Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.
Word 9 was piece- Miss
Total Hits: 1
Total Guesses: 9
I thought you didn't want the channel and option on different days. Do you really think we should be narrowing things down at this stage G. Adam? You've barely had a hit doing it the way we've been doing it. I fail to see the advantage of isolating our trial to split pre-midnight GMT and post midnight GMT channel/options when you haven't been hitting regardless of the time the channels and options have been posted.
You insisted on this protocol, and now you are calling it definitive.
We have 2 protocols left.
ISOLATING the options temporally.
BINDING the options with protocol 1.2, 4 words one at a time, then the options.
If you want to bail say so, no objections there.
If you want to call it at this stage then I claim 3/8 on protocol 1.2.
Dude, you can claim whatever you want, but you should be searching for the truth. I've explained to you why you can't say you got 3/8. You can ignore it if you want, but that doesn't change the facts of it. I've explained why getting precise stats is important. You can ignore that if you want, but what good does it do you? Do you want to figure out if you really have abilities or not? You can't compare that protocol to the type of protocol we're doing now. They must be scored differently. Ignore that if you want, but what's the good in lying to yourself?
I haven't called anything definitive. I've simply said, that when this protocol hasn't produced results whatever the time the channels and options are posted, then what good is it to then try and isolate same day vs. split day. That's something you would do if you were getting results and in analysing the data you noticed that you were getting greater hits in certain circumstances and therefore you'd want to do a test isolating those circumstances to see if there was a greater effect there. That type of narrowing down is simply premature at this stage when you haven't been hitting at all - no matter when the channels and options were posted. Do you see what I mean?
The expected result is still 2/8. I scored 3/8.
You're right this is NOT +50% paranormal bias (on limited trials)
It's roughly +40% paranormal bias when you work out the ODDS of 2/4 is 3.4:1.
So there is NO DOUBT I scored above expected average.
The different scoring techniques due to non-replacement only diverge above 1/4 hit rate, and is very close in the 3/8th hit rate range.
It's quite simple!
Adding total hits over total guesses is a simple way to see if you scored ABOVE EXPECTED!
Disputing this simply because of the approximate statistic from a binomial distribution is WRONG!
No not at all. I said from the start THAT WONT WORK.
That is the shoddiest scientific methodology I've ever seen.
Just because you think guessing words should work that way doesn't mean shit!
No other way to word it dude! Try listening to me instead of going off on perpetual tangents every facet of the test.
I'll give you credit for the BASIC WORD GUESSING protocol.
You proved that the OPTIONS objectively fit to the channel just as well as the secret thought word.
Your theory is the the guessed word is as good as random.
My theory is the options also match the channel and are no longer random.
I've stated this from the start.
What? Now you're saying that all the options match the channel, so no matter what you guess, you still count it as a hit?
Am I understanding you right?
If this is so you have made you ability unfalsifiable and then why are we even doing this? No matter what the result, you see it as confirmation of your ability. You have the entirety of the english language to play around with these words to construct "hits" after the fact. This is confirmation bias in the extreme.
Don't you see a problem here, if you are truly trying to discover something?
If I am wrong in this then tell me. If I am not then tell me what the point of the protocol is? What are we testing?
No! 1 of the words matches but not necessarily the word you originally thought of!
This objective protocol may be possible due to the fact I answer the questions blind.
TESTER SENDS NUMBERS FOR WORD
PSYCHIC SENDS CHANNEL FOR NUMBERS
COMPARE WORD TO CHANNEL
But when I don't see the WORD up front, the channel will work with *ANY* of the WORDS PRESENTED (as options)
...With a naive protocol!
If you understand that say YES.
If you don't understand that then there is no use continuing as you seem oblivious to the whole concept.
I requested you to POST THE OPTIONS AFTER MIDNIGHT GMT literally 10 times!
Then what is the point of guessing? What do you think the odds of any one of four random words tangentially relating to any random fragment of a sentence?
So again, what the heck is the guessing for. You don't care about the results. You consider the channel to match all of the words anyway.
I understand what you are saying. I think its a prime example of confirmation bias and I've explained why. If you disagree, please say why.
No, I think its pretty clear. Let me ask you: is there any way for you to fail this test? Is there any possible result that you would consider to be a failure of psi? If so, please elaborate.
And I've said: 1) I'm not interested in following the clock to do this. I have enough stress in my life without worrying about whether I'm posting at the right time. I've also asked you to explain what the significance is of the arbitrary stroke of midnight in this random time zone which is not even midnight where you or I live? What is your hypothesis on why it makes a difference? What is the foundation? You keep dodging it.
I can't tell if you are just an elaborate troll who gets his kicks out of screwing with people with nonsense protocols or you really want to test yourself. Because you don't seem to be very interested in constructing an objective test. You really need to read some parapsychological studies to see how real testing goes. Read the recent Bem paper, read some of the ganzfeld stuff. Take a look at Dean Radin's stuff. You will see that the way you are doing it is not standard. I don't know if you care.
You seem to consider it a success no matter what the results. That's not objective. If you think this is a naive protocol, then suggest another.
Give me a reason to continue working with you. If there is no objective pass or fail, then what's the point?
OK, if you don't want to do temporal isolation because posting the options as your first post GMT time is too difficult, then I suggest going back to protocol 1.2.
I consider it a fail, as far as usenet testing goes, if we use some impartial judges/accomplices to do the 4 option tests on my behalf and they don't match the words above average, i.e. there is no correlation.
But that test is conceptually difficult for most people, so just protocol 1.2. 5 batches of 4 questions and we're done! If you want to shoot for even higher odds then I'll stick around for more batches.
I thought you said if I posted WAIT X HOURS you would?
Tried that and you posted the options anyway.
Why do want metaphysical explanations of why giving the answer on the same day the question is asked is valid parapsychological theory?
I've told you 10 times. the channel got mixed up when answered just after midnight. What do you want to know exactly?
I'm willing to go back to that protocol (which is a crap lot more work for me), but you first need to run it by a stats/math forum to explain to you why your proposed way of scoring is wrong. Otherwise its a waste of time. If you think everytime you guess 2/4 it means its psi, then you really don't understand how the stats work. If I do that protocol, I'm going to guess, on average 2/4 correct, about 25% of the time, without psi. Do you understand why that is? Do you further understand that unless I am guessing 2/4 at a statistically significant rate over expectation, that there is nothing interesting going on? Do you now see also why you can't just combine number of hits in that trial? That its not like our latest trial?
Don't take my word for it, post it on that math forum you referred to and see what they say. Post the link when you do, I can join in the conversation there. I can accept if I'm wrong on that.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests