Hi, I invite you to participate in a new telepathy test.
At about 20:17 on this Monday October 21 (Brussels, Belgium time), I wrote carefully one of the four numbers: "1", "2", "3", "4" on my sheet of paper, and I surrounded it with a circle. Then, I wrote it again twice.
I shall repeat this number from time to time during this test.
It was selected using this random number generator: http://www.random.org/integers/ .
Please note that the number I wrote has no meaning, it was just produced by the random generator.
I ask you to write it here (if you think you know it, even with a doubt). You may also answer "I don't know".
In this test, however, unlike the other tests I have done so far on this forum, I ask you to not write immediately the number explicitly (more on this below).
I also ask you to write a comment, together with your numerical answer, or at least a small sentence, like, for exemple:
I'll say 3.
,
I answer 1. Good luck. ,
or I say 4 and this is a ridiculous test. (if you want to be more aggressive).
In your comment, you may describe (or attempt to describe) the (assumed) telepathic, extra-sensory perceptions which possibly led you to give the answer you chose, and/or say a few words about telepathy in general, and/or tell us how confident you are that your number is the correct one, and/or say why you picked this particular number, and/or express an opinion on this test (good or bad), with perhaps suggestions for improvement, and so on. For inspiration, you may take a look at the 32 answers with text which have already been given on this forum in one of my telepathy tests, see analysis1 and analysis2.
My hope is that the comment or text you will write will give me some valuable (and essential) insight into your state of mind when you answered. Then, I shall use your text to rate your answer, on a credibility scale between -10 and 10, like I did in the previous tests on this forum.
In this thread however, I want to evaluate credibilities without any knowledge of the number you picked ("in a blind way"), to make sure that I don't get influenced or biased by the number you chose. This should make this test more rigorous, although at the cost of additional complexity.
To achieve this greater rigor, I ask you to give your answer in two stages. In your first post, you should write your normal, complete answer, with the "guessed" number (1, 2, 3 or 4) replaced by "xx" . So, if your normal, complete answer is, for exemple:
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
(this answer was given by Loss Leader in my previous test, the number 4 he gave was correct),
post instead:
I am seeing a xx very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
I also ask you to post the MD5 hash of your normal, full answer, using for exemple this website: http://www.md5hashgenerator.com/ . If your answer is very simple, I ask you to make it more complex by adding additional characters and to post the MD5 hash of this more complicated text (this is to make sure your hash cannot be decrypted, see for exemple this website: http://www.md5online.org/ , or this one: http://www.md5decrypter.co.uk/. In most cases, additional characters will probably not be necessary) . For exemple, if your answer is just "I answer 1", instead of posting the hash of "I answer 1", post the hash of "I answer 1 oibyytrtzerazewoytitrxeuytepiurezqaytiyttuecrtexruog". People who answer "I don't know" (possibly with a text) should not introduce xx's in their answers (and there is no need for MD5 hashes either).
After a reasonable number of forum members have validly answered (if this "reasonable number" is ever achieved ), I should post my "credibility ratings" for all valid answers to this test (and also the number I wrote and circled), and then (and only then) you should post your actual, full answers (with guessed numbers now visible), and also (possibly) the "complexified" text you used for the MD5. The MD5 hash of your full answer (or of your "complexified" answer) should match the hash you have given previously, in your (normally) first post. When this is done, for all answerers, I should then post an analysis of the results, like I have done for my two previous tests.
It may also be useful (I recommend it) that you send your (full) answer, in the form of a private message, to either Agatha, or Femke, or to both (click on "Contact Info", and then on "Send a private message..." on their profile pages. On these pages, look also under their names to see their "last activity" dates and times). Agatha and Femke are active members on this forum who have kindly offered to help, in order to make my tests more rigorous:
Agatha and Femke should then post the full answers after I have posted my credibility ratings. If Femke and Agatha cannot, or no longer want to cooperate as an assistant, a "helper", then I may have to request the help from another volunteer. One possibility would be that each answerer sends his/her answer to the previous answerer, and perhaps the first answerer sends his/her answer to a Moderator (perhaps Loss Leader), or an Administrator (perhaps LashL).
Femke, if you want to participate in this telepathy test (you are welcome to do so), it might be somewhat useful you send your answer to Agatha (similarly for Agatha, although Agatha has not answered in the telepathy tests so far, she has only commented in the threads).
Sending your answers to a "helper" may be useful for several reasons. First, some answerers in the test might never return to post their full answers (or might return only after several weeks or months). This may be particularly frustrating if their answers look very interesting. Also, some people may have lost their answers, or may post them inaccurately. The redundancy in the people who can post full answers (after I have posted my credibility ratings) may be useful to get full answers quickly. Of course, if a complete answer has already be posted by either Agatha, or Femke, or the member himself/herself, it is not indispensable to post it a second time (I can check its correctness using the MD5 hash).
I shall now explain again the protocol of this test, using a simple exemple (if some of you think this protocol is not valid, or not good, I am of course willing to consider reasonable changes).
Let's assume again that your normal ("unmasked"), full answer is:
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
With the protocol, the procedure used in this test, the first thing you should (ideally) do is to send a private message to Agatha and/or Femke, for exemple:
Hi Agatha/Femke,
My answer to Michel H's test is:
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
Sincerely
(Of course, in this new test, the correct number is not necessarily equal to 4, 4 has only a 25% probability.)
Then, your first answer, your first post on this thread should (normally) be (if it is an answer to the test, not a comment), for exemple:
I am seeing a xx very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
MD5 hash of full answer: 3f429870bc6ff08d79d49ee471004b44
Complete answer sent to Agatha/Femke.
You should then wait until I post all credibility ratings (with my number). When this is done, you should post e.g. (if neither Agatha nor Femke has already posted your full answer):
{My full answer to the test is:
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.}
You may also just say:
The number I chose was 4.
Thank you for participating.
At about 20:17 on this Monday October 21 (Brussels, Belgium time), I wrote carefully one of the four numbers: "1", "2", "3", "4" on my sheet of paper, and I surrounded it with a circle. Then, I wrote it again twice.
I shall repeat this number from time to time during this test.
It was selected using this random number generator: http://www.random.org/integers/ .
Please note that the number I wrote has no meaning, it was just produced by the random generator.
I ask you to write it here (if you think you know it, even with a doubt). You may also answer "I don't know".
In this test, however, unlike the other tests I have done so far on this forum, I ask you to not write immediately the number explicitly (more on this below).
I also ask you to write a comment, together with your numerical answer, or at least a small sentence, like, for exemple:
I'll say 3.
,I answer 1. Good luck. ,
or I say 4 and this is a ridiculous test. (if you want to be more aggressive).
In your comment, you may describe (or attempt to describe) the (assumed) telepathic, extra-sensory perceptions which possibly led you to give the answer you chose, and/or say a few words about telepathy in general, and/or tell us how confident you are that your number is the correct one, and/or say why you picked this particular number, and/or express an opinion on this test (good or bad), with perhaps suggestions for improvement, and so on. For inspiration, you may take a look at the 32 answers with text which have already been given on this forum in one of my telepathy tests, see analysis1 and analysis2.
My hope is that the comment or text you will write will give me some valuable (and essential) insight into your state of mind when you answered. Then, I shall use your text to rate your answer, on a credibility scale between -10 and 10, like I did in the previous tests on this forum.
In this thread however, I want to evaluate credibilities without any knowledge of the number you picked ("in a blind way"), to make sure that I don't get influenced or biased by the number you chose. This should make this test more rigorous, although at the cost of additional complexity.
To achieve this greater rigor, I ask you to give your answer in two stages. In your first post, you should write your normal, complete answer, with the "guessed" number (1, 2, 3 or 4) replaced by "xx" . So, if your normal, complete answer is, for exemple:
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
(this answer was given by Loss Leader in my previous test, the number 4 he gave was correct),
post instead:
I am seeing a xx very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
I also ask you to post the MD5 hash of your normal, full answer, using for exemple this website: http://www.md5hashgenerator.com/ . If your answer is very simple, I ask you to make it more complex by adding additional characters and to post the MD5 hash of this more complicated text (this is to make sure your hash cannot be decrypted, see for exemple this website: http://www.md5online.org/ , or this one: http://www.md5decrypter.co.uk/. In most cases, additional characters will probably not be necessary) . For exemple, if your answer is just "I answer 1", instead of posting the hash of "I answer 1", post the hash of "I answer 1 oibyytrtzerazewoytitrxeuytepiurezqaytiyttuecrtexruog". People who answer "I don't know" (possibly with a text) should not introduce xx's in their answers (and there is no need for MD5 hashes either).
After a reasonable number of forum members have validly answered (if this "reasonable number" is ever achieved ), I should post my "credibility ratings" for all valid answers to this test (and also the number I wrote and circled), and then (and only then) you should post your actual, full answers (with guessed numbers now visible), and also (possibly) the "complexified" text you used for the MD5. The MD5 hash of your full answer (or of your "complexified" answer) should match the hash you have given previously, in your (normally) first post. When this is done, for all answerers, I should then post an analysis of the results, like I have done for my two previous tests.
It may also be useful (I recommend it) that you send your (full) answer, in the form of a private message, to either Agatha, or Femke, or to both (click on "Contact Info", and then on "Send a private message..." on their profile pages. On these pages, look also under their names to see their "last activity" dates and times). Agatha and Femke are active members on this forum who have kindly offered to help, in order to make my tests more rigorous:
,
Agatha and Femke should then post the full answers after I have posted my credibility ratings. If Femke and Agatha cannot, or no longer want to cooperate as an assistant, a "helper", then I may have to request the help from another volunteer. One possibility would be that each answerer sends his/her answer to the previous answerer, and perhaps the first answerer sends his/her answer to a Moderator (perhaps Loss Leader), or an Administrator (perhaps LashL).
Femke, if you want to participate in this telepathy test (you are welcome to do so), it might be somewhat useful you send your answer to Agatha (similarly for Agatha, although Agatha has not answered in the telepathy tests so far, she has only commented in the threads).
Sending your answers to a "helper" may be useful for several reasons. First, some answerers in the test might never return to post their full answers (or might return only after several weeks or months). This may be particularly frustrating if their answers look very interesting. Also, some people may have lost their answers, or may post them inaccurately. The redundancy in the people who can post full answers (after I have posted my credibility ratings) may be useful to get full answers quickly. Of course, if a complete answer has already be posted by either Agatha, or Femke, or the member himself/herself, it is not indispensable to post it a second time (I can check its correctness using the MD5 hash).
I shall now explain again the protocol of this test, using a simple exemple (if some of you think this protocol is not valid, or not good, I am of course willing to consider reasonable changes).
Let's assume again that your normal ("unmasked"), full answer is:
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
With the protocol, the procedure used in this test, the first thing you should (ideally) do is to send a private message to Agatha and/or Femke, for exemple:
Hi Agatha/Femke,
My answer to Michel H's test is:
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
Sincerely
(Of course, in this new test, the correct number is not necessarily equal to 4, 4 has only a 25% probability.)
Then, your first answer, your first post on this thread should (normally) be (if it is an answer to the test, not a comment), for exemple:
I am seeing a xx very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
MD5 hash of full answer: 3f429870bc6ff08d79d49ee471004b44
Complete answer sent to Agatha/Femke.
You should then wait until I post all credibility ratings (with my number). When this is done, you should post e.g. (if neither Agatha nor Femke has already posted your full answer):
{My full answer to the test is:
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.}
You may also just say:
The number I chose was 4.
Thank you for participating.
Just send me the numbers you perceive/guess/whatever and I will keep them secret until the appropriate time.
. But the change is, like you said, just to add many (almost) unguessable characters to the full answer, before computing the MD5 hash (see initial post [I say this, not for you, Agatha, but for the other posters]). It is unfortunate that, on this forum, it no longer possible to make additions to the opening post after some time, otherwise I would post a correction there.
