A simple credibility question

[Michel H]

Let's assume some individual, say A, conducts from time to time telepathy tests with other persons. In these tests, he (assuming this person is a male) is always the "sender"; during his experiments, he focuses on integral numbers (ranging, say, from 1 to 5 inclusive), views them several times and repeats them silently (with his "inner voice"), attempting to communicate them to his current partner. All precautionary measures are assumed to have been taken to make sure there is no sensory leak, e. g. there is a suitable screen between A and his partners, his partners are too far to be able to see and identify the number through visual perception, and so on.

A has received in particular two answers.

Answer 1:
I have really no idea what your number is. Nonetheless, I answer "3", but I warn you this is a completely random choice.

Answer 2:
In this answer, the other person seems to take A's test more seriously. She/he says:
I believe it's a 2, I think I saw it briefly like on my "mental screen" (like in a dream). I also feel I "heard it", but with an impoverished, depleted sound, not a sound with all the harmonics and richness that you usually perceive when you listen to a sound propagating in the air, with your ears (provided you have a good sense of hearing, of course).

Now my question is: which (numerical) answer seems more credible to you? The first one (3), or the second one (2)? Note that I am not asking here which answer (in the sense of "set of words") is more credible, but, rather, which numerical answer is more credible, taking the words into account.

I ask this question because I've found that assessing credibilities was an important aspect in the online telepathy tests I've been doing.

[Honeybee]

I think they are both credible in their own way, sometimes precog can be easy or it can take more work and concentration, if the connection between the sender and receiver is strong, then it might be easier

I don't have much experience with precog tests so I'm interested to hear any other theories

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Honeybee

I think they are both credible in their own way, sometimes precog can be easy or it can take more work and concentration, if the connection between the sender and receiver is strong, then it might be easier

I don't have much experience with precog tests so I'm interested to hear any other theories

Thank you for your reply, Honeybee. Note though that I was talking about telepathy tests (telepathy is like a mental radio and is the only parapsychological or ESP phenomenon that's real as far as I know), not precognition.
Are you sure the first answer (3) was reliable? Let's assume you are sick and go see a doctor; after a brief conversation he gives you a diagnosis for your condition, but adds: "Actually, this diagnosis is completely random from my Medicine book, it has nothing to do with your symptoms whatsoever". Would you trust such a doctor "like any other doctor" ?

[gravitysrainbow]

Maybe neither answer is reliable. Just a personal opinion, but the "What number am I thinking of" game has no real life application. My belief is that if a person is a credible telepath, they don't need to prove it by guessing numbers. In my experience as a beginner, it's not a black and white situation when receiving telepathic information. At least for me, when receiving information, it starts as an intuition. I take what comes to me with a grain of salt and don't know for sure until I have evidence afterwards that I've heard someone's thoughts. But that's just me! Hope this answer is helpful.