Telepathy test: which number did I write?

I would like now to present the results of this test.

The answers that I find credible are:

The correct answer to this test (given by Ninshub and Kamarling) was "4", so the hit rate for credible answers is equal to 50%, and is significantly higher than the approximately 25% expected from chance only.

In addition to the four credible answers mentioned above, three answers that I did not find credible  and trustworthy were also given (note that the interest of such answers should not be underestimated). These three non-credible answers are:
Neither Pollux (1), nor Chris (3), nor Laird (3) gave the correct answer 4, so the hit rate among non-credible answers is equal to 0%. I often observe in these tests that non-credible answers are less accurate than credible ones, I view this as an important component of the "ESP effect" (ESP = extra-sensory perception).

Finally, I want to say that I found the (correct) answers by Ninshub and Kamarling more credible than those of Psst and tim, which were incorrect, but I don't want to go too much into details.

"I found the (correct) answers by Ninshub and Kamarling more credible than those of Psst and tim, which were incorrect, but I don't want to go too much into details."

Hi, Michael, could you explain why my guess  (intuition) was not as credible ?

Ok but define telepathy.

I would define telepathy as "The ability to communicate or transmit thoughts or ideas without using any of the five known senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch." (see also online dictionaries and other sources).

"I found the (correct) answers by Ninshub and Kamarling more credible than those of Psst and tim, which were incorrect, but I don't want to go too much into details."

Hi, Michael, could you explain why my guess  (intuition) was not as credible ?

You replied: "3 for me.", a polite and credible answer. In a previous test on Skeptiko (I assume that was you too), in which you gave the correct answer, you said (in February 2015): 
"3 

That's the one that attracts my attention but I don't claim any ability."
(link: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/a-...post-56393 ).
There was then a nice combination of interest and modesty, in a longer post, that I do not see in your more recent answer. In addition, when you say "3 for me", it could mean that 3 is the number that you like, but not necessarily the one that you perceived.

When I compare to Ninshub (regarding credibilities), Ninshub has the advantage of being an administrator (he has a reputation, and possibly an authority to defend). Kamarling, on the other hand, gave the  fairly powerful response: "My first thought was 4 so I'll stick with that."; this corresponds rather well to the way I understand "my telepathy": there is a good chance you know the answer even before seeing my test.

In October 2014, member Daylightstar wrote, on the International Skeptics Forum:

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. All of them. ...

(link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...st10274798 )
This suggests a powerful phenomenon.

You replied: "3 for me.", a polite and credible answer. In a previous test on Skeptiko (I assume that was you too), in which you gave the correct answer, you said (in February 2015): 
"3 

That's the one that attracts my attention but I don't claim any ability."
(link: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/a-...post-56393 ).
There was then a nice combination of interest and modesty, in a longer post, that I do not see in your more recent answer. In addition, when you say "3 for me", it could mean that 3 is the number that you like, but not necessarily the one that you perceived.

When I compare to Ninshub (regarding credibilities), Ninshub has the advantage of being an administrator (he has a reputation, and possibly an authority to defend). Karmarling, on the other hand, gave the  fairly powerful response: "My first thought was 4 so I'll stick with that."; this corresponds rather well to the way I understand "my telepathy": there is a good chance you know the answer even before seeing my test.

In October 2014, member Daylightstar wrote, on the International Skeptics Forum:

 (link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...st10274798 )
This suggests a powerful phenomenon.

That's interesting, Michael thanks. I might have more to say about this. 3 is quite close though but in a line of 4 numbers I guess that's not very impressive. I'll chew it over a bit.

I would define telepathy as "The ability to communicate or transmit thoughts or ideas without using any of the five known senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch." (see also online dictionaries and other sources).

Would two lovers holding hands and finishing each others sentences be non-telepathic?

Would two lovers holding hands and finishing each others sentences be non-telepathic?

I guess the answer would depend on the degree of predictability or obviousness of the end of the sentences:

I love ... (you) (obvious)
I love ... (a beautiful sky or pancakes) (perhaps not obvious)

I guess the answer would depend on the degree of predictability or obviousness of the end of the sentences:

I love ... (you) (obvious)
I love ... (a beautiful sky or pancakes) (perhaps not obvious)

Your definition of telepathy included that the touching sense (of feel) so in this case, if there was proven psi ability, then touching couldn't be ruled out as part of the telepathic concept. Not that I believe it is but this is the problem I have when telepathic definitions exclude the five senses.

So let's try another definition. Telempathy is not reading each other’s minds, it’s not even reading each other’s hearts. It’s being on the same wavelength and having the same feelings and the same thoughts at the same time. It is simultaneity. Simultaneity, if you’re on the same wavelength as someone else you will automatically know EXACTLY what they’re thinking or EXACTLY what they’re feeling because those are YOUR thoughts and feelings too. So you’re not actually pulling it from someone’s mind. You’re simply walking a similar path. Swimming together, flying on the same level. And that’s why people who are in love often exhibit telempathy all the time. Does that make sense?

Your definition of telepathy included that the touching sense (of feel) so in this case, if there was proven psi ability, then touching couldn't be ruled out as part of the telepathic concept. Not that I believe it is but this is the problem I have when telepathic definitions exclude the five senses.

So let's try another definition. Telempathy is not reading each other’s minds, it’s not even reading each other’s hearts. It’s being on the same wavelength and having the same feelings and the same thoughts at the same time. It is simultaneity. Simultaneity, if you’re on the same wavelength as someone else you will automatically know EXACTLY what they’re thinking or EXACTLY what they’re feeling because those are YOUR thoughts and feelings too. So you’re not actually pulling it from someone’s mind. You’re simply walking a similar path. Swimming together, flying on the same level. And that’s why people who are in love often exhibit telempathy all the time. Does that make sense?

"Telempaty" is defined here: http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/Telempathy as:
"The power to read minds and communicate with others with emotions. Combination of Telepathy and Empathy."

Note, though, that the sense of touch is not included in telepathy.

"Telempaty" is defined here: http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/Telempathy as:
"The power to read minds and communicate with others with emotions. Combination of Telepathy and Empathy."

Note, though, that the sense of touch is not included in telepathy.

Yes, yes, which is why I suggested that another definition, another term, teleMpathy be substituted when the five senses might be factors in the communication.