Merged Telepathy test: which number did I write?

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is nothing more than post hoc justification of an arbitrary scoring mechanism. Until you do the test with proper blinding, or give complete and binding criteria up front, this only proves you are convinced you are telepathic, not that you actually are such.
 
Hokulele said:
That is nothing more than post hoc justification of an arbitrary scoring mechanism.
Click to expand...

And even if it wasn't (as I'm sure Michel would argue that it wasn't) he has no way of proving that it wasn't.

Which is why Agatha's blinding suggestion is such a good one.
 
Aridas said:
welshdean's got a -5 for fairly spurious reasons, too.
Click to expand...
Having seen his rugby predictions I think, if anything, -5 is a generous psychic score.

Michael I think your methodology is too elaborate. Can I suggest a tweak that makes it even more impressive. Ask someone to pick a number between one and ten. Get them to post their answer to which you reply "Yes that was the number I was thinking of" 100% success rate guaranteed and of just as much value as your test.
 
Lothian said:
Michael I think your methodology is too elaborate. Can I suggest a tweak that makes it even more impressive. Ask someone to pick a number between one and ten. Get them to post their answer to which you reply "Yes that was the number I was thinking of" 100% success rate guaranteed and of just as much value as your test.
Click to expand...
This would not have been possible, because of the MD5 hash (an anti-cheating measure):
Michel H said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is likely that, like most people who criticize my work, you actually didn't read my analyses carefully (also, it is probably better to post in the most recent thread).
 
Michel H said:
This would not have been possible, because of the MD5 hash (an anti-cheating measure):

It is likely that, like most people who criticize my work, you actually didn't read my analyses carefully (also, it is probably better to post in the most recent thread).
Click to expand...

I read your 'analysis'. Not quite as sophisticated as drawing rings round bullet holes in a barn.
You don't appear to have shown any recognition that your post hoc judging of predictions knowing whether they are right is fundamentally flawed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom