On Apr 8, 6:56 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 4:09 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 7, 10:46 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > how come this random noise doesn't affect Zenner Card tests guessing 1 > > > > > > card from 5 options? > > > > You beat me to it, Brad. That's pretty much it, Graham. The one in > > > > five is *very* subject to random noise, whether it's one guess from > > > WHAT ODDS PER TRIAL DO YOU ACCEPT EXACTLY? > > I've told you repeatedly that I'd be glad to support a test using the > > 1:50 odds you kept bragging you could do repeatedly. With those odds > > WOAH let's stop right there. > > Haven't I repeatedly told you that my paranormal bias is approx. a > CONSTANT +50% over the expected score. > > e.g. HALF RIGHT FROM 3 OPTIONS > > 1.5/50 from 50 options.
You've made a *lot* of claims, many not consistent with others. You had been claiming that you could regularly guess a number from 1 to 100, or do the equivalent. IIRC, you claimed you could do this successfully more than half the time. Later you said you could do it with two guesses per number, and also talked about guessing a number 1 to 50, which is equivalent.
> A 3 options test would take 20 trials to be significant > A 50 option test would take 2000 trials to be significant
This is only the case if you're completely lacking in significant psychic abilities. Which we all (you included) know that you are. If you really had the abilities you have claimed to in the past, a 50 option test with 10 trials would show about 5 hits, and everyone would be amazed. With 20 trials, you'd have about 10 hits, and nobody would be able to explain your amazing magic powers. Here on Earth, you'd have maybe one hit, maybe even two, and the few who paid any attention would yawn.
> I've told you 20 times that the consistency drops with more options.
Meaning that you don't have any special ability. Got it. Just making sure everyone knows you don't have any special ability and that you've confirmed this fact on Usenet.
> And I've told you 20 times the 100 number options was an illustrative > protocol example. > > Why do you keep ignoring this Bruce?
You claimed to be able to do the guessing a number, then claimed to be able to do the equivalent, since numbers are super-special antimagical things, acting like cold iron to your fairy powers. OK, so make *some* attempt to demonstrate something remotely comparable to the guessing a number from 1 to 100, or even 1 to 50. You can't? Then STOP LYING about it.
> There's going to be 20 or more trials to break 1000:1 preliminary odds > no matter how you do it. > > However, if you can MAXIMIZE THE CONSISTENCY then that MINIMISES the > number of trials needed. > > So basically we should be using a "comfortable" range for the number > of options. > i.e. the range in which the subjective positives are most easily > distinguished from the subjective negatives. > > So the 'correlation' of any random phrase to 'match' any random 'word' > seems to be about 1 in 5.
Go ahead and write a protocol for Randi's group, explaining how you can make a 1 in 50 guess, and get it right half the time. Include in your protocol that there will be twenty trials, and that you will succeed in guessing the correct item at least nine times out of the twenty. I bet they'll accept a well-written and objectively measurable protocol that meets these criteria. They won't complain about the numbers being comfortable. They'll just provide you with some metaphorical rope. OTOH, tell them that you can be given three options, and can provide a vague quote from a book that you'll later be able to correlate with the correct option (after you've been told which of the three that is) in a way that you personally find quite compelling, and I strongly suspect they'll ignore your entry.