Telepathy test: which number did I write?

The fact is that Ninshub's answer, in toto, was "4" and Pssst's was "Three". Saying that you find one of those "more credible" than the other, but that you don't want to go into details, seems like a pretty clear indication that you're just winding us up.

Well, Ninshub is an administrator of this forum, and you may have noticed that the member name "Pssst" does not exactly sound like an administrator name (and Pssst is not). In addition, I said I wrote 1, 2, 3 or 4, not one, two, three or four. So, in this sense, Ninshub's answer was more accurate.

Well, Ninshub is an administrator of this forum, and you may have noticed that the member name "Pssst" does not exactly sound like an administrator name (and Pssst is not). In addition, I said I wrote 1, 2, 3 or 4, not one, two, three or four. So, in this sense, Ninshub's answer was more accurate.

Then get the credible/incredible classification done by someone who is blind to the answer you're looking for. Otherwise, it will be quite rightly treated as a joke.

Then get the credible/incredible classification done by someone who is blind to the answer you're looking for. Otherwise, it will be quite rightly treated as a joke.

Treated as a joke by you, perhaps, but not necessarily by some other people (who are perhaps more interested in real science than you).

In 2013, after I presented a similar analysis on the forum of the Randi Educational Foundation, member Ladewig commented:

Hurray.

Congratulations on once again proving telepathy.  


I won't complain about my low credibility rating.  After all such complaints would be prima facie evidence of my low credibility.  


Bravo.  I salute you.
Very few people trying to prove the existence of ESP would have the fortitude to come right out and say that. You are the vanguard of the next Golden Age of psychic testing.

If you are ever invited to speak at a conference for psychic powers and phenomena, will you post the dates on this board?  I really want to be there when you say, "OK, all you remote viewing folks and precognition folks - I want to say that you've got nothing; so quit wasting our time with something that has no possible mechanism.  Now, I'd like to speak about my unimpeachable ESP evidence."

...

Once, again.  Congratulations.

(link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...ost9516722 )

I have received other favorable comments.

Treated as a joke by you, perhaps, but not necessarily by some other people (who are perhaps more interested in real science than you).

In 2013, after I presented a similar analysis on the forum of the Randi Educational Foundation, member Ladewig commented:


(link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...ost9516722 )

I have received other favorable comments.

Ladewig commented, the following day on the same forum, that your credibility rating was "so absurd that it doesn't even rise to the level of pseudo-science".

I'm afraid you're simply a troll.

Ladewig commented, the following day on the same forum, that your credibility rating was "so absurd that it doesn't even rise to the level of pseudo-science".

...

It is true that Ladewig made contradictory statements (and he's not the only one).

More recently, on the skeptiko forum, Wormwood commented:

I changed my mind. The design was flawless. Great study lol.

(link: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/te...ost-120055 )

When somebody, in one of my tests, replies for example:
"I answer 1, just because I like that number (nothing to do with telepathy), because I know that I am always the best, the number one",
I would always regard such an answer as non-credible, regardless of whether it is correct or not. The fact that the number is correct or not is just extraordinarily irrelevant for evaluating its credibility.

Well, Ninshub is an administrator of this forum, and you may have noticed that the member name "Pssst" does not exactly sound like an administrator name (and Pssst is not). In addition, I said I wrote 1, 2, 3 or 4, not one, two, three or four. So, in this sense, Ninshub's answer was more accurate.

I noticed I was the only one to use the spelling of the number 3. That's b/c I tipe reel good and fast 2. I may have been at a disadvantage b/c I haven't responded to such tests and didn't know the ins and outs. My background includes not writing numbers since they can often be confused (so when I do I 'cross' my 7s and slant line my 0s.)

You could say that, culturally, I was predisposed to presenting a less than credible answer. Which begs the problem of sample size, does it not?

... Which begs the problem of sample size, does it not?

Sample size is not a problem in my tests, because I have been repeating similar tests many times, so the overall sample size keeps on increasing.

I believe that results of my test are fairly consistent, and do indicate telepathy, and I would like to be able to share this belief more widely   .

Sample size is not a problem in my tests, because I have been repeating similar tests many times, so the overall sample size keeps on increasing.

I believe that results of my test are fairly consistent, and do indicate telepathy, and I would like to be able to share this belief more widely   .

Ok but define telepathy.

[Ninshub]

Good to know I was able to listen to the strongest voice within me.

It is true that Ladewig made contradictory statements (and he's not the only one).

Clearly the comments you quoted were sarcastic. But I grant that when someone is being sarcastic it can be quite an effective response to pretend you don't get it.