On Sep 20, 4:40 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 21, 8:27 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Graham Cooper wrote: > > > On Sep 19, 6:02 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: > > >> Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> On Sep 19, 11:07 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: > > > >>>>> Will anyone volunteer to think of a word while I mind read it? > > > >>>> Yes. I just thought of a word. Tell me what it is. > > > >>> BOW-DITCH = RENEGER! > > > >> Wrong. > > > >>> Too easy! > > > >> Too hard. > > > > aus skeptics are a bunch of geriatrics spouting bullshit about > > > scientific method. > > > > what are their catalogued results? the experiments that went in their > > > favour. > > > Where are the catalogued results from your tests, that went in your favour? > > > Oh that's right, 10 years and no favourable results at all, only results > > that with almost all certainty prove that your claims are false. > > Nope! I scored nearly 100% reading BruceS mind.
It amazes me that you say such things when the actual test and results are available for anyone to see. Did you forget that Google keeps an archive of this stuff? You made 47 guesses on a matching test of 11 questions, and got 7 of those 47 correct.
> He 'shifted the answer' away from 2 of my guesses, > in order the munge the results to make sure I didn't > use a dictionary attack.
Since we were working with questions, not single words, the problem wasn't really a dictionary attack, but I'll let that stand since it's close enough. The changes in the question phrasings did not change the nature of the question, so it should not have had any effect on your success. This was a case of you doing a good bit better than pure chance on a single test, and trying to rearrange the results to make it look like you did even better. No matter how many times you misstate the results, you did not ever come anywhere close to 100% success on any of these tests. Oddly, you seemed to have done far better with the reworded questions I did than with any of the tests you've done with random numbers at the end. I would think you'd be happy that I munged the questions as I did, given the results.
> The 2 answers he munged were easy to score a hit too. (Go figure!) > > My actual score was 7 right out of 11. (+2 bad munges = 9/11 possible)
Are you forgetting that you made multiple guesses for each question?
> I defeated 20:1 ODDS on the first mindreading test of this kind.
It was more like 18:1 (still very good), and the test was one of many you've started. You have a habit of starting these tests, then changing the rules partway through when you keep failing. Given your rule changes, I suppose you could call every one of your tests "the first of its kind", but to any outside observer, it isn't a reasonable description.
> If someone else was tested in the matching phase using my guesses > and scored 9/11 it would demonstrate closer to 200:1 ODDS BROKEN! > > It was Serendipity I passed at all! > > Bruce refusing to append a random private key to his answers like > > 4 WILL I BUY A RETIREMENT HOUSE IN 2011? 329829874239823789 > > Instead BruceS (against my wishes) just munged the question > > 4 WILL I BE ABLE TO GET THE RETIREMENT HOUSE IN 2011?
Actually, I don't believe you had made the "append a number" suggestion at that point, or at least I hadn't noticed it. Rearranging the question's phrasing seemed then (and now) a reasonable way to avoid the sort of minimal brute force approach to picking the correct answer by way of running the MD5 on every question and matching them up. Again, since you did much better with this approach than with the appended number approach, it's odd that you complain about it.
It looks like you *do* realize that Google keeps archives. For anyone interested, you can see the results starting with the 60th post (sorted by date) in the thread. The link gets truncated in my post (thanks Google!), but is good in Graham's post above. Graham had about a 5.5% chance of getting at least 7 correct, according to another poster (Richard) who seems to have a solid grasp of the stats involved. If it had been me doing the guessing, I'd have called that "great" and accepted it.
> No one has offered to duplicate the test except Brad who stuffed > around every turn and didn't follow the protocol posting template 80% > of the time.
I admit freely that I'm not happy with tests that have a high random factor to them. I much prefer tests where the effects of random noise are distinct from the effects of some sort of paranormal ability. I've offered many times to do tests with less random noise effect, but you always prefer to trust to luck rather than any special powers. What does that say about your faith in your powers?