I'm psychic

[australopithecus]

No because my claim is that this works only under the condition that I know the person quite well, and that there is an emotion involved. What I'm asking for is a test which would be appropriate under those conditions.

It's not hard.

You and someone you know well get a little visit from Randi's people. They give the person you know a distinct set of words or phrases to think of and then instigate an emotional responce between the two of you. If you are indeed psycic you'll have no trouble picking up on these words. All I'm seeing at the moment is one massive evasion technique based on the fact people on the internet will not be able to independantly test your claims personally. You know this so you can get away with being evasive then blaming us when we personally cannot test your idiocy.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

No because my claim is that this works only under the condition that I know the person quite well, and that there is an emotion involved. What I'm asking for is a test which would be appropriate under those conditions.

You'd be proving that you were empathetic, then. Not psychic.

 

[Worldquest]

No because my claim is that this works only under the condition that I know the person quite well, and that there is an emotion involved. What I'm asking for is a test which would be appropriate under those conditions.

It's not hard.

You and someone you know well get a little visit from Randi's people. They give the person you know a distinct set of words or phrases to think of and then instigate an emotional responce between the two of you. If you are indeed psycic you'll have no trouble picking up on these words. All I'm seeing at the moment is one massive evasion technique based on the fact people on the internet will not be able to independantly test your claims personally. You know this so you can get away with being evasive then blaming us when we personally cannot test your idiocy.

That probably wouldn't work, since it would need to be words and images and thoughts which the person spontaneously and genuinely thinks during their interaction with me. A better way would be if I have the interaction with the person (and they have instructions to try to remember as much of their thoughts as they can), and then they tell a third party whatever they can remember, and they write down everything, in as much detail as possible. I then tell that third party what I picked up.

Would you say that's a good idea? It seems more appropriate to me. However I've done that one many times (which is why I suggest it if I was to involve this Randi guy) and I've done it with the third party being either a mutual friend, or someone that only I know, or someone that only the other person knows, and even strangers. Like I say I've tested it in many ways, and my success rate, by a conservative estimate, is extremely high, about 95-99%.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

That probably not work, since it would need to be words and images and thoughts which the person spontaneously and genuinely thinks during their interaction with me. A better way would be if I have the interaction with the person (and they have instructions to try to remember as much of their thoughts as they can), and then they tell a third party whatever they can remember, and they write down everything, in as much detail as possible. I then tell that third party what I picked up.

Not only would a test like that be more compromised than a prostitute's pants, it's completely absurd. And, ofcourse, it would only (at most) prove EMPATHY. Once again, that's called EMPATHY.

Would you say that's a good idea? It seems more appropriate to me.

No.

However I've done that one many times (which is why I suggest it if I was to involve this Randi guy) and I've done it with the third party being either a mutual friend, or someone that only I know, or someone that only the other person knows, and even strangers. Like I say I've tested it in many ways, and my success rate, by a conservative estimate, is extremely high, about 95-99%.

Evidence to back up claims please?
Oh, wait. We've suggested a double-blind study. But that's not compromisable enough for your empathy, so you have no way or excuse to have any producable evidence.
It's like saying "I invented a weather machine. Don't worry, I showed it to my friends, they can back me up on it" and then objecting to posting pictures of it for us to see because of something silly, such as "it's photosensitive."

 

[australopithecus]

That probably wouldn't work, since it would need to be words and images and thoughts which the person spontaneously and genuinely thinks during their interaction with me.

Is it possible to shift the goalposts any more than you're doing? So in order for you to be successfully psycic there has to be a intricate set of criteria that which a lack or change lack of one will render your 'powerless'? Yeah, you're not psycic.

A better way would be if I have the interaction with the person (and they have instructions to try to remember as much of their thoughts as they can), and then they tell a third party whatever they can remember, and they write down everything, in as much detail as possible. I then tell that third party what I picked up.

Er, no because then if you do that after the fact then their thoughts may have already been vocalised to the extent that you could easily infer what they were thinking, not to mention trying to remember every single thought running through your head after you've had them is near impossible....

However I've done that one many times

.....which is why you probably think you're psycic because the person has already had an interaction with you and your retroactively telling them what they've thought.

Like I say I've tested it in many ways, and my success rate, by a conservative estimate, is extremely high, about 95-99%.

Like we've said, confirmation bias.

 

[Baranduin]

That probably wouldn't work, since it would need to be words and images and thoughts which the person spontaneously and genuinely thinks during their interaction with me. A better way would be if I have the interaction with the person (and they have instructions to try to remember as much of their thoughts as they can), and then they tell a third party whatever they can remember, and they write down everything, in as much detail as possible. I then tell that third party what I picked up.

Would you say that's a good idea?

Read my before-the-last post in this thread.

It seems more appropriate to me. However I've done that one many times (which is why I suggest it if I was to involve this Randi guy) and I've done it with the third party being either a mutual friend, or someone that only I know, or someone that only the other person knows, and even strangers. Like I say I've tested it in many ways, and my success rate, by a conservative estimate, is extremely high, about 95-99%.

Read the last one.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Anyone remember that movie "Mystery Men"? The one Guy who could turn invisible... but only when nobody was looking? This sounds like that.

 

[australopithecus]

Anyone remember that movie "Mystery Men"? The one Guy who could turn invisible... but only when nobody was looking? This sounds like that.

Except in the movie he really could turn invisible when nobody was looking :lol:

 

[JustBusiness17]

This whole thread reminds me of a friend that tried to convince me he was responsible for the occasional street lamp turning on/off. I couldn't figure out if he seriously believed it or it was just some gullibility test. He's the type of person that buys into the spiritual junk but he's also really intelligent so it could have been either.

In Worldquest's case, I'm thinking he actually believes it but it's so preposterous that I can't quite tell.

 

[Worldquest]

That probably wouldn't work, since it would need to be words and images and thoughts which the person spontaneously and genuinely thinks during their interaction with me.

Is it possible to shift the goalposts any more than you're doing? So in order for you to be successfully psycic there has to be a intricate set of criteria that which a lack or change lack of one will render your 'powerless'? Yeah, you're not psycic.

A better way would be if I have the interaction with the person (and they have instructions to try to remember as much of their thoughts as they can), and then they tell a third party whatever they can remember, and they write down everything, in as much detail as possible. I then tell that third party what I picked up.

Er, no because then if you do that after the fact then their thoughts may have already been vocalised to the extent that you could easily infer what they were thinking, not to mention trying to remember every single thought running through your head after you've had them is near impossible....

However I've done that one many times

.....which is why you probably think you're psycic because the person has already had an interaction with you and your retroactively telling them what they've thought.

Like I say I've tested it in many ways, and my success rate, by a conservative estimate, is extremely high, about 95-99%.

Like we've said, confirmation bias.

I'm sure it would be fine if I and the other person had a brief interaction, and the other person doesn't say anything to me. They can even turn their back. That way, there are no verbal clues, no facial clues, and they can quite easily remember what they were thinking.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Except in the movie he really could turn invisible when nobody was looking :lol:

that whole demonstrating claims is the sticking point,isn't it?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I'm sure it would be fine if I and the other person had a brief interaction, and the other person doesn't say anything to me. They can even turn their back. That way, there are no verbal clues, no facial clues, and they can quite easily remember what they were thinking.

Congradulations. Your friends have some kind of mental disorder where they are forced to talk without tone, emotion, and possibly have ugly monotone faces.
It would explain alot.

 

[Worldquest]

I'm sure it would be fine if I and the other person had a brief interaction, and the other person doesn't say anything to me. They can even turn their back. That way, there are no verbal clues, no facial clues, and they can quite easily remember what they were thinking.

Congradulations. Your friends have some kind of mental disorder where they are forced to talk without tone, emotion, and possibly have ugly monotone faces.
It would explain alot.

Silence, troll.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Silence, troll.

No.
Truth has a funny way of not adhering to liars and trolls.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm sure it would be fine if I and the other person had a brief interaction, and the other person doesn't say anything to me. They can even turn their back. That way, there are no verbal clues, no facial clues.

...how can you invoke an emoptional responce in a one way conversation?

and they can quite easily remember what they were thinking.

List every single minute thought, in order preferably, you've had in the last hour. Every single one. Actually scrap that, you'll just lie.

 

[Worldquest]

Silence, troll.

No.
Truth has a funny way of not adhering to liars and trolls.

What was that, now? Trolls have a funny way of what?

 

[australopithecus]

Congradulations. Your friends have some kind of mental disorder where they are forced to talk without tone, emotion, and possibly have ugly monotone faces.
It would explain alot.

Silence, troll.

You clearly have no clue what a troll is which is ironic because you're a textbook troll.

talk without tone, emotion, and possibly have ugly monotone faces.

This would be a necsessity in order to not give any external clues that would help you. Not trolling, you're just being purposfully idiotic.

 

[Worldquest]

That's very naughty, calling me idiotic. What else would you like to call me? Go on, call me anything you like.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I'm sure it would be fine if I and the other person had a brief interaction, and the other person doesn't say anything to me. They can even turn their back. That way, there are no verbal clues, no facial clues, and they can quite easily remember what they were thinking.

A better control would be for you to turn your back that way you can't read their body language :idea:

 

[Commander Eagle]

Pretty much everything you're saying is just an expression of the fact that you're skeptical and that's fine. You don't have to believe any of it, I'm just saying what I do, and the fact that it has been confirmed in many ways, as I've explained in previous posts.

And I'm saying that you are delusional. I have explained repeatedly why what you are doing is not magic powers, but simple empathy.

Even if you still think that people don't ever think in words (which is bizarre, by the way, I do it, everyone I've asked does it sometimes)

Sometimes, yes. Not all the time - and it's rather difficult to write down feelings.

there's still the matter of images

Em. Path. Y. The images are associated with the emotion - which is blatantly obvious.

and the fact that I can read specific details which I would otherwise have no way at all of knowing.

You have made this claim time and again, but have repeatedly failed to give a single example. Stop lying.

You're stretching the meaning of knowing someone well to cover what I do, but actually it cannot account for the detail, accuracyand the consistency.

It can. If you actually read my posts you would know this.

By the way, what would be a good way of testing this to see whether or not I'm reading people's minds? If you can come up with an airtight test which I could try out (in your own words, that is), I'll try it.

Million-Dollar Challenege.

Contact the people at the Million-Dollar challange. They can devise an airtight one for your discression. Most likely, it will be a double-blind study incorperating a face-to-face meeting with 5 random strangers.

DAMMIT AUSTRAL. I WAS POSTING THAT!

No because my claim is that this works only under the condition that I know the person quite well, and that there is an emotion involved.

In other words, you feel what they feel and think what they think in highly emotional situations. EMPATHY.

You and someone you know well get a little visit from Randi's people. They give the person you know a distinct set of words or phrases to think of and then instigate an emotional responce between the two of you. If you are indeed psycic you'll have no trouble picking up on these words.

That probably wouldn't work, since it would need to be words and images and thoughts which the person spontaneously and genuinely thinks during their interaction with me.[/quote]

In other words, you can't pick up on random words. You can only tell what they're thinking when they are very emotional, and you know what emotion they are feeling.

EMPATHY.