were going to be sending to Agatha, b( you knew what they sent might not be a word-for-word match to what they posted openly in the thread, and c) you did not consider this important enough to make any rules regarding it.

As to our credentials, I am published in a variety of ecology and infomatics related journals. But what difference does that make? You change your protocols after your tests to get the results you want. My CV is irrelevant the lack of integrity of your procedures.
TheSapient, as I have already told you, I did not think about this possibility of non-matching (perhaps I should have, that's another issue, but I didn't). I was just thinking about answers "stored" by Agatha and Femke, for not being lost. I based my analysis on the recommended protocol, I see no lack of integrity there. However, if I do another test, I could perhaps try to be more clear about the importance of sending to the referee exactly the text you posted. All suggestions for improvement, and to make these tests more rigorous (without excessive complication) are very welcome in my threads. And it is not necessary to accuse me groundlessly of lacking integrity to do that.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 10:54 AM   #189
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by FrederickEason View Post
Then it's 2/6. Still not psychic.
FrederickEason, my analysis of the results of this test is in post #149.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 11:14 AM   #190
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
TheSapient, as I have already told you, I did not think about this possibility of non-matching (perhaps I should have, that's another issue, but I didn't). I was just thinking about answers "stored" by Agatha and Femke, for not being lost. I based my analysis on the recommended protocol, I see no lack of integrity there. However, if I do another test, I could perhaps try to be more clear about the importance of sending to the referee exactly the text you posted. All suggestions for improvement, and to make these tests more rigorous (without excessive complication) are very welcome in my threads. And it is not necessary to accuse me groundlessly of lacking integrity to do that.
You have been given many suggestions on how to create a better, more simple test. How about this.

You pick a number from 1 to 1,000,000,000,000. You will write it down, circle it, and write it down again. You will post a hash for it in this forum. Ten people in this forum will post what they think that number is. You will reveal your number, with the hash key. If anyone's answer matches, we will be amazed and look into this further.

This prevents the problem that many of us have with your protocols. For many of us, it seems like you choose a small number of possible numbers to make it highly likely that someone will get it right. Then, after seeing the results, you apply unsubscribed protocols to change the results.
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 11:15 AM   #191
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I wrote this about a larger sample, of 6 answers. I think I have generally observed a correlation between credibility and correctness (examples given in previous threads, observed on other forums too). This correlation is interesting, I think, but my main goal is to try to prove telepathy, not correlation.

So 6 answers are valid when they agree with your conclusions, but 3 of those are invalid when they do not. How non-scientific of you.

Quote:
No, I don't rate for credibility in this way (or, at least, I try not to)

But you did. Go read your analysis of my response again.

Quote:
Ah ok, try to calm down the agressivity then. Perhaps a good first step would be to write politely 'to your more recent tests', with no quotation marks around "tests".

You want me to post unnaturally? What happened to sincerity? Until you set a proper protocol and methodology, there is no reason to drop the quotation marks, as these are anything but rigorous tests.

Quote:
I make great efforts to try to post clearly, and I have often disappointed by the lot of nonsense criticism I am getting on this forum, by people who don't even seem to have read me carefully. You are not the worst. Besides, I have an impression that blinding is detrimental to sincerity, but rigor is important too.

No, telling people not to post in their natural style is detrimental to sincerity. Blinding isn't, and can often promote sincerity, as people will no longer worry about how their answer corresponds to someone else's. Go look up how psychological testing is normally run for many examples.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 02:58 PM   #192
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Michel,

Can you describe the mechanism behind your latest objection? You are saying you can send a number into the mind of a remote person.....unless they later send someone a private message in an internet forum that is any different than the wording they used to report their results in that same forum?

How does their PM block your ability? How long must they refrain from sending PMs to other users? If they wrote something else in some other medium, say a shopping list, what would happen to your telepathy?

Does their PM go back in time and stop you from sending your number? Or does your telepathy look into the future and find out that participants have written something?
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 03:46 PM   #193
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,745
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
You have been given many suggestions on how to create a better, more simple test. How about this.

You pick a number from 1 to 1,000,000,000,000. You will write it down, circle it, and write it down again. You will post a hash for it in this forum. Ten people in this forum will post what they think that number is. You will reveal your number, with the hash key. If anyone's answer matches, we will be amazed and look into this further.
I would genuinely post on such a thread, and I suspect that there would be up to 100 genuine responses. Although I would be quite happy if the upper limit was 1,000,000.

Michel, if you genuinely believe you are sending a number, why do you always limit it to 4 numbers. If members here are getting your number, why does it always have to be between 1 and 4, as has been in the case of your three failed attempts?

Another option, if you want to limit the number to 4 is to write down 4 three figure numbers, say:

167
251
812
303

Then do the same "test" that you just did. But of course, you would be completely unwilling to try such a thing, because you don't even believe the things you are trying to convince everyone here of, do you?

If you can send a number from 1 to 4 telepathically, why are you utterly incapable of "sending" a larger number?

Norm
fromdownunder is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 03:49 PM   #194
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
I have two questions.

1) What is the sampling error for a sample size of 6?

2) If you had had only 2 valid answers (by your reasoning), and one of them had happened to be correct, would you have declared that the results were 50% correct and therefore evidence of telepathy?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 05:13 PM   #195
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,745
Originally Posted by Emily Cat View Post
If you had had only 2 valid answers (by your reasoning), and one of them had happened to be correct, would you have declared that the results were 50% correct and therefore evidence of telepathy?
Michel, by whatever convoluted reasoning he/she uses would more than likely discount the incorrect answer and claim 100%.

Norm
fromdownunder is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 07:38 PM   #196
gabeygoat
Graduate Poster
 
gabeygoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,044
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
TheSapient, the sentence:It may also be useful (I recommend it) that you send your (full) answer, in the form of a private message, to either Agatha, ...

was part of the opening post of this thread, and was therefore posted before I saw any of the results of this test.

that was a vague suggestion of a possible thing to do. Not a requirement.
__________________
"May I interest you in some coconut milk?" ~Akhenaten Wallabe Esq
gabeygoat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 07:45 PM   #197
xtifr
Graduate Poster
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
FrederickEason, my analysis of the results of this test is in post #149.
Your blind (and therefore potentially valid) analysis is in post #127. The actual answers were unblinded in post #129, and showed two out of six correct, from among the "credible" answers. That's not statistically significant (pure chance would give 1.5).

The analysis in post #149 was after the results were revealed, and is therefore utterly meaningless. You violated the protocol.
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it."
-- Anonymous Slashdot poster
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
-- James Nicoll
xtifr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 08:56 PM   #198
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,214
Why not the OP deeply keep concentrating on something. Then ask us what he`s thinking. If any correctly guess, do it again and see if the same people who guessed right the first time guess right the second time, etc. That would be telepathy.
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 09:12 PM   #199
Tamlin
Scholar
 
Tamlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
Why not the OP deeply keep concentrating on something. Then ask us what he`s thinking. If any correctly guess, do it again and see if the same people who guessed right the first time guess right the second time, etc. That would be telepathy.
I doubt anybody would seriously attempt to participate in an experiment such as this. Honestly, if Michel is serious about this, they need to go elsewhere. If they aren't willing to listen to anybody here, and aren't expecting to convince anyone, I'm not sure why they're even posting in the first place.
Tamlin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 10:46 PM   #200
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,214
I beg of you. Please respond to this. All of you. I have a bike combo padlock. Each of its 4 dials has numbers 1 thru 6 on it. What`s the combination?
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.