Telepathy test: which number did I write?

We were all attempting to stimulate legitimate psi by channeling the inner Trickster.

Edit: And I want to know how close I was on number of tabs open on your browser...?
When I saw your reply:
It's 1. I know this because Bro and Malf are both terrible at remote viewing. Also, you have 76 tabs open on your browser. That is way too many.
, I looked at the number of tabs open (I use Chrome), I believe there were about five (sometimes the number is larger though, but almost always smaller than 20). 76 tabs open simultaneously, that's really an enormous and unrealistic number (for me at least). With the browser Google Chrome, when the number of tabs becomes equal to at least 18, it becomes more complicated to close an inactive tab because the little cross disappears, and you have to right click on it.
 
When I saw your reply:

, I looked at the number of tabs open (I use Chrome), I believe there were about five (sometimes the number is larger though, but almost always smaller than 20). 76 tabs open simultaneously, that's really an enormous and unrealistic number (for me at least). With the browser Google Chrome, when the number of tabs becomes equal to at least 18, it becomes more complicated to close an inactive tab because the little cross disappears, and you have to right click on it.

Damn. I have been discredited.

I had a friend who kept an enormous number of tabs open (occasionally upwards of 100) because he would intend to read them later and never got around to it. He recently lost his voice due to spasmodic dysphonia and now sounds a lot like batman.
 
Interesting. I responded early in the thread:

"2. Confident."

But I deleted my response once it looked like the thread was going off the tracks.

Linda
 
Another great demonstration by Diane Powell on how not to design an experiment...

Leaving aside protocol considerations, Diane totally flubbed the probability calculation at the end of the demonstration when she said:

Well, one way to look at it is, he got three out of the five correct. To get three of them correct, it would be one out of nine, times one out of nine, times one out of nine, which is one out of 729.

Undoubtedly, she was thinking of getting three hits in only three trials, for which 1/729 (0.0014) is correct. But the kid got three hits in five trials, for a probability of 1/86.7 (0.0115). It's a shame that someone of her academic and intellectual stature wasn't aware of the many online binomial probability calculators (here's one of them) used for situations like this. Someone with a basic understanding of probability theory should have coached her in their use, prior to her visit with the kid.

Incidentally, the video posted above has been used in a Daily Mail article released today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-filmed-reciting-numbers-written-secret.html

Doug
 
Leaving aside protocol considerations, Diane totally flubbed the probability calculation at the end of the demonstration when she said:

Well, one way to look at it is, he got three out of the five correct. To get three of them correct, it would be one out of nine, times one out of nine, times one out of nine, which is one out of 729.

Undoubtedly, she was thinking of getting three hits in only three trials, for which 1/729 (0.0014) is correct. But the kid got three hits in five trials, for a probability of 1/86.7 (0.0115). It's a shame that someone of her academic and intellectual stature wasn't aware of the many online binomial probability calculators (here's one of them) used for situations like this. Someone with a basic understanding of probability theory should have coached her in their use, prior to her visit with the kid.

Perhaps she's an agent saboteur?
 
As predicted in the relevant "shows" thread, the methodology in these Ramses tests was quickly taken apart in this forum. I was also disappointed... Most of the flack she was getting here for the Hailey tests was likely unfair, since she was the first to recognize that the conditions were far from optimal and had promised to conduct new tests with a revised protocol. The aggression towards her for what was basically a dummy test seemed undue, especially because she seemed aware of pitfalls. However, I was expecting her to resume the work with Hailey as promised, with a different approach (presumably) independent of tutors; instead, we got a series of tests in a non-autistic child.

I could tolerate some "looseness" in the methodology of the experiments involving autistic children, because I know first hand just how hard it is to deal with these patients, but I am disappointed that Ramses (being functional) was not convinced to participate in more stringent protocols and instead was tested in this game-like manner... With so many people present in the room, cuing is certainly the first issue. In general, the interest in Ramses seems like digression from the original premise.
 
Last edited:
Also, and I hate being the one to point to the elephant in the room, but the family of Ramses seems *very* interested in getting the purported ability of their child known. I have seen them post videos in YT and social media as well as commenting here. At least in Hailey's case, everything was seemingly being done in the name of science, with both the child and her parents remaining anonymous.
 
Back
Top