Reading your conversation he’s definitely leading you, probably not intentionally (and it didn’t work this time). This seem similar to Ouija board, cold-reading, etc, where people are at least semi-consciously leading/being led.
Also if 50% of people really get it on the first try without being led it should be easy to reproduce this in a controlled experiment since the effect is far stronger than that allegedly found by psychic phenomenon researchers.
Also if 50% of people really get it on the first try without being led it should be easy to reproduce this in a controlled experiment since the effect is far stronger than that allegedly found by psychic phenomenon researchers.
The population is highly selected via the criteria of having passed 150 levels beforehand.
Psychic researchers focus on individual people sometimes. Finding a single person capable of consistent remote viewing in a controlled setting would be a huge discovery.
As far as I know the previous levels have nothing to do with psychic powers. At any rate you could do the test again with the same or similar people under more controlled conditions.
As far as I know the previous levels have nothing to do with psychic powers.
If there’s such a thing as psychic powers than it’s possible that they would make solving the previous levels easier.
But I agree, the data isn’t worth much for drawing conclusion it would need more experiments with the same group of people.
It would be nice if you could elaborate on this. To me it seems like he exclusively either flat out told me “no” or gave me completely useless confirmation. When I guessed the palm trees by the lake, he said it wasn’t bad but he didn’t want to give me any more information. This seems like the only potentially useful hint, I’m imagining he said it wasn’t bad because I mentioned a body of water. Then I guessed the bee. I have no idea why he said it seemed on track, the only thing I said that seems relevant was “sharp”. But he told me that it wouldn’t help me and I couldn’t guess based on this confirmation. Then I guessed a helicopter, and he said it might be on target, but to ignore it. Again, I have no idea how this would lead me to the shark.
So we have two confirmations, two of which he explicitly told me not to think about and that they wouldn’t lead me in the right direction.
A question: how would you expect an honest person to act in this situation vs. a charlatan?
I would expect an honest person to deny incorrect guesses, and to give very vague words of encouragement when the other person said something that was close. This is in fact how DavidM behaved, except for some reason he was overly trigger-happy with the encouragement.
I would expect a charlatan to be much more leading. For example, I would expect that after my initial guess of the lake, he would have told me or at least hinted towards the fact that water had something to do with it.
EDIT: Also, I’m surprised he outright rejected the elephant guess, given that it and the shark are both big gray animals.
Also if 50% of people really get it on the first try without being led it should be easy to reproduce this in a controlled experiment since the effect is far stronger than that allegedly found by psychic phenomenon researchers.
Good point. (Then again, ChristianKI also makes a good point.)
I would expect an honest person to deny incorrect guesses, and to give very vague words of encouragement when the other person said something that was close.
No, that’s how an honest person fools themselves. The encouragement gets stronger as you get closer, so finding the solution goes from a brute force search to a simple hill climbing exercise. The answers should all be “No” without any variation. No hints, no “I think you have some of the right ideas”, no “that’s not even close!”, just “No” “No” “No” “No” “No”.
Also it’s important to notice how many guesses you’re making. For example, when you said “I’m imagining palm trees by a lake at sunset.” in the conversation you posted, that was a guess. Actually, more like three guesses...
No, that’s how an honest person fools themselves. The encouragement gets stronger as you get closer, so finding the solution goes from a brute force search to a simple hill climbing exercise. The answers should all be “No” without any variation. No hints, no “I think you have some of the right ideas”, no “that’s not even close!”, just “No” “No” “No” “No” “No”.
I see what you’re saying, but you have to understand the context. This was not a formal scientific experiment, this was part of a puzzle game that was meant to be fun. In every other level of Notpron, except some of the final ones, it was suggested that people ask those farther ahead of them for hints and pushes in the right direction if they got hopelessly stuck. It would have been weirdly incongruous and callous for DavidM to have done as you suggest and not offer even words of encouragement to those who he knew were close.
One more thing to consider: one of the reasons I stopped was because I had already begun to feel embarrassed by how long the conversation was going. One would expect that if the method of figuring it out was brute force → hill climbing, DavidM would say things to imply that it takes time and that more guesses are better. In fact, he maintains that most people solve it their first time, he says “don’t brute force, or you’ll be banned from this level”, and at some points he explicitly told me to stop guessing and go clear my mind.
Also it’s important to notice how many guesses you’re making. For example, when you said “I’m imagining palm trees by a lake at sunset.” in the conversation you posted, that was a guess. Actually, more like three guesses...
I don’t understand what you’re implying here.
By the way, I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m some sort of shill for parapsychologists by continuing to defend what I’m saying. The fact is that I remain unconvinced. While I can see many possible explanations, I can’t find any that are actually believable. I feel like when I have investigated most paranormal or strange phenomena, I always end up coming across that one explanation that makes me say “Okay, that’s what happened, I can go home now.” This whole scenario, on the other hand, just seems like one big confusing mystery.
I see what you’re saying, but you have to understand the context. This was not a formal scientific experiment, this was part of a puzzle game that was meant to be fun.
The answer you’re giving to the criticism that answers should be “No. No. No.” to eliminate leading, is that leading is OK because it’s a game.
While that is true, it doesn’t change the fact that it was leading.
In every other level of Notpron, except some of the final ones, it was suggested that people ask those farther ahead of them for hints and pushes in the right direction if they got hopelessly stuck
This makes me very dubious that all the successes were actually independent.
It would have been weirdly incongruous and callous for DavidM to have done as you suggest and not offer even words of encouragement to those who he knew were close.
Giving out “warmer, colder” style encouragement invalidates it as a proper test regardless of whether there were good social reasons to do it that way.
Reading your conversation he’s definitely leading you, probably not intentionally (and it didn’t work this time). This seem similar to Ouija board, cold-reading, etc, where people are at least semi-consciously leading/being led.
Also if 50% of people really get it on the first try without being led it should be easy to reproduce this in a controlled experiment since the effect is far stronger than that allegedly found by psychic phenomenon researchers.
The population is highly selected via the criteria of having passed 150 levels beforehand.
Psychic researchers focus on individual people sometimes. Finding a single person capable of consistent remote viewing in a controlled setting would be a huge discovery.
As far as I know the previous levels have nothing to do with psychic powers. At any rate you could do the test again with the same or similar people under more controlled conditions.
If there’s such a thing as psychic powers than it’s possible that they would make solving the previous levels easier. But I agree, the data isn’t worth much for drawing conclusion it would need more experiments with the same group of people.
It would be nice if you could elaborate on this. To me it seems like he exclusively either flat out told me “no” or gave me completely useless confirmation. When I guessed the palm trees by the lake, he said it wasn’t bad but he didn’t want to give me any more information. This seems like the only potentially useful hint, I’m imagining he said it wasn’t bad because I mentioned a body of water. Then I guessed the bee. I have no idea why he said it seemed on track, the only thing I said that seems relevant was “sharp”. But he told me that it wouldn’t help me and I couldn’t guess based on this confirmation. Then I guessed a helicopter, and he said it might be on target, but to ignore it. Again, I have no idea how this would lead me to the shark.
So we have two confirmations, two of which he explicitly told me not to think about and that they wouldn’t lead me in the right direction.
A question: how would you expect an honest person to act in this situation vs. a charlatan?
I would expect an honest person to deny incorrect guesses, and to give very vague words of encouragement when the other person said something that was close. This is in fact how DavidM behaved, except for some reason he was overly trigger-happy with the encouragement.
I would expect a charlatan to be much more leading. For example, I would expect that after my initial guess of the lake, he would have told me or at least hinted towards the fact that water had something to do with it.
EDIT: Also, I’m surprised he outright rejected the elephant guess, given that it and the shark are both big gray animals.
Good point. (Then again, ChristianKI also makes a good point.)
No, that’s how an honest person fools themselves. The encouragement gets stronger as you get closer, so finding the solution goes from a brute force search to a simple hill climbing exercise. The answers should all be “No” without any variation. No hints, no “I think you have some of the right ideas”, no “that’s not even close!”, just “No” “No” “No” “No” “No”.
Also it’s important to notice how many guesses you’re making. For example, when you said “I’m imagining palm trees by a lake at sunset.” in the conversation you posted, that was a guess. Actually, more like three guesses...
I see what you’re saying, but you have to understand the context. This was not a formal scientific experiment, this was part of a puzzle game that was meant to be fun. In every other level of Notpron, except some of the final ones, it was suggested that people ask those farther ahead of them for hints and pushes in the right direction if they got hopelessly stuck. It would have been weirdly incongruous and callous for DavidM to have done as you suggest and not offer even words of encouragement to those who he knew were close.
One more thing to consider: one of the reasons I stopped was because I had already begun to feel embarrassed by how long the conversation was going. One would expect that if the method of figuring it out was brute force → hill climbing, DavidM would say things to imply that it takes time and that more guesses are better. In fact, he maintains that most people solve it their first time, he says “don’t brute force, or you’ll be banned from this level”, and at some points he explicitly told me to stop guessing and go clear my mind.
I don’t understand what you’re implying here.
By the way, I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m some sort of shill for parapsychologists by continuing to defend what I’m saying. The fact is that I remain unconvinced. While I can see many possible explanations, I can’t find any that are actually believable. I feel like when I have investigated most paranormal or strange phenomena, I always end up coming across that one explanation that makes me say “Okay, that’s what happened, I can go home now.” This whole scenario, on the other hand, just seems like one big confusing mystery.
The answer you’re giving to the criticism that answers should be “No. No. No.” to eliminate leading, is that leading is OK because it’s a game.
While that is true, it doesn’t change the fact that it was leading.
This makes me very dubious that all the successes were actually independent.
Giving out “warmer, colder” style encouragement invalidates it as a proper test regardless of whether there were good social reasons to do it that way.