# Thread: Telepathy test: which number did I write?

1. I invite you to participate in a simple telepathy test.

At about 2:37 on this Wednesday November 14 (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: RANDOM.ORG - Integer 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".

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

A comment would also be appreciated and may be important: I (or others) may use your comment to try to assess the credibility of your answer. You may for example explain how confident you are in your answer.

Thank you for participating.

NOTES:
I should of course come back to tell you what the right answer is, and who answered correctly (if anyone did).
• A cryptographic hash for a complicated sentence containing the number I ask you to telepathically guess (like: "the number to guess is 6 f4315db688f3f006050627de322e91718c2" for example) is:
70a16acf3e3be94ba5c2934628749a2bf827d65e3b1fcd81e9 f3d5efc579064c
It was obtained on this website: Online SHA-256 hash calculator
.
I shall reveal the actual sentence I used to produce this SHA-256 hash at the end of the test, after I have revealed the integer number between 1 and 4 I ask you to guess. This way, you'll be able to verify my number.

CORRECTION: to avoid any misunderstanding, the next-to-last sentence of the text above should be replaced by:
"
I shall reveal the actual sentence I used to produce this SHA-256 hash at the end of the test, after I have revealed the integral number I ask you to guess.". See posts #9 by zinjanthropos, and my post #14 below.

2.

3. Your instructions are ambiguous. The first time you mention the character of the numbers is in the notes. If I understand you correctly we choose four numbers, each an integer between 1 and 41 inclusive. Please confirm.

Let me note that this experiment is not a test of telepathy. I intend to cheat and use clairvoyance.

Here are my numbers: 18 23 12 38

4. Originally Posted by John Galt
Your instructions are ambiguous. The first time you mention the character of the numbers is in the notes. If I understand you correctly we choose four numbers, each an integer between 1 and 41 inclusive. Please confirm.

Let me note that this experiment is not a test of telepathy. I intend to cheat and use clairvoyance.

Here are my numbers: 18 23 12 38
Your answer should be either "1", or "2", or "3", or "4". There are only four possibilities. You cannot use clairvoyance because there is no such thing (at least, in my opinion), it's unphysical. However, if you really think you can guess my number using clairvoyance, feel free to do so.

5. Thank you. I see that I misread 4 I as 41.

My reference to clairvoyance was intended as mild sarcasm. However, your reply does gnerate two thoughts.

1. I am amused that someone would be, apparently, prepared to believe in telepathy, but not in clairvoyance.
2. Your experimental protocol is certainly flawed. If you are investigating ESP then to arbitrarily discount one form of it while investigating another is simply wrong.

I choose the number 3. Not only am I reasonably confident that it is 3, but I predict that more than 38% of your respondents will also identify it as a 3, clearly a result which will be greater than chance.

6. I also immediately thought 3, but even if 90% of respondents guess at 3 and your number generator chose 3 by chance, it is still a poor test. Why not have a much larger number range? Or words? Or just a set of characters? Illusionists love the number guessing game, because we are for some reason predisposed to choosing some numbers more than others.

7. Originally Posted by KALSTER
I also immediately thought 3, but even if 90% of respondents guess at 3 and your number generator chose 3 by chance, it is still a poor test. Why not have a much larger number range? Or words? Or just a set of characters? Illusionists love the number guessing game, because we are for some reason predisposed to choosing some numbers more than others.
Well I'm with you on this, I certainly don't think it is telepathy and if it is and 'provable' the James Randi Educational Foundation are offering a million dollar prize for anyone who could prove something such as telepathy, funnily enough not one person has won the prize yet, pehaps something to do with the fact telepathy doesn't exist.

I also did though choose the number 3, what I think would be more interesting is finding why, though experiments ect.., that people would be more drawn to the number 3 than the others. As a way of understanding thought processes that we may share, that to me seems are more worthy aspect to study.

8. The same goes for 7 if people are asked to choose a number between 1 and 10. Most people choose 7 afaik.

9. ~The hammer smashed the tomato, the hammer smashed the tomato,
Santa dropped a hammer on his toe, because the elf threw a tomato,
Searched for a box of extra strength Tylenol, but only found a bottle of ketchup, yuk.
The Chinese flag was on his bed, Rudolf went down on a sled.
1,2,3,4, as Ive said, now pick a Color, I know its... ~

(I stopped using clairvoyance its not accurate unless you are a Capricorn, Im now reading used tea bags)

10. So, your answer should be one of the four numbers: "1", "2", "3", "4", or "I don't know"...........after I have revealed the integer number between 1 and 4 .[/QUOTE]

1,4 and "I don't know" are impossible answers because according to that last line the answer is either 2 or 3.

11. Originally Posted by John Galt

1. I am amused that someone would be, apparently, prepared to believe in telepathy, but not in clairvoyance.
2. Your experimental protocol is certainly flawed. If you are investigating ESP then to arbitrarily discount one form of it while investigating another is simply wrong. ...
John, according to the Parapsychological Association, clairvoyance is "Paranormal acquisition of information concerning an object or contemporary physical event; in contrast to telepathy, the information is assumed to derive directly from an external physical source (such as a concealed photograph), and not from the mind of another person". It is "one particular form of extrasensory perception" (see Glossary of Psi (Parapsychological) Terms (A-D) , see also Clairvoyance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).
When I look at the number I wrote on my sheet of paper, in my living room, this activity generates small electric currents in my brain, which in turn generate small electromagnetic fields, which can be observed and interpreted using magnetoencephalography or electroencephalography for example (see Magnetoencephalography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Electroencephalography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and the thought-controlled helicopter One Per Cent: Thought-controlled quadcopter takes to the skies​ ). These electromagnetic fields of the brain can propagate far away and exert forces on ions within brains of human beings anywhere on the surface of the Earth (the fields are, however, very small), possibly altering membrane potentials (see Membrane potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and causing action potentials (see Action potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). In this way, my thoughts (or anybody else's thoughts) can in principle be detected and understood via telepathy.
On the other hand, if there is no brain which can send a physical signal (like in clairvoyance), it seems to me it's not physically possible that anybody could become aware of the number I wrote (in the example of this test).
Possible clairvoyance effects have been apparently studied by a few investigators, using the ganzfeld method. They didn't find anything statistically significant (see Nailing Down The Goalpost - Page 33 - Parapsychology and alternative medicine forums of mind-energy.net ).
Anyway, as I mentioned before, you may participate in this test using "clairvoyance", I might statistically analyze the results just the way I would for telepathy, this is actually an ESP test.

12. Originally Posted by KALSTER
I also immediately thought 3, but even if 90% of respondents guess at 3 and your number generator chose 3 by chance, it is still a poor test. Why not have a much larger number range? Or words? Or just a set of characters? Illusionists love the number guessing game, because we are for some reason predisposed to choosing some numbers more than others.
If many people answer "3" just because of a general tendency to answer "3", and the target (number to guess) happens to be "3", then I will get a high correct answer rate for this particular test which really does not indicate telepathy. However, this will occur only when the number to guess is a 3. When the random number generator chooses a number different for 3, I should then obtain a very low correct answer rate (if people answer 3 very often). The end result will be a 25% correct answer rate, when no telepathy is involved.
If I use a large number range, then there will unfortunately be a high probability that nobody will answer correctly. People's motivation to participate excellently in my test is unfortunately usually not high, I think.

13. Originally Posted by Michel H
People's motivation to participate excellently in my test is unfortunately usually not high, I think.
I wonder why no one wants to take seriously a badly-designed test for something that has never been shown to exist and for which there is no plausible mechanism....

14. I thought of 3 as I was reading the OP. The fact you wrote the number 3 times made it seem even more likely in my mind to be 3.

This is one of those things were everybody gueses the number 3 and then you explain to us why it wasn't telepathy? A bt like Darren Brown stuff?

15. Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
So, your answer should be one of the four numbers: "1", "2", "3", "4", or "I don't know"...........after I have revealed the integer number between 1 and 4 .(QUOTE)

1,4 and "I don't know" are impossible answers because according to that last line the answer is either 2 or 3.
Well, when I wrote the sentence "I shall reveal ..., after I have revealed the integer number between 1 and 4 I ask you to guess.", I meant "the integer between 1 (inclusive) and 4 (inclusive)", or ""the integer between 1 and 4 (with limits [1 and 4] included). I should perhaps have just written "after I have revealed the integral number I ask you to guess." (without mentioning 1 and 4), to avoid any risk of misunderstanding.

This issue of the exact meaning of "between" is discussed here: between Ask MetaFilter for exa
mple. On this webpage, "grumblebee" asks: "Is there a default understanding (of) the word "between," if the speaker/writer doesn't say whether he's being inclusive or exclusive? For instance, if I say "Pick a number between 1 and 10," would you assume that 1 and 10 are okay picks or just 2 through 9? I suspect there isn't a RIGHT answer, but is there a common, colloquial understanding?...".

Then "Abiezer" replies "My instant reaction is inclusive. British English speaker".

And "davejay" says a little later:
"Between 1 and 10: Means 1 through 10.

Between my house and yours: Means a place roughly between the two houses, but not the houses themselves (or a place too close to either house.)

Between you and me: Only includes you and me.

It's contextual, and there's no fundamental rule of thumb.".
(There are other answers as well).
On this page: Between: inclusive or exclusive? - Yahoo! Answers, a person seems to think that "between" is rather exclusive though.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see Between - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary), between means:
...in common to : shared by <divided between his four grandchildren>,
... in the ... interval that separates
(wether this interval is closed or open is not specified)... .
Thhhhh?

16. Originally Posted by Michel H
Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
So, your answer should be one of the four numbers: "1", "2", "3", "4", or "I don't know"...........after I have revealed the integer number between 1 and 4 .(QUOTE)

1,4 and "I don't know" are impossible answers because according to that last line the answer is either 2 or 3.
Well, when I wrote the sentence "I shall reveal ..., after I have revealed the integer number between 1 and 4 I ask you to guess.", I meant "the integer between 1 (inclusive) and 4 (inclusive)", or ""the integer between 1 and 4 (with limits [1 and 4] included). I should perhaps have just written "after I have revealed the integral number I ask you to guess." (without mentioning 1 and 4), to avoid any risk of misunderstanding.

This issue of the exact meaning of "between" is discussed here: between Ask MetaFilter for exa
mple. On this webpage, "grumblebee" asks: "Is there a default understanding (of) the word "between," if the speaker/writer doesn't say whether he's being inclusive or exclusive? For instance, if I say "Pick a number between 1 and 10," would you assume that 1 and 10 are okay picks or just 2 through 9? I suspect there isn't a RIGHT answer, but is there a common, colloquial understanding?...".

Then "Abiezer" replies "My instant reaction is inclusive. British English speaker".

And "davejay" says a little later:
"Between 1 and 10: Means 1 through 10.

Between my house and yours: Means a place roughly between the two houses, but not the houses themselves (or a place too close to either house.)

Between you and me: Only includes you and me.

It's contextual, and there's no fundamental rule of thumb.".
(There are other answers as well).
On this page: Between: inclusive or exclusive? - Yahoo! Answers, a person seems to think that "between" is rather exclusive though.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see Between - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary), between means:
...in common to : shared by <divided between his four grandchildren>,
... in the ... interval that separates
(wether this interval is closed or open is not specified)... .
Thhhhh?
Thank you for participating in a test of my psychic ability. When I saw the curious between 1 and 4 line I said to myself, let's mention it and see if I get a reaction. My gut feeling was that you would defend your choice of words. Not only did you defend them, you practically wrote a novel doing so. I admit, didn't see that coming.

I liked this line also:
at the end of the test, after I have revealed the integral number I ask you to guess."
Is this something you should say in a telepathy test? The word guess simply should not be there.

I think you should go back to the drawing board and write your instructions more carefully before conducting another experiment.

17. I’m going to buck the trend here and go for the number 2! You should discourage guess work by administering your test subject with a non-lethal electric shock, should they give the wrong answer.

Maybe I’m missing the point but why only 1 to 4? You’re results will be contaminated with false positives due to probability, law of average, that sort of thing. Why not increase the number from 1 to 100, at the very least?? Derren Brown once said a good scientist will try to disprove his own theory. So try to use your exercise to disprove Telepathy rather than to prove what you believe.

But if all you really want is to convince yourself that Telepathy is real then your experiment should only allow us to guess from 1 to 1. That way you’ll get a positive hit every time!

18. "I don't know."

20. Originally Posted by Michel H
Originally Posted by KALSTER
I also immediately thought 3, but even if 90% of respondents guess at 3 and your number generator chose 3 by chance, it is still a poor test. Why not have a much larger number range? Or words? Or just a set of characters? Illusionists love the number guessing game, because we are for some reason predisposed to choosing some numbers more than others.
If many people answer "3" just because of a general tendency to answer "3", and the target (number to guess) happens to be "3", then I will get a high correct answer rate for this particular test which really does not indicate telepathy. However, this will occur only when the number to guess is a 3. When the random number generator chooses a number different for 3, I should then obtain a very low correct answer rate (if people answer 3 very often). The end result will be a 25% correct answer rate, when no telepathy is involved.
If I use a large number range, then there will unfortunately be a high probability that nobody will answer correctly. People's motivation to participate excellently in my test is unfortunately usually not high, I think.
Either way, your results are contaminated by people's tendency to select certain ranges of numbers over others, quite independently from any kind of telepathy or magical foresight. With larger numbers you could assign a percentage to a guess and value the guess that way, though that still wouldn't eliminate possible general tendencies of number guessing.

Shouldn't you then just admit that your test is poorly designed from the start?

21. Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
Originally Posted by Michel H
Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
So, your answer should be one of the four numbers: "1", "2", "3", "4", or "I don't know"...........after I have revealed the integer number between 1 and 4 .(QUOTE)

1,4 and "I don't know" are impossible answers because according to that last line the answer is either 2 or 3.
Well, when I wrote the sentence "I shall reveal ..., after I have revealed the integer number between 1 and 4 I ask you to guess.", I meant "the integer between 1 (inclusive) and 4 (inclusive)", or ""the integer between 1 and 4 (with limits [1 and 4] included). I should perhaps have just written "after I have revealed the integral number I ask you to guess." (without mentioning 1 and 4), to avoid any risk of misunderstanding.

This issue of the exact meaning of "between" is discussed here: between Ask MetaFilter for exa
mple. On this webpage, "grumblebee" asks: "Is there a default understanding (of) the word "between," if the speaker/writer doesn't say whether he's being inclusive or exclusive? For instance, if I say "Pick a number between 1 and 10," would you assume that 1 and 10 are okay picks or just 2 through 9? I suspect there isn't a RIGHT answer, but is there a common, colloquial understanding?...".

Then "Abiezer" replies "My instant reaction is inclusive. British English speaker".

And "davejay" says a little later:
"Between 1 and 10: Means 1 through 10.

Between my house and yours: Means a place roughly between the two houses, but not the houses themselves (or a place too close to either house.)

Between you and me: Only includes you and me.

It's contextual, and there's no fundamental rule of thumb.".
(There are other answers as well).
On this page: Between: inclusive or exclusive? - Yahoo! Answers, a person seems to think that "between" is rather exclusive though.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see Between - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary), between means:
...in common to : shared by <divided between his four grandchildren>,
... in the ... interval that separates
(wether this interval is closed or open is not specified)... .
Thhhhh?
Thank you for participating in a test of my psychic ability. When I saw the curious between 1 and 4 line I said to myself, let's mention it and see if I get a reaction. My gut feeling was that you would defend your choice of words. Not only did you defend them, you practically wrote a novel doing so. I admit, didn't see that coming.

I liked this line also:
at the end of the test, after I have revealed the integral number I ask you to guess."
Is this something you should say in a telepathy test? The word guess simply should not be there.

I think you should go back to the drawing board and write your instructions more carefully before conducting another experiment.
zinjanthropos, I agree with you to say that my use of the word "between" was not optimal because I did not also say "inclusive" (between). This is why, following your observation, I modified my opening post (initial post #1), note also that I did mention your name. Any constructive criticism which may lead to an improvement of my text is welcome. However, despite this minor flaw, I still think that my original text was fairly clear and unambiguous (see this page for example, which I have already mentioned above) because I said in my main text (not in the notes): "I wrote carefully one of the four numbers: "1", "2", "3", "4" on my sheet of paper" and "...your answer should be one of the four numbers: "1", "2", "3", "4"...". Not specifying "inclusive between" does not automatically mean "exclusive between".

Now, I see that you also criticize my use of the word "guess". According to the Cambridge dictionary (see here ), "guess" may mean "
to give an answer to a particular question when you do not have all the facts and so cannot be certain if you are correct". So, my use of the word "guess" reflects the degree of uncertainty in your "guessing". I suppose that, even if there is a strong and exceptional telepathic phenomenon going on, which allows you to know many of my personal thoughts, nevertheless, when I write a number on my sheet of paper, thousands of miles away, you probably generally don't perceive it as clearly as if it were written on a blackboard in front of you, just a few meters away from you. This, however, is perhaps debatable (I don't know exactly what you perceive), and other choices of words are possible.
For example, I could write:
"...the integral number I ask you to psychically divine" (this expression, "psychically divine", is used by Richard WISEMAN and Robert L. MORRIS in their book "Guidelines for Testing Psychic Claimants") or, simply:
"...the integral number I ask you to tell me", or
"...
the integral number I ask you to say here".

I invite you to take a look at this java guessing game webpage . You will see that its author's terminology ("number to guess", use of "between" without explicitly specifying "inclusive between", see his/her note at the bottom of the page) is very similar to mine in my original text in post #1.

22. Originally Posted by Michel H
So, my use of the word "guess" reflects the degree of uncertainty in your "guessing". I suppose that, even if there is a strong and exceptional telepathic phenomenon going on, which allows you to know many of my personal thoughts, nevertheless, when I write a number on my sheet of paper, thousands of miles away, you probably generally don't perceive it as clearly as if it were written on a blackboard in front of you, just a few meters away from
As no one is going to telepathically receive your thoughts, "guess" seems entirely appropriate to me.

I invite you to take a look at this java guessing game webpage . You will see that its author's terminology ("number to guess", use of "between" without explicitly specifying "inclusive between", see his/her note at the bottom of the page) is very similar to mine in my original text in post #1.
But that is a game while you have pretensions of doing something vaguely scientific.

23. You are all telepathetic. One year later. Bunk, "science community.' Curse those who lets schizophrenics suffer. Go ahead, admit it, your communicating now. They are emotionally enhanced, the brain waves and receptors.

Greetings.

24. Is this kx000 from SF? If so, welcome!

25. Originally Posted by kx000
You are all telepathetic.
I knew you were going to say that.

26. Hi, Strange.

Then you surly are not, that. Pleasure.

Hey, Mac.

27. On telepathy, and quantum teleportation!

28. Originally Posted by Michel H

I invite you to take a look at this java guessing game webpage . You will see that its author's terminology ("number to guess", use of "between" without explicitly specifying "inclusive between", see his/her note at the bottom of the page) is very similar to mine in my original text in post #1.
Michel, all I was saying is to be more careful next time you conduct a telepathy test with written instructions. We can't read your mind.

29. Originally Posted by MacGyver1968
Is this kx000 from SF? If so, welcome!
Although "Suspended" is now mounted under his name. Anyone have any idea why? Does the lack of being able to go and check bother anyone else?

30. Well, his posts in the "does time exist" and "life in the universe" threads were completely nonsensical and somewhat confrontational ...

31. Was the number ever given, My first thought was the number 2...

The number to guess was a "4".

And the complicated sentence whose hash code was given in the opening post (#1) was:
The number to guess is a 4 e64e778c610a11c356773e2.
(with 3 spaces between 4 and e64e...)

Four people (John Galt, KALSTER, Ascended and "question for you") answered "3", two persons (pineapples and Moontanman) answered "2", and one person (chad) answered "I don't know", but with quotation marks (see post #17).

chad also sent me a private message (to which I replied), entitled "Human telepathy", in which he said "I have defended humans being telepathic in this forum before."

I found kx000's post (#22) interesting, he said:
You are all telepathetic. One year later. Bunk, "science community.' Curse those who lets schizophrenics suffer. Go ahead, admit it, your communicating now. They are emotionally enhanced, the brain waves and receptors.

Greetings.
I see that he is currently suspended. I hope he didn't get suspended because he said something true on telepathy, and in connection with me.

I should also say that, regardless of their numerical accuracy, I didn't find any of the six numerical answers really credible (which is good, since they were incorrect). For example, John Galt, who is a Moderator, wrote:
...Your experimental protocol is certainly flawed. ... I choose the number 3. Not only am I reasonably confident that it is 3, but I predict that more than 38% of your respondents will also identify it as a 3, clearly a result which will be greater than chance.
This text is not only somewhat aggressive, but also fairly odd. I have found before that (very) odd answers tend to be not correct (see here, or here for a few examples, search for "odd" on these webpages).

33. Hi Michel H,

This test doesn’t appear to have addressed any of the concerns laid out to you by the James Randi members that had replied to your previous test you repeated here. You discard negative results you rate were not sincere,but you did this by already knowing what the correct answer was. Can you acknowledge why this process would be considered cherry picking?

And giving your belief in telepathy, a touch biased?

34. Originally Posted by Michel H
I should also say that, regardless of their numerical accuracy, I didn't find any of the six numerical answers really credible (which is good, since they were incorrect). For example, John Galt, who is a Moderator, wrote:
...Your experimental protocol is certainly flawed. ... I choose the number 3. Not only am I reasonably confident that it is 3, but I predict that more than 38% of your respondents will also identify it as a 3, clearly a result which will be greater than chance.
This text is not only somewhat aggressive, but also fairly odd.
Michel, there likely was some latent aggression in the post. This arose form the fact - indicated with my opening clause - that your methodology was seriously flawed. As such I saw no way in which your experiment could be taken seriously. I didn't. Subsequent discussion has reinforced this view.

35. Originally Posted by John Galt
Michel, there likely was some latent aggression in the post. This arose form the fact - indicated with my opening clause - that your methodology was seriously flawed. As such I saw no way in which your experiment could be taken seriously. I didn't. Subsequent discussion has reinforced this view.
Not sure he was taking your comment as a personal attack. He was rating your response for hs test

From reading from his previous test, I think Michel H methodology is this…

Michel H rights down an undisclosed number between 1 and 4 that he randomly generated. We, his participating test subjects, are then asked to guess this undisclosed number between 1 and 4, and, this is the most important part, respond with any comment we feel necessary regarding our answer.

Now, Michel H, systematically checks through each of our replies and gives everyone (who guessed a valid number) a “Credibility Score” between -10 and 10. Our Credibility Score is based on how sincere he believes our valid number to be, simply judged by reading our comments. Any Credibility Score he gives us below 0, he discards from his results as void.

So basically all our answers are void because he gave us a credibility score below 0. He did not think we tried to guess correctly.

In his previous James Randi test, Michel had seen a correlating pattern revealing evidence of telepathy between a test subject guessing the answer correctly and how sincere that test subject appears to be from reading their comments. I hope I have that right Michel, so correct me if I’m wrong?

If so, then your entire exercise is flawed and void because you’re giving everyone a biased score. It’s biased because you believe in telepathy already, and you already know the correct answer. All you are doing is cherry picking/ tampering with your own results to give you the answer you want.

36. Interesting observations pineapples. I had quite missed that. However, we still reach the same conclusion, though the basis for your conclusion appears more solid than mine.

37. Originally Posted by pineapples
Originally Posted by John Galt
Michel, there likely was some latent aggression in the post. This arose form the fact - indicated with my opening clause - that your methodology was seriously flawed. As such I saw no way in which your experiment could be taken seriously. I didn't. Subsequent discussion has reinforced this view.
Not sure he was taking your comment as a personal attack. He was rating your response for hs test

From reading from his previous test, I think Michel H methodology is this…

Michel H rights down an undisclosed number between 1 and 4 that he randomly generated. We, his participating test subjects, are then asked to guess this undisclosed number between 1 and 4, and, this is the most important part, respond with any comment we feel necessary regarding our answer.

Now, Michel H, systematically checks through each of our replies and gives everyone (who guessed a valid number) a “Credibility Score” between -10 and 10. Our Credibility Score is based on how sincere he believes our valid number to be, simply judged by reading our comments. Any Credibility Score he gives us below 0, he discards from his results as void.

So basically all our answers are void because he gave us a credibility score below 0. He did not think we tried to guess correctly.

In his previous James Randi test, Michel had seen a correlating pattern revealing evidence of telepathy between a test subject guessing the answer correctly and how sincere that test subject appears to be from reading their comments. I hope I have that right Michel, so correct me if I’m wrong?

If so, then your entire exercise is flawed and void because you’re giving everyone a biased score. It’s biased because you believe in telepathy already, and you already know the correct answer. All you are doing is cherry picking/ tampering with your own results to give you the answer you want.
I think that you explained fairly well what I did on the Randi forum, pineapples. But I disagree with your comment:
If so, then your entire exercise is flawed and void because you’re giving everyone a biased score.
If you really think I "cheated", and I gave negative credibility ratings to some answers just because I knew that they were numerically incorrect, and not because of the words or comments which were said, then feel free to tell me (and us) what the reasonable and unbiased credibility ratings should be, and why, and which answers should be regarded as credible, and which ones should not, in a "serious and honest analysis". You can do that either here, or on the Randi forum, for the answers given on the Randi forum (here). You can also do it for just one answer, or a few answers.
I think that my approach was fairly rigorous (although not entirely rigorous, because a rigourous approach would require that I give my ratings without knowing if the answer was correct or not). You may give some credibility ratings using this text:
One possibility would be to
actually wanted it to sound that way) and to retain only answers which
seem positive and reliable. I have found that incorrect answers fairly often
either contain aggressiveness, or incorrect statements, or are abnormally
and unnecessarily long, or contain some bizarre or strange elements.
It may be useful, to analyze results of tests, to give a "credibility rating"
between -10 and +10 to each answer, which will be positive if the answer
sounds positive and reliable, and negative if it sounds suspicious (perhaps
because the answerer wanted it himself/herself to sound that way), and
likely not correct.
,
which I wrote before I started the test on the Randi forum (see here).

Two more remarks:

1) In this world, you cannot just accept any answer given, or any statement made in a uncritical fashion. And, by the way, some people might deliberately, in a perverse way, give some incorrect answers which "sound serious and reliable". But I found a certain quality of sincerity in the answers given on the Randi forum.

2) If you want simpler evidence indicating that I tend to communicate my thoughts telepathically, you may click here for example.

38. UP

39. Hi Michel,

I don’t see myself qualified to rate any of the answers provided from the Randi site, perhaps for one reason; I find it difficult to see past all of their sarcastic overtones. And that includes those who gave the correct answer.

But clearly you believe in telepathy, and if telepathy is a reality, then the point I only wanted to make was that your test isn’t going to provide any evidence to support telepathy. My opinion of course, but you did acknowledge yourself that your own test is not “entirely rigorous”.

40. pineapples, in my test on the Randi forum (see here), I received three correct answers, which were:

calwaterbear's answer: "wrong oh! I do indeed have ESP, and know for a fact that he wrote 2!"

(the number of goals in the ladies hockey final last night)

dlorde's answer: "I'm going for '2'.

C'mon, tell us what the number was, so we know who's telepathic and who isn't."

In my opinion, none of these three answers were sarcastic.

I agree that my analysis was not totally rigorous, but "not totally rigorous" doesn't mean "completely sloppy" and worthless.

41. Originally Posted by Michel H
I agree that my analysis was not totally rigorous, but "not totally rigorous" doesn't mean "completely sloppy" and worthless.
You keep telling yourself that. You are the only one who will believe it.

42. Originally Posted by Michel H
I invite you to participate in a simple telepathy test.

At about 2:37 on this Wednesday November 14 (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: RANDOM.ORG - Integer 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".

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

A comment would also be appreciated and may be important: I (or others) may use your comment to try to assess the credibility of your answer. You may for example explain how confident you are in your answer.

Thank you for participating.

NOTES:
I should of course come back to tell you what the right answer is, and who answered correctly (if anyone did).
• A cryptographic hash for a complicated sentence containing the number I ask you to telepathically guess (like: "the number to guess is 6 f4315db688f3f006050627de322e91718c2" for example) is:
70a16acf3e3be94ba5c2934628749a2bf827d65e3b1fcd81e9 f3d5efc579064c
It was obtained on this website: Online SHA-256 hash calculator
.
I shall reveal the actual sentence I used to produce this SHA-256 hash at the end of the test, after I have revealed the integer number between 1 and 4 I ask you to guess. This way, you'll be able to verify my number.

CORRECTION: to avoid any misunderstanding, the next-to-last sentence of the text above should be replaced by:
"
I shall reveal the actual sentence I used to produce this SHA-256 hash at the end of the test, after I have revealed the integral number I ask you to guess.". See posts #9 by zinjanthropos, and my post #14 below.
This tells you nothing about a persons telepathy theres a 25% chance that someone will be right.... Now pick a number between 1 and 1,000,000 and the person who guesses right gets the grand prize.... To get disected in a lab of your choice immediately.... "joke"
And soon you will encounter the # 310, yes 310 is strong with this one....

43. Originally Posted by Michel H
I invite you to participate in a simple telepathy test.
You don't need a test, simple or otherwise.
Telepathy doesn't exist.

44. meh, i thought 4. what didn't i win now?

45. Originally Posted by Michel H
In my opinion, none of these three answers were sarcastic.
So you are obviously not a mind reader.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 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 [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement