A simple telepathy test: which word did I write?

I recently wrote one of the following four words: "pasta", "rice", "boiled" and "vegetable" in one of my computer files, and I highlighted it (in yellow).

I shall also repeat the selected word from time to time (for example, by viewing it, or by saying it).
 
I ask you to tell me which of these four words I wrote (and highlighted).

You may also answer "I don't know".
 
The word was selected by means of this random number generator: https://www.random.org/integers/ , all four words have equal probabilities.
 
A SHA-3 hash of a complicated sentence giving the target, calculated on this webpage: https://www.browserling.com/tools/sha3-hash  is:
775e2df0f9cef0335e2a5388e11e237af78475f4b2ce9df6b4ccccbb3ad03c4b668478e0370f1bc272ae11bd7d567153c2f2caca42483c5524f653bc71c24cf5 .
 
This is a security feature which gives you confidence that I cannot change the target after answers have been given.
 
Thank you for your cooperation.

[Laird]

@Michel H, I seem to remember you didn't like the use of the "spoiler" tag to hide responses last time. Would you prefer it not be used this time?

@Michel H, I seem to remember you didn't like the use of the "spoiler" tag to hide responses last time. Would you prefer it not be used this time?

This is a somewhat difficult question you're asking here, Laird.

If I remember correctly, what I mostly objected to is the fact that a administrator or a moderator alters the answers which have been given to add authoritatively a spoiler tag.

Now, if answerers in the test (whether admins or not) want to add a spoiler tag to their own answers, this is a different matter.

A possible psychological advantage of doing so is giving an impression of care and seriousness.

However, I have found in the past, in at least one case, that respondents seemed to cooperate together to finally converge to the right answer. In this case, it is better to see previous answers.

Overall, I am rather against spoiler tags, but the best idea of all is probably to let respondents be the "bosses" who decide themselves.

[Laird]

OK, no problem. Here's another question:

You say you selected the target word randomly, but how did you select the list of four potential target words in the first place?

OK, no problem. Here's another question:

You say you selected the target word randomly, but how did you select the list of four potential target words in the first place?

This is fairly arbitrary.

In this case, my choice of potential target words was related to personal experience.

I have been sick in recent weeks, and this has led me to look for information about how to eat better, whence the four words "pasta", "rice", "boiled" and "vegetable".

[Laird]

This is fairly arbitrary.

In this case, my choice of potential target words was related to personal experience.

I have been sick in recent weeks, and this has led me to look for information about how to eat better, whence the four words "pasta", "rice", "boiled" and "vegetable".

I think that, for the same reason as last time, this is problematic: there is an obvious "odd word out". "Boiling" is the only word that is neither a food nor a noun. I was considering choosing that word, and then I noticed that I could have been subconsciously led to it by its being the exception.

You would be better off having your words selected out of a dictionary using the same random process by which you select the target out of the four of them.

I think that, for the same reason as last time, this is problematic: there is an obvious "odd word out". "Boiling" is the only word that is neither a food nor a noun. I was considering choosing that word, and then I noticed that I could have been subconsciously led to it by its being the exception.

You would be better off having your words selected out of a dictionary using the same random process by which you select the target out of the four of them.

As you say yourself, I don't think you should choose your answer by using such a logical reasoning.

Remember, the actual target was chosen by using a random number generator, which would never (on the average) select the "odd" or "exceptional" word.

In order to participate constructively in this test, you need to try to use your extra-sensory perceptions, even if they are faint.

If you really think there are no such things (coming from me), then you are welcome to answer "I don't know" (I have edited my opening post to add this option).

[Laird]

As you say yourself, I don't think you should choose your answer by using such a logical reasoning. [...] In order to participate constructively in this test, you need to try to use your extra-sensory perceptions, even if they are faint.

This misses the point: without eliminating bias, you can't be sure that participants are using ESP as opposed to being affected by the biased options. Let's say I picked "boiled" without having consciously realised as I have that it is the odd one out, being neither a food nor a noun. If it is indeed the target, then we can't be sure that I got it by ESP or because I subconsciously recognised it as the odd one out. If it is not the target, then we can't be sure that I missed the target only because I was drawn to the odd one out, which drowned out the faint ESP signal.

In any case, as has been pointed out in previous threads, this test suffers from other problems like a tiny sample size and subjective assessment of valid answers, but it's otherwise harmless and innocuous, so we'll let it continue.

[Laird]

this test suffers from other problems like a tiny sample size

Admittedly, I seem to remember that you had a fair rejoinder to this criticism: that you aggregate your results across all the tests that you perform.

This misses the point: without eliminating bias, you can't be sure that participants are using ESP as opposed to being affected by the biased options. Let's say I picked "boiled" without having consciously realised as I have that it is the odd one out, being neither a food nor a noun. If it is indeed the target, then we can't be sure that I got it by ESP or because I subconsciously recognised it as the odd one out. If it is not the target, then we can't be sure that I missed the target only because I was drawn to the odd one out, which drowned out the faint ESP signal.

It is certainly true that, when I study the results after a test, I am (almost) unable to say if the answers were obtained by extra-sensory perception (ESP), or because the responders "liked" one of the choices better in the forced-choice experiment, or because of more elaborate reasons, such as the one you mention.

It may, however, happen, that the responders give some clues.

In any case, as has been pointed out in previous threads, this test suffers from other problems like a tiny sample size and subjective assessment of valid answers, but it's otherwise harmless and innocuous, so we'll let it continue.

You have already given an answer yourself to the small sample size argument (it is possible to combine tests). Also, some comments that people make can be very interesting and instructive, beyond a merely statistical approach.

I don't think my assessment of answers is subjective. I believe it is mostly objective, because it uses common sense arguments that most people can understand and agree with.

Perhaps I can illustrate this with the results of my latest test on Spiritual Forums: https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showt...p?t=149928 .

The person who gave the correct answer said:

spring kind of stands out to me

while the person who answered incorrectly just said, a little later:

Autumn

It seems to me the first answer (unlike the second one) does suggest some kind of ESP may have taken place, and is therefore more credible than the second answer.