Merged Telepathy test: which number did I write?

[freedy]

freedy, the number to guess was "4", not "3". Should I consider your post as just a comment, or as an answer to the test (an implicit vote for "3") ?

I decided to give the correct answer after about 9 days, I think this was long enough, I am a little skeptical about (more) quality answers after such a long time, I don't want to keep you waiting for too long.

It's possible that I present an analysis of the results later (similar to what I did before, in post #177), unless perhaps there is no interest whatsoever.

I told you it was tedious... post #177 says 'The number to guess was a "2".'
What does that say about either of our abilities?
Anyway, I have the answer to test2 but I'm not telling because then everyone will know. (won too fore)

 

[Michel H]

Is it because you couldn't interpret the results in a such a way that it fit with your OP?

Maybe next time have us guess a number between 1-1

Well, no, I just feel that nine days is long enough. A test that lasts too long may become a little boring. In addition, the work of analysis (for me) may become too large if the number of answers is very large.

 

[abaddon]

Well, no, I just feel that nine days is long enough. A test that lasts too long may become a little boring. In addition, the work of analysis (for me) may become too large if the number of answers is very large.

How many answers do you think are required to attain statistical significance?

 

[AdMan]

How many answers do you think are required to attain statistical significance?

This should be good...

 

[dlorde]

... the work of analysis (for me) may become too large if the number of answers is very large.

Surely once you've counted the votes for each number, the analysis is the same amount of work regardless of the sample size?

 

[abaddon]

This should be good...

This will be ignored or spuriously "explained". Do I win a million dollars for this prediction?

 

[AdMan]

Surely once you've counted the votes for each number, the analysis is the same amount of work regardless of the sample size?

You missed the part where he "analyzes" each individual vote and assigns a "credibility rating" to each one.

Of course he assures us that bias could not possibly play a role.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... the work of analysis (for me) may become too large if the number of answers is very large.

You need to design an objective test. One where the analysis consists of counting up how many people made each choice and that's all. Any 'analysis' which involves you deciding whether particular votes should be counted or not is just adding bias and making the results meaningless.

 

[abaddon]

You need to design an objective test. One where the analysis consists of counting up how many people made each choice and that's all. Any 'analysis' which involves you deciding whether particular votes should be counted or not is just adding bias and making the results meaningless.

like where he arbitrarily decided that "I don't know" should not be counted in his results?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

like where he arbitrarily decided that "I don't know" should not be counted in his results?

Yeah, like that. Actually I think that was more a case of not really thinking it through. The option "I don't know" is pointless when you're being asked to give an answer you are not consciously aware of knowing.

The answer "1" in this test really means "I don't know but I'm going to guess it's 1" and so on. So the "I don't know" option really means "I didn't realise I was just supposed to guess".

 

[abaddon]

Yeah, like that. Actually I think that was more a case of not really thinking it through. The option "I don't know" is pointless when you're being asked to give an answer you are not consciously aware of knowing.

The answer "1" in this test really means "I don't know but I'm going to guess it's 1" and so on. So the "I don't know" option really means "I didn't realise I was just supposed to guess".

Yeah, but what then becomes of the answer "42" which is quite popular? Discounted? 4? 2? IDK?

MH simply won't tell us that. Therefore his test falls in flames of failure.

And I still want an answer as to statistical significance. But I won't get it.

 

[Ladewig]

Yeah, but what then becomes of the answer "42" which is quite popular? Discounted? 4? 2? IDK?

MH simply won't tell us that. Therefore his test falls in flames of failure.

And I still want an answer as to statistical significance. But I won't get it.

I didn't know we couldn't pick 42. Now I want to pick 42. Is it too late to pick 42? I bet the number is 42.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm considering changing my answer to "squirrel".

I'm not aware of any rule saying I can't change, nor of any ban on rodents.

 

[Mister Earl]

My answer to OP is square root of negative one.

 

[abaddon]

I'm considering changing my answer to "squirrel".

I'm not aware of any rule saying I can't change, nor of any ban on rodents.

Personally, I was thinking of changing my answer to "banana" as it fits so well Ray Comfort style.

 

[dafydd]

I didn't know we couldn't pick 42. Now I want to pick 42. Is it too late to pick 42? I bet the number is 42.

I picked 42 earlier on. The million is mine !

 

[Jodie]

I plucked 42 from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It seemed like the most appropriate answer for the question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboZctrHfK8

 

[tuxcat]

Can it work the other way around - can the claimant for example read minds, sort of like a pre-arranged "remote viewing?"

 

[Michel H]

Results and analysis

I would like now to present the results, and an analysis, of this second test on this forum. The opening post was (a little reminder):

Hi, I would like to invite you to participate in a (new) simple telepathy test.

It is not the first time I propose a telepathy test on this forum, the previous one is here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241593 .

At about 22:47 on this Thursday August 22 (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/ .

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".

So, your answer should be one of the four numbers: "1", "2", "3", "4", or "I don't know".

A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable.

Please note that the number I wrote has no meaning, it was just produced by the generator.

A MD5 hash code for a complicated sentence containing the number I ask you to telepathically guess (like, for example: "the number to guess is 5 f4315d 3b1fcd81") is:
e5ca98da86a6e4c582700847e587c3ac

It was obtained on this website:
http://www.md5hashgenerator.com/ .

I shall reveal the actual sentence I used to produce this MD5 hash at the end of the test, after I have revealed the number I ask you to guess. This way, you'll be able to verify my number.

Thank you for participating.

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.

As I already mentioned in post #419, the number I wrote and circled was a "4".

And the complicated sentence whose MD5 hash is given above is:
The number to guess is 4 bc669c68ad3fb8f3b29b4f446b898261 85467fc0440e63a8fea502c8c2cff4c.

Six people answered "1" (dlorde, kid meatball, fromdownunder, Kid Eager, elbe and Femke).
Five people answered "2" (Dani, Nay_Sayer, Lord Emsworth, Aridas and Hokulele).
Six people answered "3" (GregInAustin, Ladewig, welshdean, IXP, abaddon and Jack by the hedge).
Five people answered (correctly) "4" (Tiktaalik, Loss Leader, gabeygoat, DuvalHMFIC and barefootgoddess).
And just one person (DeadFish) answered "I don't know". He said:

I don't know

Does that count as a hit? It is certainly the correct answer. Am I psychic now?

Note that this answer by DeadFish is strange because, at the beginning of his answer, he said "I don't know", but he added, at the end, "Am I psychic now?". If he really doesn't know, I might call him "insensitive to (my) telepathy", but not "psychic now". So, I do not regard this answer as a really reliable and credible testimony (unless perhaps it's taken with a "grain of salt", but then the conclusion may be different).

Among the people who provided valid numerical answers (i.e. equal to 1, 2, 3 or 4), the percentage of correct answers is 5/(6+5+6+5) = 5/22 = 22.7%. In the previous test, the rate of correct answers was equal to 3/13 = 23.1%. Both percentages are (a little) smaller than 25%. This might be related to a "skeptical orientation" of this forum, and a reluctance to give the right answer, even if it is known. Such a conclusion should, however, be viewed with caution, as both percentages are only a little smaller than 25%, and results could be much different if the "target number" was 3, for exemple, instead of 2 and 4.

I now move on to the second part of this analysis, which I expect to be more "controversial" (?), but also more interesting.

I received 22 valid numerical answers (equal to 1, 2, 3 or 4) in this test. Some of those who answered may have been sincere, others may have been insincere, may have lied (unfortunately, it seems that at least some degree of dishonesty is very common in the field of (my) telepathy, especially perhaps when one person is "special" - admitting this [special feature] does not necessarily make everybody very happy). I find that it is often possible to infer whether people have been genuine or not by carefully studying the little texts that are often associated with responses. And I find it useful to assign "credibility ratings" (CRs), which are between -10 and +10 (inclusive), to the various answers (see also the analysis of my previous test on this forum: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8607740#post8607740 ). Negative CRs are attributed to answers which don't seem reliable. I might then use credibility thresholds, and, for exemple, limit the statistical analysis to reliable answers whose CR is larger or equal than 5 (or exclude dubious answers which are so eccentric that their credibility rating is lower or equal to -5) . It seems reasonable to expect that credible answers will generally be more (numerically) exact, and that, conversely, exact answers will, on the average, be more credible, whence the interest of this "credibility" approach (because, presumably, people who are very serious, and friendly, should provide both exact and credible answers, while unmotivated people may often write lousy, mediocre and incorrect answers, consciously or not).

There is of course some (limited) degree of subjectivity in such ratings, which are not very precisely defined, like when you rate a movie. You don't say: on a scale of 0 to 10, this movie deserves 7.28569435, for exemple. There is some individual subjectivity, but there are nevertheless good movies, and less good ones.

I shall also propose, for each answer, a "quality rating" (QR), which is between 0 and 100. This may be important to acknowledge, for exemple, the fact that some numerically incorrect answers may nevertheless be (in a sense) "quality answers".

Note that I'll assign credibility ratings to the various answers, while actually knowing if they are (numerically) correct or not (although I try to completely ignore this knowledge when I choose credibilities). This is a weakness of the "credibility analysis" which will be presented below, because I could be biased into giving higher credibilities to (numerically) correct answers (other methods may be more rigorous, but also less able to detect real telepathy effects, a possible exemple was shown above, when I considered all answers on an equal footing, regardless of the words that were said, there was then no obvious telepathy effect). However, I don't think this weakness is so big that it would justify rejecting the method entirely. Fairly often (but not always), it's rather obvious whether the answer is serious or not.
For exemple, I regard this answer:

wrong oh! I do indeed have ESP, and know for a fact that he wrote 2!

as credible (click on the little red arrow to see this answer in context), while I consider this answer (by Beerina):

4, because drawing a circle around it makes it look like a cool Fantastic Four logo.

as not credible (the reason given is not valid: this is a telepathy test, not a logo competition).

I shall now examine each of the 22 valid (numerical) answers, and give my choices for the credibilities and qualities, after a few comments. If you disagree with any part of the analysis below, feel free to say so, and don't forget to explain why. In the analysis of the previous test, I said:

...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.
...

These reasons remain valid in this analysis.


1)

3. How much of the million dollars do I get for proving that telepathy exists?

(Note: I wrote this answer in red because it is numerically incorrect [this answerer answered 3 instead of 4], this will also be done below for all other numerically incorrect answers. Numerically correct answers will be written in green)

Well, GregInAustin, even if your answer is correct, it doesn't prove telepathy; guessing correctly when there are only four possibilities of (numerical) answer is not sufficient for proving telepathy, it can help proving telepathy, which is a (little) different.

I find this answer relatively funny; sharing a prize for a proof of telepathy (or of a "paranormal" phenomenon) with the people who make tests successful by answering correctly does not seem completely unreasonable to me. However,
- "3" (the number GregInAustin answered) seems to be the "number of aggressivity" in these tests (a little bit like "red" would be the color of aggressivity), I assume this is related to Hitler coming to power in 1933. This is perhaps a simple reason why I should beware of this answer, a little "red flag". But "3" could also be the number chosen by the random number generator.
- Austin, Texas is the city where George W. Bush lived before he ordered the invasion of Iraq (or, at least, where he had his governor's office), I believe. I personally believe this (the invasion) was not a smart move , although this test is not about politics. I also note there are two g's (letters) and one r in "Greg", just like in "George".
- I find this answerer's question ("How much...do I get...?) slightly embarrassing and selfish, with (therefore) an element of aggressivity although it's also somewhat funny.
So, I choose: CR = 2, QR = 40.


2)

Um, I don't know.

But in case it's a bit like blind-sight, I'll guess 1.

He said: "I don't know", so I don't think I should consider this answer as reliable. His mention of "blindsight" is perhaps interesting (see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blindsight, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight ). CR = -2, QR= 60.


3)

I have a problem already - although it might be a language translation issue. If you are asking us to use telepathy, then we are not guessing; and if you are asking us to guess, then we are not using telepathy.

Also, if we are to use telepathy, then means we are not allowed to use remote viewing or precognition - have you created controls to eliminate those psychic powers from being used during this silly and useless attention-seeking stunt. Ooops, I apologize. I meant to say test. It just came out as silly and useless attention-seeking stunt. I always get those two things confused.


I can see the number....it is near water....

it is 3 ... or very, very near 3.

This person is talking about "problems" which does not exist much, in my opinion. First, I think (unlike this member) that it is possible to "telepathically guess", I don't think this is an English error ("guessing" doesn't mean "guessing at random"). According to the Cambridge dictionary, guessing is " giving an answer to a particular question when you do not have all the facts and so cannot be certain if you are correct" ( http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/guess_1?q=guess ); in this test, I ask you to tell me which number I wrote and circled, even though you didn't see my sheet of paper, and are perhaps thousands of miles away. In this article about telephone telepathy, Sheldrake and Smart (Sheldrake is a British biologist), wrote:"When the telephone rings, the participant guesses who is calling". On this wikipedia page on English comedian Nina Conti, its (or one of their) author(s) wrote "Her main act is to telepathically guess numbers or words, which she always guesses correctly."
Secondly, I believe that, like high dilution homeopathy, "remote viewing" and precognition are probably impossible because there is no possible physical mechanism for them. Alternatively, you may view this test as a "general extra-sensory perception test", to speak like parapsychologists. If you think you can "remote view" my sheet of paper without telepathy, I won't be upset, just very, very skeptical . This member talks also of "this silly and useless attention-seeking stunt" and then apologizes (odd, presence of aggressivity), his "very, very near 3" is also odd (1, 2, 3, 4 and "I don't know" are the only possible answers to this test). CR=-5, QR=60.


4)

I didn't get to it through telepathy, but I'd say Ashles was being sarcastic.

I'm running an experiment too. I suggest the participants pick numbers so that they're as evenly selected as possible.

So far we have two 3s and one 1.

I'll go with 2 then.

This is serious stuff (sending telepathic waves of irony).

This answer was "ironic", he apparently chose 2 to have the answers selected in an "even way".Obviously not credible and reliable. CR=-10, QR=60.


5)

4

I know it. I'm absolutely sure. I feel it inside of me, and if you haven't felt it, you don't know what it's like. If you had felt it, you would know it was 4, so if you think it is not 4, you have obviously not felt it. 4 is the one true number.

This answer is very different from the previous one, it doesn't seem to belong to the "cynical" category (although its somewhat "extreme" nature might make you wonder whether this answer is serious or not). Its author seems to display some emotion and, therefore, some sensitivity. The logic of his sentence "If you had felt it, you would know it was 4, so if you think it is not 4, you have obviously not felt it." seems correct , or approximately correct. This person apparently works in emergency services, this is a serious profession. He's very positive the number is four (that doesn't annoy me, because I think the phenomenon I'm trying to prove is actually strong, I often observe it (?) when I watch reactions on webcam girls sites, like myfreecams.com or eurolive.com, reactions not only from girls, but also from members). He took some time to write a somewhat long answer; however, it (this answer) is perhaps not super clear. CR=6, QR=85.


6)

My first impression (the standard for telepathy) was seven. I'm going to say that is because you draw your one with that little ascender a bit too prominent, so it looks like a seven.

I think that (assuming that I don't know that I really drew a "4", with a circle around it, for this test), it is unlikely that I would have drawn a "1" in a careless way, with the little ascender too prominent, so that it could have been confused with a "7". I said in my opening post:

... I wrote carefully one of the four numbers: "1", "2", "3", "4" on my sheet of paper, and I surrounded it with a circle...

(note the use of the word "carefully"). Note the somewhat critical nature of this answer (aggressive answers generally tend to be incorrect). CR=-5, QR=60.


7)

2 and just as before this is a horribly constructed test

This comment seems aggressive and unfair to me, so I believe I can only give a negative credibility to this answer. CR=-10, QR=60.


8)

Since this is Friday (6 letters), and I'm watching Oliver on Television (6 letters) and it is around 1:30PM (1+3=4) the answer is obviously 1 as 1 is not a multiple of quirty.

Norm

This answer doesn't make much sense. CR=-10, QR=60.


9)

I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.

This answer is clear and concise. Note that this member wrote "It's almost as though...", not "It's as though...". This answer does suggest a strong telepathic phenomenon, in agreement with the conclusions of the previous test ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8607740#post8607740 ; 100% of correct answers among credible answers) and many observations I have made. It is also remarkable by the fact that this little text apparently confirming telepathy (or ESP) was written by a moderator on the (probably) most famous skeptic forum. One may, however, point out that the use of the verb "see" suggests more an active clairvoyance (or "remote viewing") phenomenon (which I believe to be physically impossible) than a telepathy phenomenon. But, it seems that telepathy can produce visual flashes analogous to normal vision. The author of this answer is a 42 years old lawyer, with children. He says he's been to jail, but got out (perhaps a reason to beware?). He seems to like self-deprecating humor (name: "Loss Leader", he calls himself an "opinionated jerk"). I also notice that this person accepts to give a lot of information about himself, in his profile page and on twitter, much more so than GRegInAustin for example (see above); this is perhaps related to his role as a moderator. I have studied his twitter account a little bit. Some of his tweets, that I find amusing (?):
"In NYC to see my cardiologist - not socially, of course, because we don't share the same interests.",
"I don't fear that the government has too much power; I fear that if snakes ever learn to grow legs, they won't stop at four." (doesn't seem to like the government, perhaps he votes for the GOP. His sentence about snakes seem to be original (Google)),
"I will not rest until everyone on the planet has access to clean,, potable water ... or it gets around bedtime, really whichever come first.", and
"My wife ran out onto the lawn and stopped my car to yell at me. That's an impressive amount of yelling, especially in this heat."
CR=8, QR=90.


10)

It's becoming clear now.

I see a chariot. No, sorry - it's oregano....

Running around the oregano I see figures. They're small and have orange hair. Could be the number 6 coated in felt, but it's hard to be sure.

All this is happening on the surface of a king-sized bed, floating in a sea of banana custard.

You are therefore thinking of the number 1.

This answerer wrote a crazy and delirious text, which could perhaps have been written in a mental asylum, and then added "You are therefore thinking of the number 1." . This "number 1", that Kid Eager is answering, doesn't seem to be related to the number I wrote and circled, on my sheet of paper, which was produced by a random number generator (actually, his answer seems to mean, jokingly (?):"look!, I am crazy!, therefore you must be excellent, and you deserve a "1", you are a "number 1" when compared to me"). Therefore I find that this answer is not credible. CR=-10, QR=60.


11)

4.

This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:

...
A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable.
...

CR=5, QR=80.


12)

Three - is the magic number

I don't think my number to guess (the number I wrote on my sheet of paper) is magic, it's just a very ordinary random number.
CR=-5, QR=60.


13)

Thank you for participating.

The forum software offers a poll function which should make things much more easy. And more tidy. 2

I don't think this would be a good idea because comments written by answerers are important in this test, to enable me to evaluate "credibilities" of answers (even though people have the possibility to answer with no comment). Since Lord Emsworth has participated in my previous test-thread, he probably does know that. In addition, there might be people answering in the poll and not in the thread, people answering in both poll and thread, and people answering in the thread and not in the poll. This would make things complicated, and not particularly tidy.
I had already replied to such a remark by Lord Emsworth and another member (see here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8532135#post8532135 ). Lord Emsworth is therefore insisting, and coming back with his idea of a year ago (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8524886#post8524886 ), and his post again does contain some aggressivity, as he is suggesting that my thread might be "untidy".
His quoting of only one sentence of my opening post ("Thank you for participating."), with no ellipsis (". . ."), is odd.
I also note that the little text in French under his name ("Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves") , which means: "I am not one of your pupils" might be considered as slightly aggressive to me (my native language is French), and contains a gender error, the correct text is "Je ne suis pas un de vos élèves", or "Je ne suis pas l'un de vos élèves", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender (in French, "un" is masculine [ok for "lord"], and "une" is feminine [ok for "lady"]) .
CR=-5, QR=60.


14)

Sounds about right.

My guess has nothing to do with telepathy, either way, at this point.

2. Because 2 is awesome, as tempting as the rest were.

This answer does not seem reliable and credible to me, as an answer to this telepathy test, because Aridas said that his/her guess had "nothing to do with telepathy". CR=-10, QR=60.


15)

4.

This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:

...
A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable.
...

CR=5, QR=80.


16)

Michel H doesn't want a poll, as he evaluates the context of the answer and his interpretations of the personality of the answerer as much as the answer itself, making this "test" even less useful. He finds reasons to discard incorrect answers, and justifications to weight the correct answers heavily, dramatically skewing the results to show he is telepathic. Just read the last thread he created on this "test".

With all that said, I am distinctly receiving a 2.

This answer is strongly critical of my previous analysis (unfairly, in my opinion), and therefore aggressive (at least, superficially).
CR=-8, QR=60.


17) IXP said:

3 is definitely....

... the number I am picking.

IXP

, and added later:

I keep getting interference from the countless Michel_Hes in alternate universes who are peforming this test at the same time. I think the most common number that we guess will be the one represented in more universes, not the one the Michel_H in this universe wrote down.

IXP

He/she said that he/she was getting interferences from other universes, and that he/she thought the most common guess won't be the number I wrote down. So, this answer doesn't seem reliable.
CR=-2, QR=60.


18)

3 to bring some balance to the force

This answer of abaddon is somewhat obscure, and doesn't seem directly related to telepathy. I other words, he said he answered 3 "to bring balance", not because he perceived it via ESP.
CR=-5, QR=60.


19)

|e^iπ|

In my previous analysis, I said:

Reasons why an answer may not be credible are:
. . .
• It is odd or bizarre.
. . .

, and I need to keep my criteria fairly constant on this forum.
Writing |e^iπ| for just "1" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value#Complex_numbers , if needed) is odd, it's an element which makes this answer look suspicious to me.
CR=-5, QR=60.


20)

. . .
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.
. . .

I don't think I'm trying to "test to see if you may in fact know the answer subconsciously (while being unaware of it)", and I don't think I said such a thing. I find it a little hard to imagine that some people here might answer correctly without being aware of it, a little bit like zombies (?). I suppose things are actually simpler than that. I also do not think that answering "I don't know" is treated here as a refusal to guess, I didn't say that. A "I don't know" can indicate either that the person really doesn't know, or that he/she is lying. I believe that lying is a fairly common thing, especially in the field of (my) telepathy, and I try to not dramatize it too much in these tests. I believe this is just being realistic.
CR=-4, QR=60.


21)

When I saw the post the number that came to mind was 5.

Then I read your parameters for it 1-2-3-4 and 2 was the number that popped into my head two days ago-as I had to wait the two days for my account to be validated.

And now here it is the second day and the number that sticks in my head is 4.
Maybe not sticks as much as comes to mind.

Now the people picking a number one through four is more of a guess for them than a sign of telepathy. And the parameters you used are more to test remote viewing rather than telepathy because since you posted your test I'm fairly sure you have gone about your daily life and not thought of the number-my finial answer was 4 by the way-consistently throughout that time. If someone guesses which number you have circled and repeated occasionally throughout-because you never said how long you were going to attempt this telepathy test-I'd think it was more a precog/remote viewing test than telepathy since the chances of someone posting their answer at the exact moment your thinking are slim.

barefootgoddess, people don't have to post their answer at the exact moment I'm thinking (in this telepathy test), they can for exemple perceive the number at 2:00 p.m., 2:10 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., right after I have (repeatedly) thought it, miss it at 2:30 and 2:35 even though I have repeated it at these times (but it doesn't matter), then remember the number, and answer to the test later, say at 6:00 p.m. for exemple. Precognition and remote viewing (through clairvoyance) in my opinion do not exist because they are physically impossible.

The numbers which "came into this member's mind" were first 5, then 2, and finally (and more consistently) 4. Her answer "2" doesn't seem credible because it is apparently related to the number of days she had to wait. I find it a little odd she had to wait for 2 days to have her account validated. A little odd, but not impossible, this sentence might indicate some sympathy for me, taking account of my own (minor) difficulties with the site. She seems to be fairly "serious" about her perceptions. She said that I "circled" my number, this seems to be a good choice of word (I said "surrounded with a circle"). She criticizes (unfairly, in my opinion) my test, saying that this is more a precognition or "remote viewing" test, and that, even if people choose correctly, it would be "more of a guess" than telepathy. This is an answer which I find difficult to rate credibility-wise (like the answer by GregInAustin above), there are good elements in it, but also quite a bit of aggressivity. I choose "not credible" (even though it is numerically correct), with
CR=-1, QR=70.


22)

I pick 1.
Far upthread, in the previous test, I guessed right, and was therefore judged to be genuine. So I must be right now, mustn't I?

Well, first of all, answering once correctly doesn't necessarily imply that you'll answer right the second time. Secondly, I did not, of course, evaluate this person's answer in the first test as credible because it was numerically correct (this is in principle completely irrelevant). So, I give to this answer:
CR=-9, QR=65.



So, I received five answers which seem credible to me, the answers of GregInAustin, Tiktaalik, Loss Leader, gabeygoat and DuvalHMFIC. Out of these five answers, four are numerically correct, and one (the one by GregInAustin) was numerically incorrect. The {correct answer} rate for credible answers in this test is therefore equal to 80%, which is much higher than the "hit rate" from chance alone (about 25%).

In the previous test ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8607740#post8607740 ), I found a {correct answer} rate equal to 100% for credible answers. In this previous test, I also obtained a {correct answer} rate (for all answers, credible or not) equal to 23.1% (the global hit rate is equal to 22.7% in this second test). These results (100% → 80%, and 23.1 → 22.7%) suggest a small decline in quality, from the first test on this forum to this second one. However, the number of valid numerical answers was much higher in this test (22, compared to 13 in the first test).

It may be interesting to introduce a credibility threshold, equal to CR=5, for exemple. Then, GregInAustin's answer (CR=2) is eliminated, and I obtain 3+4 = 7 ("strongly") credible answers for the two tests (on this forum, so far), all of which are numerically correct. The probability for this is equal to p = (1/4)⁷ = 6.10 x 10^-5 (assuming a 25% probability of answering correctly, for each answer). This is of course highly significant, but there are uncertainties related to the fact I assign credibilities while knowing if the answers are correct or not.

The results of these test can be analyzed in yet another fashion. I find that, in these online telepathy (or ESP, if you prefer) tests, numerically correct answers seem generally more credible, and numerically incorrect answers seem less credible. For exemple, in my first test on this forum ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8607740#post8607740 ), the average credibility for (numerically) correct (in green) answers was CR_1c = 8, while the average credibility for incorrect answers was CR_1i = -5.0 . Similarly, for this second test, I find: CR_2c = 4.4, and CR_2i = -6.1 for the two averages.
So, there is a big credibility difference in favor of (numerically) correct answers. The difference CR_2c - CR_2i = 10.5 is a little smaller than the difference CR_1c - CR_1i = 13 found in the first test (this, again, might reflect a small decline in quality from the first to the second test), but remains very significant. If there was no telepathy effect, there would be no reason why numerically correct answers should seem more credible than (numerically) incorrect ones (although there could be random average-credibility-rating differences). I invite you to read quickly all green answers (and, next, all red answers) of the two tests; rather strikingly (in my opinion), the green answers seem more normal and reasonable (to the extent, of course, that acknowledging a real telepathic phenomenon may seem "normal"), while the red ones seem more aggressive and/or strange and/or even "crazy". This is perhaps a way of convincing yourself that real telepathic phenomena are occurring between you and me, on this forum, without having to read my comments.

One advantage of this approach (of comparing average credibilities of correct answers versus incorrect ones) is that it seems to work, even when no (numerically) correct has been given. In such cases, it is still possible to examine all answers, and to try to assess their credibilities; if they are generally negative, one more data point in favor of telepathy is obtained, in spite of the apparent failure of the test.

 

[dafydd]

I would like now to present the results, and an analysis, of this second test on this forum. The opening post was (a little reminder):..........

(nonsense snipped)

No telepathy then. Understood.