Cold reading

bipedalhumanoid

In my opinion, there are two kinds of psychics. Deluded ones and charlatains.

If you want to learn more about how they do what they do, have a read of this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading

Cold reading is the oldest trick in the book. Some 'psychics' honestly don't know they are doing it, others know exactly what they are doing.

Don't be a sucker, don't give them your money.

Oryx

Ive moved your post from the psychics and mediums forum to here. Please read the relevant charter of each forum to understand what is, and isnt allowed there.

Major Lovechild

Opinions are allowed of course.

maccored

of course. Its a pity though this forum cant seem to talk about anything else but fake mediums though.

bipedalhumanoid

maccored wrote: »

of course. Its a pity though this forum cant seem to talk about anything else but fake mediums though.

What other kind is there?

maccored

just call it the fake medium forum and be done with it. Ye's dont seem to discuss anything else. where all the skeptic threads, or threads with alternative explanations for apparent paranormal activity? Im assuming 'skeptic' in this case refers to those sceptical of the paranormal and not just mediums?

bipedalhumanoid

maccored wrote: »

just call it the fake medium forum and be done with it. Ye's dont seem to discuss anything else. where all the skeptic threads, or threads with alternative explanations for apparent paranormal activity? Im assuming 'skeptic' in this case refers to those sceptical of the paranormal and not just mediums?

Well actually, maccored, I didn't even post this thread in this forum. This was a simple comment made to an existing thread in the psychic forum. Apparently members of that forum can't handle even the mildest of discenting opinion, to the extent that a moderator felt the need to move my comment into a new thread here where the credulites wouldn't see it.

And actually, maccored, the word 'skeptic' refers to those who form beliefs about reality based on the principles of scientific scepticism.

BTW, how could you have an 'alternative explanation' for paranormal activity. Surely the claim of paranormal activity IS the alternative explanation. Just not a very good one.

Oryx

maccored, if you have a problem with the content of the forum you can do two things.

Post content you want discussed.
Bring it up in the feedback thread.

bipedalhumanoid, your post was off topic in the thread where it was posted, so it was moved.

If either of you have any comments on moderation etc, there are the proper places to do it. (PM and feedback).

maccored

Skeptic has a much broader meaning than that. Still, stick to mediums I suppose since it's an easier thing to slag off.

If you cant think of any 'alternative explanation' that means there is none. obviously. :rolleyes:

maccored

Oryx wrote: »

maccored, if you have a problem with the content of the forum you can do two things.

Post content you want discussed.
Bring it up in the feedback thread.

I think ive done both in the past. the general vibe is sceptism = cynicism, or else its just handier taking the piss out of mediums rather tna trying to help understand things like evps, or how environmental factors can affect us. It seems much easier to just berate mediums and call it being 'skeptical'. Pretty fecken boring.

Oryx

maccored wrote: »

I think ive done both in the past. the general vibe is sceptism = cynicism, or else its just handier taking the piss out of mediums rather tna trying to help understand things like evps, or how environmental factors can affect us. It seems much easier to just berate mediums and call it being 'skeptical'. Pretty fecken boring.

I promise you I get tired of it too. But if thats what appears here mostly, then its a popular topic. If other things dont then they arent so popular. But I dont agree with you that it is the only thing mentioned in this forum.

Anyway. Back to cold reading.

Major Lovechild

Indeed. Cold reading can be quite a lucrative business.

Oryx

Major Lovechild wrote: »

Indeed. Cold reading can be quite a lucrative business.

Why, have you learned to do it?

bipedalhumanoid

Oryx wrote: »

bipedalhumanoid, your post was off topic in the thread where it was posted, so it was moved.

The topic was psychic recommendations. I gave reason as to why perhaps none of them are worth recommending. How is that off topic?

bipedalhumanoid

maccored wrote: »

Skeptic has a much broader meaning than that.

And yet your previous definition was far narrower than mine.

maccored wrote: »

If you cant think of any 'alternative explanation' that means there is none. obviously. :rolleyes:

That's called an argument from ignorance. Try thinking about that for a few more seconds.

You suggested that if I personally can't come up with an alternative explanation for something, an alternative explanation to that presented must not exist?
How about the option of there being an explanation and me not knowing what that explanation is? Or even there being an alternative explanation and NOBODY knowing what that is?

For someone so very opinionated in the topic of skepticism, you seem to know very little about it. You can start by googling 'burden of proof'. Then explain to me why it's up to me or anyone else to disprove the claims of others.

If you have good reason to claim the existence of anything relating to the supernatural, you should be able present your evidence... might be a tad more productive than your current hissy fit over topics.

Oryx

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

The topic was psychic recommendations. I gave reason as to why perhaps none of them are worth recommending. How is that off topic?

The post was a skeptical comment in a thread dedicated to 'rate the best psychic you know', a thread where posts should do just that. Yours didnt.

bipedalhumanoid

Apparently this thread is not moderated quite as vociferously as those in the psychic/medium forum. So lets get back to the moderator created topic of 'cold reading'.

We're all aware of how vulnerable people are taken in by cold readers, but we've all probably come accross not so vulnerable, and in some cases, reasonable people who do fall for this parlour trick.

One of the main reasons that some quite reasonable people are lead to believe in the existence of psychic phenomena, as a result of being exposed to cold reading, is that they are not aware of the alternative explanations.
The question is, given the enormous amount of information out there, how can this happen?

Well It's quite simple. The media very rarely voice the skeptical opinion.

There are a number of reasons for this...

1) Woo woo is lucritive. The business of scamming people out of money is not only lucritive to the charlatains who partake in it, but also to the book publishers and media. Watch the little disclaimer at the beginning of the late late show this friday... the one warning you about 'product placement' and you will begin to understand why they prefer not to invite Irish Skeptics on the show to coincide with the latest psychic medium book launch.

2) No balance required. This kind of woo woo, like religion, is classified as a 'faith issue' by the media. Because of this, the normal rules of balance in journalism don't apply. They therefore can get away with not providing balance. Even in the scarce cases where skeptics are involved in such interviews, they very rarely get equal time.
This doesn't work both ways either. If a skeptic happens to be the primary interviewee, it happens occassionally, like when Richard Dawkins is interviewed for instance, you find them jumping over themselves to provide 'balance'.

3) Woo woo is protected from discenting opinion. I can think of a single exception to the above, and that was Pat Kenny's radio interview of Tom Higgins (founder of Irish Psychics Live). Pat provided a balanced interview by playing devil's advocate. Of course Higgins took that straight to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission who actually upheld his complaint!
Other examples of this include internet forums that have special places, such as Skeptics corner, to protect the true believers from any discenting opinion.

The information is out there, the problem is a lack of awareness and those who seek to protected their vested interests. The biggest losers of course are the vulnerable people in our society.

Oryx

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

Apparently this thread is not moderated quite as vociferously as those in the psychic/medium forum. So lets get back to the moderator created topic of 'cold reading'.

This is skeptics. Different rules apply.

One of the main reasons that some quite reasonable people are lead to believe in the existence of psychic phenomena, as a result of being exposed to cold reading, is that they are not aware of the alternative explanations.
The question is, given the enormous amount of information out there, how can this happen?

Search the forum. A plethora of explanations exist within it, for all kinds of phenomena. (Paradolia, cryptozoology, chinese lanterns ) Negative opinion on psychics is allowed, within the boundaries of defamation law etc. The key thing being both sides are allowed a voice. For the sake of peace and allowing the believers room to communicate about their interests without being drowned out by skepticism, the psychics and mediums forum is moderated more stringently than here.

With regards to your other points, we are A media but not THE media. Boards.ie has its own rules for its own reasons. Neither I nor anyone else around here has an agenda about what does or does not get posted. Its all about keeping the peace.

I do disagree about 'woo woo' being protected from dissent in the media. By and large its seen as a joke, entertainment, or a scam. That is the majority perception, imo.

I think it is a good thing to educate about cold reading, btw.

Major Lovechild

Oryx wrote: »

Why, have you learned to do it?

Of course.

(waves hand) This is not the bike you are looking for.

Oryx

Major Lovechild wrote: »

Of course.

(waves hand) This is not the bike you are looking for.

What?

Riamfada

Could I get a cold reading? Seriously.

Dave!

Just drop into any medium, mate

Major Lovechild

Oryx wrote: »

What?

They travel in single file - to hide their numbers

Package

i think all staunch skeptics should go and get a reading from an actual reputable medium BEFORE they make decissions on things.

after all, if you put tesco brand oil into your car and it wrecks the engine, would you go around saying,, "all engine oil is crap, doesnt work, end of"

or

would you say, "i used tesco engine oil and it wrecked my engine, does anyone have any better ideas? what oil wont wreck an engine?"

Dave!

Package wrote: »

i think all staunch skeptics should go and get a reading from an actual reputable medium BEFORE they make decissions on things.

after all, if you put tesco brand oil into your car and it wrecks the engine, would you go around saying,, "all engine oil is crap, doesnt work, end of"

or

would you say, "i used tesco engine oil and it wrecked my engine, does anyone have any better ideas? what oil wont wreck an engine?"

Who's a 'reputable' medium though? If I name some well-known and high-profile mediums like Sylvia Browne or Derreck Acorah, everybody in the Paranormal forum will scoff. But the oul wan who lives around the corner is apparently deserving of respect! But you can bet your arse that the Sylvia Brownes and Derreck Acorahs of this world have a huge number of people who believe them, and who claim that they are accurate.

It's misguided snobbery IMO.

Cold reading can give a person the impression that they're getting an accurate reading too. Derren Brown gives 'readings', and usually gets a high rating for accuracy, yet he knows he has no magical powers.

Onthe3rdDay

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

3) Woo woo is protected from discenting opinion. I can think of a single exception to the above, and that was Pat Kenny's radio interview of Tom Higgins (founder of Irish Psychics Live). Pat provided a balanced interview by playing devil's advocate. Of course Higgins took that straight to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission who actually upheld his complaint!
Other examples of this include internet forums that have special places, such as Skeptics corner, to protect the true believers from any discenting opinion.

Not in any way defending Tom Higgins but that was a very poor interview overall. (The BCI agrees with me!) At one point Pat was going on about parking spaces outside of RTE.

Package

Dave! wrote: »

Who's a 'reputable' medium though? If I name some well-known and high-profile mediums like Sylvia Browne or Derreck Acorah,

Derren Brown gives 'readings', and usually gets a high rating for accuracy, yet he knows he has no magical powers.

derek acorah is a twat, and he has put on the act in the past, but that doesnt take away from his talent, id kill for a readin off him, because i firmly believe he has amazing mediumistic powers, that doesnt mean ive got to like his style or think every reading he does for tv ratings is real.

derren brown ? ah come on,, derren is a mind genius no doubt, is his "debunking a psychic" programme, derren did a bit of cold reading yes, but he didnt attempt to bring "messages" from deceased loved ones, nor did he mention names or dates or places or any messages that i would consider of a personal nature, the same way a medium would.

also,, the twat that the prgramme focused on is NOT a reputable psychic, he is a joke, why didnt Derren apraoach GOOD psychics like Derek, or Tony Stockwell or Tj Higgs? because that would prove to be hard work for Derren and he can hardly have a show which is purposely set to proove mediums are fraud if they used actual mediums can he?

Major Lovechild

Derek, like Sylvia Browne, is a liar and a fraud - so please don't waste your money.

bipedalhumanoid

Package wrote: »

i think all staunch skeptics should go and get a reading from an actual reputable medium BEFORE they make decissions on things.

after all, if you put tesco brand oil into your car and it wrecks the engine, would you go around saying,, "all engine oil is crap, doesnt work, end of"

or

would you say, "i used tesco engine oil and it wrecked my engine, does anyone have any better ideas? what oil wont wreck an engine?"

Why? So when we come back and report, €100 lighter, you can tell us that the medium we saw was not one of the reputable ones?

I think the staunch woo woo supporters should take a tape recorder into their next session with a reputable medium. During the session they should remain silent. If the medium is getting information from dead people, they shouldn't need information from you.

After the session try evaluating it objectively by listening to the audio and count the hits and misses.

Then present us with the evidence. Nobody likes to think they've fallen for a trick, but we're all susceptable to confirmation bias, which is exactly what cold readers rely on.

Package

well for a start, nobody should pay 100e for a reading. Linda Green is one of the best ive ever seen, and she only charges 50 euro for a full 30 minute reading, during which she will tell you names, dates, places, personal info and memories that only you and a select few would know.. you find me a cold reader to say more than

have you been feeling a bit ill in the last few weeks.
are you shy around new people
you are a great person and people like to be close to you
have you lost someone you love in the last few years.

find one to say

i have your aunt jennifer here, she tells me she died suddenly of a heart attack, she said she has met up with old mary with the wooden leg here.

ect.

ive never know derren brown to come up with actual personal info.

besides that. proper mediums will ask you NOT TO FEED THE MEDIUM. ok, some may ask to elaborate on the answer, such as

why is he telling me about an old green bike which only had one wheel?

thats hardly cold reading now is it

Dave!

I can tell you that a good cold reader will leave you thinking that they gave all that specific information, when in reality they said something vague, general or ambiguous, and you filled in the details in your head. Go to a new medium and record it and then listen back to what was actually said by both parties.

WildOscar

Package wrote: »

some may ask to elaborate on the answer, such as

why is he telling me about an old green bike which only had one wheel?

thats hardly cold reading now is it

it is - it is fishing for the next thing to say. the answer to "why is he telling me about an old green bike which only had one wheel?" will tell them what way to go. the right answer would be "you are the medium you tell me"

Package

WildOscar wrote: »

it is - it is fishing for the next thing to say. the answer to "why is he telling me about an old green bike which only had one wheel?" will tell them what way to go. the right answer would be "you are the medium you tell me"

well not really,, a medium cannot get everybit of information. contrary to popular belief a medium does not have a clear cut conversation going with the dead like ghost whisperer. some of us get feelings and have to make sense of them, some of us faintly hear things , some of us get a picture in our head and some pick up random pieces of information.

random pieces of information are soely to make the reader believe that the reader is actually gettin his information from the spirit, it is not specifically a message.

after all, how many people actually had an old green bike with only one wheel? info like this is basically saying "if i didnt have your aunt joan here, how would i know about the bike, or about the doll you got off janet next door with one eye missing " . you dont nessacerly have to get all the information on the bike itself,, its merely to prove existance, the personal messages follows

WildOscar

Package wrote: »

well not really,, a medium cannot get everybit of information. contrary to popular belief a medium does not have a clear cut conversation going with the dead like ghost whisperer. some of us get feelings and have to make sense of them, some of us faintly hear things , some of us get a picture in our head and some pick up random pieces of information.

random pieces of information are soely to make the reader believe that the reader is actually gettin his information from the spirit, it is not specifically a message.

after all, how many people actually had an old green bike with only one wheel? info like this is basically saying "if i didnt have your aunt joan here, how would i know about the bike, or about the doll you got off janet next door with one eye missing " . you dont nessacerly have to get all the information on the bike itself,, its merely to prove existance, the personal messages follows

so you are one? If you give me a reading i will make a donation of 20 euro to any charity you name if i consider it accurate.and not cold reading. since it is online you will not be able to ask any questions about what means what

how many people actually had an old green bike with only one wheel?

probably many and if not exactly that the description is usually s.. t..r.etched until it fits what the person did have

random pieces of information are soely to make the reader believe that the reader is actually gettin his information from the spirit, it is not specifically a message.

anyone can give random pieces of info

Dave!

WildOscar wrote: »

probably many and if not exactly that the description is usually s.. t..r.etched until it fits what the person did have

Exactly. Imagine you said "I don't know anything about a green bike", what would the medium say do you suppose? "Oh okay, I guess I just pulled that out of my arse"?

No my guess is that her next sentence would be "okay maybe it wasn't green, but you had a bike right? With one wheel?"
"No it had two wheels"
"Exactly -- well the person is telling me to remind you about the bike"
"Aww..."


Or else if you said "Nah I never had a bike", it'd be followed by "okay maybe it wasn't a bike, but the colour green is coming through quite strongly here", and there could be many hits there, or if they're really clutching they might go "green is representative of jealousy -- would you have been a bit jealous of this person?", and off they go in another direction.

If all else fails, they might just say "Okay well the person is telling me about a green bike with 1 wheel, so be on the lookout for that", and then something that completely missed is transformed into a cryptic message and still counts as a hit. Then they move onto the next thing, and if you haven't accepted that crap about the bike as being accurate, then they will at least have neutralized it, and you'll have forgotten about it because the next message will be slightly more accurate.

They just roll with the punches, and sometimes they get lucky and get a really accurate hit, sometimes they have to force it a bit, sometimes they completely miss and they have to make you think that they didn't, and then sometimes they can't cover up a miss, so they just have to make you forget about it.

Package

WildOscar wrote: »

so you are one? If you give me a reading i will make a donation of 20 euro to any charity you name

im not good enough to consider myself a reputable psychic, but then again, not many would take you up on your offer of donating IF THEY CAN PROVE THEMSELVE. See, mediums are not here to prove themselve, they are here to pass messages to those who need or want them.

WildOscar wrote: »

anyone can give random pieces of info

ok soo, YOU give ME a completely random piece of info which can specifically fit to me ?

Dave! wrote: »

Exactly. Imagine you said "I don't know anything about a green bike", what would the medium say do you suppose? "Oh okay, I guess I just pulled that out of my arse"?

fair enough some message that come through can not be immediatly picked up by the person recieving the reading, there is a thing called psychic amnesia, where when ya go home and remember,, OH YEAH, the green bike. or you mention it to someone "here,, the girl mentioned a green bike with one wheel" and ther person you tell could say "yeah your uncle james had a green bike with one wheel.

so tell me,, have either of you ever got a personal reading? were you recommended to that person?

Dave!

People always ask this for some reason...

No I've never gotten a personal reading. I don't think it's necessary to have gotten one to be able to say that the idea of mediums is completely implausible on many levels, there's no evidence that they can do what they claim, and there's a known technique for achieving the same results without needing to invoke the supernatural.

Package

Dave! wrote: »

People always ask this for some reason...

No I've never gotten a personal reading. I don't think it's necessary to have gotten one to be able to say that the idea of mediums is completely implausible on many levels, there's no evidence that they can do what they claim, and there's a known technique for achieving the same results without needing to invoke the supernatural.

the known tecnique being cold reading? nah i dont think so,, cold reading is a skeptics excuse for being afraid to let go of their prejudice and maybe be afraid that if they did go to a medium , they may have to say they were wrong.

so tell me dave,,, have you ever seen, say, Tony Stockwell or Tj Higgs or Colin Fry or John Edward on TV or anything? surely you dont think they are all cold reading? surely if you watch any of them and the personal info they give reading after reading is "just lucky hits" ?

Oryx

Dave, Heard a medium begin a reading with the statement (to 13 people) that he had a grandma who used to swim in competition, and one person understood that. Now, I think thats a damn impressive thing to try as a 'guess'. Coulda been luck, sure, but if he wanted to do a safe bet cold reading he sure was making it tricky for himself. And I do think it is very unfair to make all the judgements you do without having even seen a demo. Which is usually free in spiritualist centres.

Package

Dave! wrote: »

People always ask this for some reason...

No I've never gotten a personal reading. I don't think it's necessary to have gotten one to be able to say that the idea of mediums is completely implausible on many levels

well, the reason peope always ask IS, i used to have a friend who used to think rollercoasters were ****, yet he had never been on one.

so do you believe in ANYTHING that has never been proven?

Major Lovechild

A good cold reader will give an individual somethings they want to hear.
To an audience - he will give them everything.

Once the mob is convinced.... profit/prophet!

I'm sorry if it hurts but it's fact.

Major Lovechild

Oryx wrote: »

Dave, Heard a medium begin a reading with the statement (to 13 people) that he had a grandma who used to swim in competition, and one person understood that. Now, I think thats a damn impressive thing to try as a 'guess'. Coulda been luck, sure, but if he wanted to do a safe bet cold reading he sure was making it tricky for himself. And I do think it is very unfair to make all the judgements you do without having even seen a demo. Which is usually free in spiritualist centres.

"Dave, Heard a medium begin a reading with the statement (to 13 people) that he had a grandma who used to swim in competition, and one person understood that."
????????? Shocking!

All starter packs are free. The scientologists have made an art out of it.

Dave!

Package wrote: »

the known tecnique being cold reading? nah i dont think so,, cold reading is a skeptics excuse for being afraid to let go of their prejudice and maybe be afraid that if they did go to a medium , they may have to say they were wrong.

so tell me dave,,, have you ever seen, say, Tony Stockwell or Tj Higgs or Colin Fry or John Edward on TV or anything? surely you dont think they are all cold reading? surely if you watch any of them and the personal info they give reading after reading is "just lucky hits" ?

Ahh come on, it's one thing believing the mediums who sit there face-to-face and trick you with cold reading, but you're not skeptical about TV mediums who have the benefit of being able to edit what makes it onto the finished show?

I suggest you have a read of this to get a bit of insight into how those shows work.

Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, had no preconceived notions about Edward but experienced what he is convinced was a "hot reading"--a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance. Given an extra ticket by family members hoping to hear from his deceased grandfather, O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather.

While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known.

It was not until weeks after the performance, when O'Neill saw the show on TV, that he began to suspect chicanery. Clips of him nodding yes had been spliced into the videotape after statements with which he remembers disagreeing. In addition, says O'Neill, most of Edward's "misses," both on him and other audience members, had been edited out of the final tape.

Now suspicious, O'Neill recalled that while the audience was waiting to be seated, Edward's aides were scurrying about, striking up conversations and getting people to fill out cards with their name, family tree and other facts. Once inside the auditorium, where each family was directed to preassigned seats, more than an hour passed before show time while "technical difficulties" backstage were corrected.

And what did most of the audience--drawn by the prospect of communicating with their departed relatives--talk about during the delays? Those departed relatives, of course. These conversations, O'Neill suspects, may have been picked up by the microphones strategically placed around the auditorium and then passed on to the medium. (A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism.)

Another article here, should give you an appreciation of the kind of editing they do.

This is what aired on the show:

Van Praagh: You were saved by someone. A car thing, or something where you were . . .

Woman: We actually had a car accident four months after my husband died. And we were in a very bad collision.

Van Praagh: You almost died, honey. Because I'm being told by your husband that you were saved, Ok?

And here's what actually happened:

Van Praagh: You almost died, honey. Because I'm being told by your husband that you were spared, you were saved, Ok? You were saved, all right? And I know (3). . . something about Jesus here, Ok? Saved with Jesus, or something about Jesus, and if you believe in Jesus, or a religious element. And I don't know, maybe a church with the name Jesus in it? Or there is something about Jesus. Or there’s . . .

Woman (interrupting): Well, we're Jewish! (Big laugh from the audience.)

You'd probably also have been impressed by Uri Gellar, whose career was (albeit only temporarily, such is the audacity of these people :rolleyes: ) destroyed when he was exposed by James Randi and others:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo

Oryx wrote: »

Dave, Heard a medium begin a reading with the statement (to 13 people) that he had a grandma who used to swim in competition, and one person understood that. Now, I think thats a damn impressive thing to try as a 'guess'. Coulda been luck, sure, but if he wanted to do a safe bet cold reading he sure was making it tricky for himself. And I do think it is very unfair to make all the judgements you do without having even seen a demo. Which is usually free in spiritualist centres.

Did he say grandmother, or did he say relative? Do you remember? It certainly broadens the field if it was the latter, but if it were the former then it's a pretty specific claim alright, which leads me to think that he picked it up by other means. For example (as is common for mediums to do), he might have been listening in while people were chatting amongst themselves before the show started. What are the chances that people would be chatting about the deceased relative that they're hoping to contact, at a group reading with other people looking to do the same thing?

I've seen plenty of videos of psychic readings, I don't need to attend one myself to get an idea of what's at play.

Package wrote: »

well, the reason peope always ask IS, i used to have a friend who used to think rollercoasters were ****, yet he had never been on one.

so do you believe in ANYTHING that has never been proven?

Not quite the same thing with rollercoasters, of course that's a silly thing to say since it's a subjective opinion, so you have to actually experience it to form one. Mediums being real is an objective claim about the universe, and there are plenty of reasons to doubt them without ever sitting down with one.

Package

Dave! wrote: »

Ahh come on, it's one thing believing the mediums who sit there face-to-face and trick you with cold reading, but you're not skeptical about TV mediums who have the benefit of being able to edit what makes it onto the finished show?

and yet you dont believe these because you think that they are edited? where is the proof to say they are edited, go to a medium and make YOUR OWN mind up.

Dave! wrote: »

This is what aired on the show:


And here's what actually happened:

yes of course EVERYBODY believes what skeptics say about mediums, same way everybody believes what believers say about mediums?

Dave! wrote: »

You'd probably also have been impressed by Uri Gellar,.

nope,, URI gellar claimed to have parapsycholical powers that aliens gave him, he is hardly to be put in the same mindset as john Edward

Dave! wrote: »

I've seen plenty of videos of psychic readings, I don't need to attend one myself to get an idea of what's at play.

i think to make an actual REAL/NON REAL statement yes i think you do need to go and see one for yourself, skeptics will be skeptics till the death unless experienced in the first. there is always the doubt on TV shows, yeah they were planted, there were hidden mikes.. ect

my own father was one, he never believed. he always said it was "S.HIT" untill he went to see one one day and i quote " I went in thinking he will never know anything, and i said to myself, i will say the wrong names and dates in my head so he cannot mind read", my father is now a believe after ONE reading.

i urge you,, go get a reading, not off Joey at number 26, if you want a GOOD ,, no,, GREAT reading,,just ask and you wont be steered wrong. nobody will judge you if you have to say you were wrong

Dave!

Package wrote: »

and yet you dont believe these because you think that they are edited? where is the proof to say they are edited, go to a medium and make YOUR OWN mind up.

yes of course EVERYBODY believes what skeptics say about mediums, same way everybody believes what believers say about mediums?

It's a TV show and it's not broadcast live or in one continuous shot, that's my proof that it's edited.

The person being quoted in the TIME (a mainstream publication, hardly what you'd consider hardcore skeptical literature) article is not a skeptic, they attended the event to communicate with a deceased relative.

Package wrote: »

nope,, URI gellar claimed to have parapsycholical powers that aliens gave him, he is hardly to be put in the same mindset as john Edward

Yeah cos that story is outlandish, but plain old communicating with the dead? That's totally plausible!

Package wrote: »

i think to make an actual REAL/NON REAL statement yes i think you do need to go and see one for yourself, skeptics will be skeptics till the death unless experienced in the first. there is always the doubt on TV shows, yeah they were planted, there were hidden mikes.. ect

my own father was one, he never believed. he always said it was "S.HIT" untill he went to see one one day and i quote " I went in thinking he will never know anything, and i said to myself, i will say the wrong names and dates in my head so he cannot mind read", my father is now a believe after ONE reading.

"I will say the wrong names and dates in my head so he cannot mind read"

Yeah he sounds like a real skeptic, taking steps to avoid having his mind read! :eek:

I'll bet if your father was armed with an understanding of cold reading techniques then he would have found his reading a bit less compelling.

Package wrote: »

i urge you,, go get a reading, not off Joey at number 26, if you want a GOOD ,, no,, GREAT reading,,just ask and you wont be steered wrong. nobody will judge you if you have to say you were wrong

And if it turns out to be a bad reading, then I'm sure you'd be saying that it was a bad fit, sometimes a medium and a sitter don't click, or maybe they just had a bad day, or maybe my skepticism was blocking the reading right? Cos the spirits don't just not show up, but rather actively give false or inaccurate information to the medium if the sitter is a skeptic. That's how spirits roll.

Oryx

Dave, he said grandma. Not relative, Im very sure. Im also sure he wasnt hot reading. If you want full details I would be happy to share by pm. Contrary to what some posters here think, I dont fall for any old bs, this incident was one of the ones that struck me as convincing.

Oryx

Major Lovechild wrote: »

"Dave, Heard a medium begin a reading with the statement (to 13 people) that he had a grandma who used to swim in competition, and one person understood that."
????????? Shocking!

All starter packs are free. The scientologists have made an art out of it.

Your hostility is clear but unwarranted. When you decide to actually listen instead of just looking for your next smart comment you night actually contribute something.

Package

Dave! wrote: »

It's a TV show and it's not broadcast live or in one continuous shot, that's my proof that it's edited.

ok, im sure you know i meant cleverly edited to make it look like a medium was getting things RIGHT instead of WRONG

Dave! wrote: »

Yeah cos that story is outlandish, but plain old communicating with the dead? That's totally plausible!

i never said it was outlandinsh, i have no idea if there are such things as aliens (although if you read some previously unreleaased and protected literature on the american government and UFO you may consider it a good read), and i have no idea if they can dish out powers of ESP but what i said was that Uri Geller is not the same as John edward although they are both connected to the world of parapsychology, the same way Steve Davis is not the same as Eric Cantona although they are both sportsmen.

Dave! wrote: »

Yeah he sounds like a real skeptic, taking steps to avoid having his mind read! :eek:

since when is mind reading the same as being a medium?

Dave! wrote: »

And if it turns out to be a bad reading, then I'm sure you'd be saying that it was a bad fit, sometimes a medium and a sitter don't click, or maybe they just had a bad day, or maybe my skepticism was blocking the reading right? Cos the spirits don't just not show up, but rather actively give false or inaccurate information to the medium if the sitter is a skeptic. That's how spirits roll.

if i thought that you werent such a relentless skeptic and would actually admit you were wrong if you had a good reading i would almost pay for a reading for you . actually.

heres one, anyone reading this if you would like to sponser a reading for dave, we get as many people as wants to partake and split the cost between us.. you in dave?

Dave!

Oryx wrote: »

Dave, he said grandma. Not relative, Im very sure. Im also sure he wasnt hot reading. If you want full details I would be happy to share by pm. Contrary to what some posters here think, I dont fall for any old bs, this incident was one of the ones that struck me as convincing.

Then ockam's razor would suggest that it was a lucky guess right? Did he give any more specific information? Did the grandmother swim in school? University? The Olympics?

Also, have you verified that the person in the group wasn't at one of his shows before?

You can safely rule out foul-play, like say, a plant being in the group chatting to people before the show, and then sending a simple text to the medium saying "grandmother was competetive swimmer", and then once he gets a hit with that cold reading can take over?

There are many ways that they could have gotten the information, without even having to invoke the possibility that they just got a lucky guess (I'm sure they had plenty of misses during the show, but you don't remember or care about them)

Package wrote: »

ok, im sure you know i meant cleverly edited to make it look like a medium was getting things RIGHT instead of WRONG

I already posted an article, and you don't value it because it's skeptical.

If your phenomenon doesn't stand up to skeptical scrutiny, then there's probably nothing of interest going on.

Package wrote: »

i never said it was outlandinsh, i have no idea if there are such things as aliens (although if you read some previously unreleaased and protected literature on the american government and UFO you may consider it a good read), and i have no idea if they can dish out powers of ESP but what i said was that Uri Geller is not the same as John edward although they are both connected to the world of parapsychology, the same way Steve Davis is not the same as Eric Cantona although they are both sportsmen.

Doesn't matter, one's as believable as the other.

Package wrote: »

since when is mind reading the same as being a medium?

The point is that mind reading is another unproven phenomenon, so if your dad believes that's possible then he's hardly a skeptic, and it's not much of a leap to believe mediums are honest.

Package wrote: »

if i thought that you werent such a relentless skeptic and would actually admit you were wrong if you had a good reading i would almost pay for a reading for you . actually.

heres one, anyone reading this if you would like to sponser a reading for dave, we get as many people as wants to partake and split the cost between us.. you in dave?

No thanks, as I said before I don't think it's necessary to sit down with one to think that they're spoofers. I'm sure I'll go to one some day for a laugh or out of curiosity, but I won't require any help from you, thanks.

Package

Dave! wrote: »

No thanks, as I said before I don't think it's necessary to sit down with one to think that they're spoofers. I'm sure I'll go to one some day for a laugh or out of curiosity, but I won't require any help from you, thanks.

typical "IM RIGHT AND YOUR WRoNG" attitude.

if i firmly didnt believe in something and someone said here, lets do something different and maybe it will dispell that believe,, id say,, hell yeah lets do it.

but of coarse if your not even willing to give it a ago then i suppose this converstaion is over.

bipedalhumanoid

Dave! wrote: »

No thanks, as I said before I don't think it's necessary to sit down with one to think that they're spoofers. I'm sure I'll go to one some day for a laugh or out of curiosity, but I won't require any help from you, thanks.

I'd even go as far as to say it's a completely pointless exercise.

The reason there are people telling us to go visit a medium is down to the fact that THEY were convinced of this 'phenomena' by visiting a medium.

I've seen many magic tricks performed by magicians that left me baffled, I didn't make the giant leap to assume a supernatural explanation. So why would it be any different with a medium?

Best case scenario, I leave the medium baffled about how they managed to do whatever they did. It wouldn't qualify as evidence of anything. The difference between a skeptic and a believer is down to the fact that a skeptic knows that.

The only tests that matter are those conducted in proper scientific conditions. To date not a single psychic or medium has passed such a test (with the exception of those later proven to be flawed).