New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Ladewig]

I admit I joined this thread late, but this is brilliant woo peddling.

So basically you are saying

1. Those who give me answers that support the idea I am thought projecting are sincere
2. Those who give me answers contrary to the idea I am thought projecting are insincere (lying)
3. If I consider only the sincere answers, then statistically it is proven I can thought project.
4. Therefore, it is true that I can thought project

Do you not see a problem with this?

You are asking Micheal to understand the flaw in his testing.

Do you not see a problem with this?

 

[p0lka]

Here is my Telepathy Test:

Below are 100 words. I will randomly select a word and tell Michel what that word is via PM. He will circle that word 4 times and stare at it. I will invite responses.

Here are the 100 words, in groups of 5x2:

_______________________________________

kneecap furious partner absolve canter
because december bridge banana dissolve

wander petunia echo zombie gigantic
archer binary charter elongated disruptive

foghorn gaggle history individual joinery
kindly latitude mandate nobody opera

platform quorum rattle statue tabernacle
uncle vibration watercress yearning zither

apricot baffle cabbage debated everywhere
flightless gateway hardly iconic jester

knowledge lovely missile noticed optimism
percolate quantity reversal substitute throbbing

unconscious vertigo whaling yesterday zygote
adversary barricade capable decking envelope

foccacia generator hoping imaginary jelly
kingdom lacerate morbidly nagging opposite

pardon quince ruminate sandstone toffee
universal vermilion workmanship yacht zoology

alphabet beneath challenger cardinal deliberate
fulminate gathering haberdashery paperless attachment
__________________________________________

Next step is to choose a word at random.

But first: So far so good?

yes.

Random word sent to Michel H via PM.

yes,
I choose

missile.

missile.

It is a good test Michel H, think..

 

[Kid Eager]

I am waiting for Michel H to confirm readiness to start. So far, despite several visits to this thread since notification of the random word, he has not yet responded.

 

[abaddon]

You are asking Micheal to understand the flaw in his testing.

Do you not see a problem with this?

Sure. But can Michel see that flaw?

I propose not. The evidence we all have to hand suggests* not.

How many time must we state this? In how many ways?

*I say "suggests" but it is plain to anyone. Except Michel. He remains convinced that all of us are lying about it. Go figure.

 

[Michel H]

There are perhaps a few things I should explain (again?) about my methodology for testing.

(1) Why is the number of possibilities people can choose from so small (typically 4) in the multiple-choice test?
This seems to exasperate many skeptics. The reason is probably psychological, the goal of many posters here is probably to try to perpetuate the situation of collective lie with respect to my (apparent) telepathy, so learning there is a 25% probability to answer correctly (even when no telepathy is involved at all) already does make many people here very nervous. When there are 100 choices, the possibility of answering correctly seems more remote, and this sounds reassuring to many.

I believe it is important to (generally) keep the number of options relatively small because I have pragmatically observed that these tests give the best results, and the reason for this is easy to understand: the motivation for participating in my tests in a valuable way is generally relatively low, so it is important to propose tests that are not too tough, otherwise people's motivation will collapse completely, with zero results. Using four possibilities is also done in ganzfeld telepathy research, probably one of the most successful modern ESP research method nowadays.

(2) Why assigning credibilities to answers?
Another important and essential aspect of my tests, which unfortunately also seems to exasperate many people here, is credibility.
Credibility is my insurance policy against your tendency to lie to me:

For the record, I was lying about having any indication of knowing what number you were thinking of. ...
All of my responses to any of your tests have been lies.
...

, it is an important filter, a lie detector. The reason why it works so well is related to human nature. It is very rare that people lie, without giving (voluntarily or not) some clues about it. I believe I can be generally do this in a very objective way (though I remain open to intelligent objections, if any). For example, in this latest test, Emily's Cat said:

Boat
...
It has nothing at all to do with telepathy ...

In 2012, I explained:

... Reasons why an answer may not be credible are:
• It is too aggressive.
• It contains one or several incorrect statements.
• It is odd or bizarre.
• The answerer says that his/her answer is not related to telepathy. • The answer contains a very large number of spelling or syntaxic errors.
...

So Emily's Cat answer, according to my standard and long-established rules, is not credible. Claiming that I said Emily's Cat's answer was not credible just because it was incorrect, and therefore "I didn't like it", is both unfair and absurd.

 

[Stray Cat]

(2) Why assigning credibilities to answers?
Another important and essential aspect of my tests, which unfortunately also seems to exasperate many people here, is credibility.
Credibility is my insurance policy against your tendency to lie to me:

Let's assume neither you OR the people in the test have any credibility.
What you need to do is develop a test where credibility is not a factor.... Either yours nor the people involved.
In fact, I would have thought that from the outset the possibility of ANYONE lying (you included) should be completely filtered out during the development of a solid test protocol.

Just the fact that you get to select what is and what isn't credible is not that.

 

[abaddon]

There are perhaps a few things I should explain (again?) about my methodology for testing.

(1) Why is the number of possibilities people can choose from so small (typically 4) in the multiple-choice test?
This seems to exasperate many skeptics. The reason is probably psychological, the goal of many posters here is probably to try to perpetuate the situation of collective lie with respect to my (apparent) telepathy, so learning there is a 25% probability to answer correctly (even when no telepathy is involved at all) already does make many people here very nervous. When there are 100 choices, the possibility of answering correctly seems more remote, and this sounds reassuring to many.

I believe it is important to (generally) keep the number of options relatively small because I have pragmatically observed that these tests give the best results, and the reason for this is easy to understand: the motivation for participating in my tests in a valuable way is generally relatively low, so it is important to propose tests that are not too tough, otherwise people's motivation will collapse completely, with zero results. Using four possibilities is also done in ganzfeld telepathy research, probably one of the most successful modern ESP research method nowadays.

(2) Why assigning credibilities to answers?
Another important and essential aspect of my tests, which unfortunately also seems to exasperate many people here, is credibility.
Credibility is my insurance policy against your tendency to lie to me:

, it is an important filter, a lie detector. The reason why it works so well is related to human nature. It is very rare that people lie, without giving (voluntarily or not) some clues about it. I believe I can be generally do this in a very objective way (though I remain open to intelligent objections, if any). For example, in this latest test, Emily's Cat said:

In 2012, I explained:

So Emily's Cat answer, according to my standard and long-established rules, is not credible. Claiming that I said Emily's Cat's answer was not credible just because it was incorrect, and therefore "I didn't like it", is both unfair and absurd.

What a load of abject bollocks. It is difficult to know where to even start with that steaming pile.

For starters, why are you utterly unable to distinguish sarcasm?

Why have you refused to engage with the test proposed? At some level, you know that your claims will be found out for the nonsense that they are, therefore you avoid them like the plague. Fess up or stop.

Which word is the chosen one? Stop playing games. PM back to KE which word it might be. You won't because you have no telepathy and you know it.

 

[Kid Eager]

Given the flawed nature of the Ganzfeld method, that's hardly a justification for choosing 4 options.

Secondly, noting that your current approach bears almost nothing in common with the Ganzfeld method apart from the number "4", there's even less reason to accept this as an excuse for using a small sample number, where randomness alone can produce hits.

Let me know when you're ready to apply the test by using the single word provided.

 

[Loss Leader]

, it is an important filter, a lie detector. The reason why it works so well is related to human nature. It is very rare that people lie, without giving (voluntarily or not) some clues about it. I believe I can be generally do this in a very objective way (though I remain open to intelligent objections, if any). .

Well, all of your other nonsense aside, your truth-detecting ability should be easy to test. I'll start with Two Truths And A Lie . You just pick which of my statements is a lie:

1. I play the clarinet in a jazz band composed entirely of lawyers.
2. I spent time training with the Israeli army.
3. I accidentally paid a stripper twenty dollars and had to make change from her g-string.

 

[Michel H]

Well, all of your other nonsense aside, your truth-detecting ability should be easy to test. I'll start with Two Truths And A Lie . You just pick which of my statements is a lie:

1. I play the clarinet in a jazz band composed entirely of lawyers.
2. I spent time training with the Israeli army.
3. I accidentally paid a stripper twenty dollars and had to make change from her g-string.

I would not go so far as to say that I can always detect reliably when a statement is a lie, and when it is genuine, but I have found that the credibility method worked well for me in telepathy testing, using just one word in a complex answer leads to an enormous loss of information, I can't afford to do that.

Regarding your three statements, the third and last one seems the most suspicious to me.

 

[Loss Leader]

I would not go so far as to say that I can always detect reliably when a statement is a lie, and when it is genuine, but I have found that the credibility method worked well for me in telepathy testing, using just one word in a complex answer leads to an enormous loss of information, I can't afford to do that.

Regarding your three statements, the third and last one seems the most suspicious to me.

And you're wrong. That incident took place in Atlanta in 1994.

I don't play an instrument and can't stand Jazz.

 

[Michel H]

And you're wrong. That incident took place in Atlanta in 1994.

I don't play an instrument and can't stand Jazz.

Fortunately for me, most people who kindly participate in my telepathy tests are not so perverse.

 

[sackett]

LL, you are a terrible person!

Fortunately for me, most people who kindly participate in my telepathy tests are not so perverse.

Perverse is right. Imagine wanting change when the poor girl was only trying to make a living!

If it had been a fifty, I could understand.

 

[Kid Eager]

Okay, back to the topic:

Given the flawed nature of the Ganzfeld method, that's hardly a justification for choosing 4 options.

Secondly, noting that your current approach bears almost nothing in common with the Ganzfeld method apart from the number "4", there's even less reason to accept this as an excuse for using a small sample number, where randomness alone can produce hits.

Let me know when you're ready to apply the test by using the single word provided.

 

[Stray Cat]

Indeed.... Let's do something a little bit like something that has never been shown to prove telepathy..... to prove telepathy.

 

[Loss Leader]

Fortunately for me, most people who kindly participate in my telepathy tests are not so perverse.

... said the man who makes out with his laptop.

In any case, you were the person who claimed:

It is very rare that people lie, without giving (voluntarily or not) some clues about it. I believe I can be generally do this in a very objective way (though I remain open to intelligent objections, if any).

My penchant for visiting strip clubs in my twenties aside, your ability to sniff out lies from the truth is now 0 out of 1.

 

[Michel H]

... said the man who makes out with his laptop.

In any case, you were the person who claimed:

It is very rare that people lie, without giving (voluntarily or not) some clues about it. I believe I can be generally do this in a very objective way (though I remain open to intelligent objections, if any).

My penchant for visiting strip clubs in my twenties aside, your ability to sniff out lies from the truth is now 0 out of 1.

I suspect that one of the reasons why my credibility method has (in my opinion) generally worked so well (an example was given in this latest test) is simply the fact that people have, to some extent, cooperated, and decided to not make things too hard for me. But, if people are really intent on deceiving, and for example, give a wrong answer in a seemingly good text, there is really nothing I can do about this. But, like I said, it is rare. Perhaps they could do this when they feel angry for some reason (which reason?), this is uncommon though.

 

[Kid Eager]

Given the flawed nature of the Ganzfeld method, that's hardly a justification for choosing 4 options.

Secondly, noting that your current approach bears almost nothing in common with the Ganzfeld method apart from the number "4", there's even less reason to accept this as an excuse for using a small sample number, where randomness alone can produce hits.

Let me know when you're ready to apply the test by using the single word provided.

Okay, back to the topic:

Are you going to proceed with the 100-word experiment?

 

[Michel H]

Are you going to proceed with the 100-word experiment?

I think it is very unlikely I shall do your experiment, because it would probably fail. However, I have been thinking of perhaps (not in the near future) doing a test using some of your words as ESP targets.

 

[Kid Eager]

I think it is very unlikely I shall do your experiment, because it would probably fail. <snip>

... and thus negating the telepathy hypothesis.

Brave Sir Robin is slowly nodding his head in approval....