Telepathy test: which number did I write?

May 2021 10 140 Report

Telepathy test: which number did I write?

Hi, I invite you to participate in a simple telepathy test.

At about 5:45 p.m. on this Sunday July 19 (Brussels, Belgium time), I wrote carefully one of the three numbers: "1", "2", "3" on my sheet of paper, and I surrounded it with a circle. Then, I wrote it again twice.

I shall repeat this number (which was obtained using a random number generator) from time to time during this test.

I ask you to write it here (if you think you know it, even with a doubt). You may also answer "I don't know".

So, your answer should be one of the three numbers: "1", "2", "3", or "I don't know".

I would also appreciate a little comment; you may say, for example, how confident you are in your answer.

Thank you for participating.

Update:

It seems that, possibly because of a software change on Yahoo Answers, some of my comments (for "old" tests) have been deleted and lost.

Update 3:

RESULTS:

SwagMann, Furious Unicorn, PhotonX and steve gave the correct answer (which is 2).

The percentage of correct answers is equal to 4/6 = 67%, which is significantly higher than the about 33% from pure chance. I didn't find nailand's answer credible, so the hit rate for credible numerical answers is 4/5 = 80%.

When I combine the results of the last two tests, I find a hit rate of 7/9 = 78% for all (valid) numerical answers, and equal to 7/8 = 87.5% for credible answers.

Update 5:

Wikipedia says:

Broad generalizations are often made in "pop" psychology about one side or the other having characteristic labels, such as "logical" for the left side or "creative" for the right. These labels are not supported by studies on lateralization, as lateralization does not add specialized usage from either hemisphere.[2] Both hemispheres contribute to both kinds of processes,[3]

Update 7:

and experimental evidence provides little support for correlating the structural differences between the sides with such broadly defined functional differences.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_br...

Science & Mathematics / Alternative / Parapsychology

Answers & Comments

Tom

One target does not get it and proves nothing. Try a sequence of 100 numbers I thru 5 A more sophisticated test involves a PHOTOGRAPH of a thing or place---some people can get it some cant.--and it is very obvious from the description if it is a "hit" or not.

Even if telepathy is real, how do you know it works with numbers? My own study suggests that it does NOT work with alphanumeric symbols or second order words (New words for words you have learned before) . Suggesting that Telepathy is a RIGHT BRAINED function.

Some graphic symbols and pictures DO come through----but in a way resembling a verbal description Suggesting a multi step process and a SERIAL "signal carrier" (rather than parallel)----

The signal is likely based on "Quantum entanglement" (QE) rather than a "radio-like" EM wave. and behaves like Bohm's "Quantum Potential Field" further reinforcing the QE speculation----in not decreasing in strength with distance and instantaneous in transmission.

RUN THE TEST WITH A PHOTOGRAPH and not numbers. people get credit id they get the photo and EXTRA credit for reporting unusual details.

Wow! Another 33% chance to get it right--this is almost as good as flipping a coin--or three coins. Okay, I'm going with 2, but I absolutely didn't count the heads from a three coin flip to get that number. I promise.

Why don't you do what English Guy suggested last time, and make the number range 1-1000, or even a million? Anyone who hits that number two or three times in a row might be worth of your attention. Asking random people at random times with a 33% chance isn't going to narrow the field.

<individual tests are like stones for building a house> Tests are only good if they are scientifically rigorous. You don't even know if I (or anyone else) are simply flipping coins as I suggested, so how do you think such data are useful? Or are you suggesting coins might be telepathic?