A simple telepathy test: which word did I write?

I recently wrote one of the following four words: "table", "chair", "house" and "garden" in one of my computer files, and I highlighted it (in yellow).

I ask you to tell me which of these four words I wrote.

The word was selected by means of this random number generator: https://www.random.org/integers/ , all four words have equal probabilities.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Laird]

Show contentMy answer:

Garden

I recently wrote one of the following four words: "table", "chair", "house" and "garden" in one of my computer files, and I highlighted it (in yellow).

I ask you to tell me which of these four words I wrote.

The word was selected by means of this random number generator: https://www.random.org/integers/ , all four words have equal probabilities.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I'm curious. With all respect, this sort of online telepathy test can be for several possible reasons. One reason could be simple non-judgemental enquiry (because it is an interesting line of enquiry) into the success statistics of impromptu psychic testing on demand in ordinary conditions of personal life of ordinary non-particulary psychic persons, contrasted with the usually infrequent and unusual circumstances when psychical phenomena seem actually to occur (such as NDEs).

The results could be expected to be rather poor under these conditions even in the judgement and experience of paranormal proponents. 

Another reason and motivation might be from the materialist skeptic position that failure of such a test or any test under any conditions is prima facie evidence for the imaginary, illusory or fraudulent unreal nature of claims of paranormal sensory functioning. 

I wonder what the reason is for this particular case.

I have no idea but just on first random gut instinct:

Show contentguess:

chair

Probably wrong but whatever.

Thank you for your answers, Laird and Mediochre.

One reason could be simple non-judgemental enquiry (because it is an interesting line of enquiry) into the success statistics of impromptu psychic testing on demand in ordinary conditions of personal life of ordinary non-particulary psychic persons

Please note that I am not claiming I am an "ordinary non-particularly psychic person".

If I were, I probably wouldn't be doing this test  .

I recently wrote one of the following four words: "table", "chair", "house" and "garden" in one of my computer files, and I highlighted it (in yellow).

I ask you to tell me which of these four words I wrote.

The word was selected by means of this random number generator: https://www.random.org/integers/ , all four words have equal probabilities.

Thank you for your cooperation.

The best way to test for psi is to use open ended questions, not fixed choice. When you use fixed choice questions the choices leave an impression on the mind and it makes it harder to identify faint psychic impressions. 

see: Mental Radio by Upton Sinclair
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/63693

A good way to test would be to put a photograph in an envelope, write some type of identifier on the envelope and ask what is in the envelope with such and such an identifier written on it.

The best way to test for psi is to use open ended questions, not fixed choice. When you use fixed choice questions the choices leave an impression on the mind and it makes it harder to identify faint psychic impressions. 

see: Mental Radio by Upton Sinclair
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/63693

In my opinion, the opposite is true.

It is much easier for people to just answer one of the four words: "table", "chair", "house" and "garden", than trying to e.g. guess a picture made far away by an unknown person.

The percipient's work is helped by the fact that some limited information is already provided.

In addition, a statistical analysis of the results is much easier to conduct in the fixed choice experiment than in the open choice case.

In my opinion, the opposite is true.

It is much easier for people to just answer one of the four words: "table", "chair", "house" and "garden", than trying to e.g. guess a picture made far away by an unknown person.

The percipient's work is helped by the fact that some limited information is already provided.

In addition, a statistical analysis of the results is much easier to conduct in the fixed choice experiment than in the open choice case.

First, it is important to realise that some of the best telepathy happens when those involved are deeply involved emotionally - such as when a spouse receives a message when their partner is in danger or has just died. Obviously there would still be some details that would need checking (such as that the death was caused naturally, or that if murder was involved, the surviving spouse was not involved in any way).

You need to realise that there are a lot of cases of that sort.

Second, your test was utterly naive, because people would succeed 25% of the time without telepathy, and you would need to collect a lot of replies to be statistically sure that telepathy was involved.

If telepathy is real, it is reasonable to assume that some people are better at it than others, so even if some of us are telepathic (I'm not) your replies would be greatly diluted by replies by those who can't do it.

You should look at some of the remote viewing results. Some people have worked long and hard to optimise these experiments. Far from 'helping' remote viewers by making the task easy to guess, the best results are obtained by using blinded techniques which would seem to defeat any rational approach to winning.

If you are interested, looks up Rupert Sheldrake's books, and Dean Radin's books (particularly on the subject of 'presentiment'.

David

Second, your test was utterly naive, because people would succeed 25% of the time without telepathy, and you would need to collect a lot of replies to be statistically sure that telepathy was involved.

No, not necessarily of lot of replies.

If, for example, five people in a row give the correct answer, the probability for this would be only (1/4)^5 = 1/1024 = 0.00097656, which is largely beyond the conventional significance level of 5%.

In practise, I study carefully each answer given, and I distinguish between the answers which seem reliable and those which do not (I have been doing this for many years).

I can't do this with your answer though, since you did not participate in this test.

Here is a little homework for you. Two answers have already been given in this test. Could you tell if one seems more reliable/credible than the other?

Obviously, I do not claim success when just 25% of answers are correct. It is the systematic deviation from the chance level which is of interest.