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 24th August 2013, 09:33 AM   #361
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,326
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post

2. At one or more of those times those posters who wish to participate "listen" for the telepathic transmission and write down whichever number between 1 and 4 comes to them.
Why only four numbers? The fewer the number of choices, the greater the likelihood of random fluctuations being misinterpreted as proof of telepathic abilities.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig 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 24th August 2013, 11:19 AM   #362
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
|eiπ|
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...

Last edited by elbe; 24th August 2013 at 11:20 AM.
elbe 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 24th August 2013, 11:52 AM   #363
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,286
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
Why only four numbers? The fewer the number of choices, the greater the likelihood of random fluctuations being misinterpreted as proof of telepathic abilities.
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.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 24th August 2013, 12:56 PM   #364
Anerystos
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
As opposed to the people who investigated and wrote about far more?

Ah, but they were on some kind of strong (and probably illicit) substances.
Anerystos 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 24th August 2013, 01:20 PM   #365
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,481
Originally Posted by Anerystos View Post
Ah, but they were on some kind of strong (and probably illicit) substances.
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.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 24th August 2013, 02:43 PM   #366
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,885
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It annoys me that moderators merged this test with my previous one (and removed all tags: "telepathy" and "telepathy test"). Now, people who open this merged thread will read a test which is different from the current one.
It's different cuz one was 1-5 and this is 1-4

It's like two entirely different worlds.
__________________
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
If you see a Nazi. Egg them
Nay_Sayer 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 24th August 2013, 03:51 PM   #367
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer View Post
It's different cuz one was 1-5 and this is 1-4

It's like two entirely different worlds.
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.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 24th August 2013, 04:04 PM   #368
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...

Last edited by elbe; 24th August 2013 at 04:06 PM.
elbe 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 24th August 2013, 04:09 PM   #369
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 24th August 2013, 04:13 PM   #370
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 24th August 2013 at 04:18 PM.
abaddon 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 24th August 2013, 04:55 PM   #371
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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...
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.
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 24th August 2013, 05:56 PM   #372
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,885
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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.
It was tongue in cheek, I predict it
it'll be a number 1-2 and even just telling us to pick the #1
__________________
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
If you see a Nazi. Egg them
Nay_Sayer 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 24th August 2013, 06:00 PM   #373
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,587
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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.
When he gets down to just "I don't know" as the only choice, he might get a meaningful result.
RoboTimbo 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 24th August 2013, 09:52 PM   #374
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
Thanks for the explanation. I think I finally got it now.

My guess is 23.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.
AdMan 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 25th August 2013, 12:41 AM   #375
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 25th August 2013, 02:50 AM   #376
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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...40#post8607740 . Did I ignore people who answered "I don't know"? No, I didn't.
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 25th August 2013, 03:58 AM   #377
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
"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...40#post8607740 . Did I ignore people who answered "I don't know"? No, I didn't.

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?
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 25th August 2013 at 04:02 AM.
AdMan 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 25th August 2013, 05:31 AM   #378
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
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?
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...47#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 by Michel H; 25th August 2013 at 05:33 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 25th August 2013, 05:56 AM   #379
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Deputy Admin
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 14,815
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.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha 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 25th August 2013, 06:11 AM   #380
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,828
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.
Jack by the hedge 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 25th August 2013, 06:31 AM   #381
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
...If you insist on rating answers ... 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...
Very good, I take good note of your suggestion, and of your kind availability, Agatha.
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 25th August 2013, 07:12 AM   #382
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
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.
"You're not quite clear"...You mean ... "You don't clearly understand" ? Well, let me try to explain it to you, then. When you do such a test, you have to be careful about the words you use...I am not asking you if you know the number I wrote. I am asking you to guess it, to divine it. You may provide an answer, even if you have a doubt. And you also have the additional option to answer "I don't know", like you just did. As for me, I also think that I have the freedom to ask myself if you told me the truth, or if you lied, and tried to deceive me. These things do happen in many places, unfortunately. Look at what is happening with chemical weapons in Syria now...Who used them? Not everybody seems to agree.

You say "Safely Ignored" about yourself (under your name, and above your avatar). So, then, perhaps it would be safer for me to ignore this post of yours.

You sound a little aggressive, Jack (in this post)... But maybe I think that because I didn't take my medication today .
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 25th August 2013, 07:26 AM   #383
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
"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...40#post8607740 . Did I ignore people who answered "I don't know"? No, I didn't.
Let me get this clear. You have defined five responses as valid, and are flat out stating that you will ignore one of these responses that you yourself defined? At best this is faulty analysis, but I can think of a lot less favourable descriptions.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 25th August 2013, 07:34 AM   #384
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
"But it gives a 20% probability to each of the answers that you have defined as valid."

NoYes, it doesn't. Each of the four five numbers answers has a probability equal to .25 .20 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)8 (8 = .20x40) ones, about 10 8 twos, about 10 8 threes and about 10 8 fours, and 8 IDKs the four numerical outcomes (1, 2, 3 and 4)+ the one non numerical one you defined are "equiprobable". Since p1=p2=p3=p4=pIDK=p (the four numbers and the non numerical answer are "on the same footing" when there is no telepathy), and p1+p2+p3+p4+pIDK=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.is .20

"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 am doing exactly 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...40#post8607740 . Did I ignore people who answered "I don't know"? No, I didn't.No, you simply did not count them.
FTFY
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 25th August 2013 at 07:36 AM.
abaddon 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 25th August 2013, 07:47 AM   #385
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Let me get this clear. You have defined five responses as valid, and are flat out stating that you will ignore one of these responses that you yourself defined? At best this is faulty analysis, but I can think of a lot less favourable descriptions.
No, I don't want to ignore the "I don't know" answers (or any other answer) in this test, abaddon. I wonder what makes you think that, right after I said exactly the opposite. I insist that everybody can answer freely one of the five possibilities, in this test, including "I don't know".

Also, I wonder what makes you think that the probability of answering "I don't know" should be exactly equal to the probability of answering "1" for exemple, that's somewhat mysterious to me.

There is, however, one thing that you said which is true: in my analysis of the previous test, I didn't count all the "I don't know" answers, I just mentioned that that there were several of them (I did not try to assess their credibilities either). However, counting them, or trying to assess their credibilities, can still be done, if this is of any real interest.

Last edited by Michel H; 25th August 2013 at 08:02 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 25th August 2013, 07:53 AM   #386
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, I don't want to ignore the "I don't know" answers (or any other answer) in this test, abaddon. I wonder what makes you think that, right after I said exactly the opposite. I insist that everybody can answer freely one of the five possibilities, in this test, including "I don't know".
If there are five equi-probable answers then the probability of each is .20 and the only way you can get .25 is by eliminating the IDK answer from your "analysis".
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 25th August 2013, 08:11 AM   #387
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
If there are five equi-probable answers then the probability of each is .20 and the only way you can get .25 is by eliminating the IDK answer from your "analysis".
abbadon, I have now edited my post #385, you might want to take a look.

The five answers (yes, there are five of them) are not equi-probable, only the numbers are (equi-probable).
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 25th August 2013, 08:25 AM   #388
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,481
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
abbadon, I have now edited my post #385, you might want to take a look.

The five answers (yes, there are five of them) are not equi-probable, only the numbers are (equi-probable).
In short, 4x + y = 100%. In that case, characterizing x as either 20% or 25% would be a mistake, in short.

I'm a bit tired, so I'm not going to directly offer input, other than that I find this particular tangent to be rather boring.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 25th August 2013, 08:32 AM   #389
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,828
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
"You're not quite clear"...You mean ... "You don't clearly understand" ?
Yes. I mean that.
Quote:
Well, let me try to explain it to you, then. When you do such a test, you have to be careful about the words you use...I am not asking you if you know the number I wrote. I am asking you to guess it, to divine it. You may provide an answer, even if you have a doubt. And you also have the additional option to answer "I don't know", like you just did. As for me, I also think that I have the freedom to ask myself if you told me the truth, or if you lied, and tried to deceive me. These things do happen in many places, unfortunately. Look at what is happening with chemical weapons in Syria now...Who used them? Not everybody seems to agree.
So you are trying to test to see if we may in fact know the answer subconsciously while being unaware of it. In that case what is the purpose of allowing a "don't know" response when you don't care if we know or not?

Had I appreciated that "don't know" would merely be treated as a refusal to guess, I would have guessed a number instead.

So I change my guess to 3.

Quote:
You say "Safely Ignored" about yourself (under your name, and above your avatar). So, then, perhaps it would be safer for me to ignore this post of yours.
What if it's a bluff? It might be a trick. Or it might just be a joke. A smartass remark that once seemed cleverer than it is? An attempt to make you pause and think about whether you might actually be underestimating what I wrote, or alternatively a humble acknowledgement that it's usually nonsense?

Might be safer if you didn't ignore it just because it says you should.

Quote:
You sound a little aggressive, Jack (in this post)... But maybe I think that because I didn't take my medication today .
Not intended.

The last line was somewhat on the assertive side, but no aggression was intended.

In all seriousness though, if you want to test this idea properly then you need to allow us to vote blindy, without seeing what everyone else voted, and you need to consider those votes blindly, so you don't fool yourself into rejecting or accepting votes for invalid reasons.

As it stands at the moment, the great majority of respondents are just horsing around because they don't take your test remotely seriously. If you take it more seriously yourself, that might change.
Jack by the hedge 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 25th August 2013, 08:50 AM   #390
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,859
I'm curious about how the broadcast telepathy of this claim might work; members of this forum could be anywhere on the planet - so is the telepathy broadcast to everyone on the planet, or somehow targeted to the people reading this thread?

If the former, then I could expect to ask anyone in the street to guess a number between 1-4 and get a statistically significant bias towards the broadcast number; i.e. for the duration of the broadcast, the whole planet is biased to guess the broadcast number. Yes?

If the latter, can broadcast telepathy be sent to any subgroup on the planet without knowing who or where or how many they are? how could that possibly work?

Finally - what is the duration of this telepathic broadcast?
__________________
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 25th August 2013, 08:51 AM   #391
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
In short, 4x + y = 100%. In that case, characterizing x as either 20% or 25% would be a mistake, in short.

I'm a bit tired, so I'm not going to directly offer input, other than that I find this particular tangent to be rather boring.
You don't have to worry about y, Aridas. One important thing to understand is that, if there are, for exemple, 40 numerical answers (1, 2, 3 or 4), we can expect about 10 1's, 10 2's, 10 3's and 10 4's, when there is no telepathy. If there are strong telepathic effects, these numbers may change, and a probability calculation (calculation of the so-called p-value) might be done.
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 25th August 2013, 08:53 AM   #392
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Deputy Admin
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 14,815
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
abbadon, I have now edited my post #385, you might want to take a look.

The five answers (yes, there are five of them) are not equi-probable, only the numbers are (equi-probable).
The numbers are not equi-probable; as has been explained above people have an inherent bias towards choosing numbers in the middle of a range and avoiding the top and bottom of the range, plus people tend to choose odd numbers rather than even.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha 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 25th August 2013, 08:54 AM   #393
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
So, are you going to attempt a proper blind test, Michel?

Your current protocol is pretty much worthless.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.
AdMan 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 25th August 2013, 08:58 AM   #394
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,481
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
You don't have to worry about y, Aridas. One important thing to understand is that, if there are, for exemple, 40 numerical answers (1, 2, 3 or 4), we can expect about 10 1's, 10 2's, 10 3's and 10 4's, when there is no telepathy. If there are strong telepathic effects, these numbers may change, and a probability calculation (calculation of the so-called p-value) might be done.
I'm not worrying, but I would suggest not including y in the first place if you're trying to deal with telepathy on a subconscious level.

That said, this may start to be reasonable if blinds are applied AND there's a sufficiently large number of participants AND there's a number of tests, though. A form like this, where posters just post the answers and can see each other's responses isn't a particularly viable way to handle it.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 25th August 2013, 09:17 AM   #395
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
A form like this, where posters just post the answers and can see each other's responses isn't a particularly viable way to handle it.
Well, Aridas, in scientific research, it is very (very, very, very) important to be able to make the "right approximation". If you keep insisting on no less than the perfect calculation, the practical consequence on this is that you (or me) might remain an idiot all your life (or my life) . Which I don't want to do, if I have a choice. Don't demand too much .
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 25th August 2013, 09:30 AM   #396
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
Your previous knowledge of which answer "correct" is entirely likely to influence your analysis of the results to reach the conclusion you're already biased to. You may not be consciously aware of it but everyone reading your "analysis" can see it clear as day. There is a reason that proper testing protocols are blinded and you had member offering to assist you in making your little test better. Strangely you appear to have ignored their advice and all the complaints about your protocol and just repeated your highly flawed test.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe 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 25th August 2013, 09:55 AM   #397
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
The numbers are not equi-probable; as has been explained above people have an inherent bias towards choosing numbers in the middle of a range and avoiding the top and bottom of the range, plus people tend to choose odd numbers rather than even.
There is certainly some truth in what you say here, Agatha. Actually, assuming that all four numbers have probabilities equal to 1/4 (when there is no telepathy) is only a working approximation, a working assumption, which might, however, be considered reasonable (it's not clear what else one could assume).
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 25th August 2013, 10:01 AM   #398
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
There is certainly some truth in what you say here, Agatha. Actually, assuming that all four numbers have probabilities equal to 1/4 (when there is no telepathy) is only a working approximation, a working assumption, which might, however, be considered reasonable (it's not clear what else one could assume).
I don't think you can get around that humans are really, really bad at picking random numbers and we'll always learn heavily towards certain numbers. If you really wanted to use numbers I might suggest choosing X number of non-random, non sequential numbers to have the subjects choose from (i.e. {28, 48, 68, 88}), or, what I'd do, choose something else, like colors (red, blue, green), objects (ball, lamp, cup), or letters (J, K, L). Until your test is properly blinded, however, it's not a valid study.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe 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 25th August 2013, 10:04 AM   #399
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,481
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, Aridas, in scientific research, it is very (very, very, very) important to be able to make the "right approximation".
Statistically speaking?

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If you keep insisting on no less than the perfect calculation,
I'm really not, though. Not even close. There are lots of potentially significant interfering factors, though, regardless of whether you can do what you think you can do, which I haven't asked you to account for.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
the practical consequence on this is that you (or me) might remain an idiot all your life (or my life) .
No. Not accepting everything is not the same thing as being an idiot, even if that thing actually is the case. Why it is or is not accepted does matter for whether one can reasonably be called an idiot.


Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Which I don't want to do, if I have a choice. Don't demand too much .
I'm not demanding anything. I'm pointing out some of the base necessities required for a reasonable conclusion.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 25th August 2013, 11:56 AM   #400
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,859
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, Aridas, in scientific research, it is very (very, very, very) important to be able to make the "right approximation". If you keep insisting on no less than the perfect calculation, the practical consequence on this is that you (or me) might remain an idiot all your life (or my life) . Which I don't want to do, if I have a choice. Don't demand too much .
It's not a question of the 'perfect' calculation, it's a question of avoiding obvious sources of bias that will render any result meaningless. For example, the biases mentioned by Agatha, and the biases that come when people see other people's choices and who chooses what. Whatever the effect of these biases may be, they will invalidate the results because they are unquantified and unquantifiable. Only an idiot would expect a meaningful result from such an exercise.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

Last edited by dlorde; 25th August 2013 at 11:57 AM.
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
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 12:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.