Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[CFLarsen]

So it still does not convince me that Altea-like hits are due to cold reading only. I think fraud has to be called over this as a more tenable explanation.

Why are you so dead-against cold reading for a "hit" that wasn't really a hit?

Think about it. If it had been a set-up, why didn't Altea simply say "He also planted a rosebush for the sister"?

That's one hell of a hit - yet, Altea has to rely on the caller to make the connection.

Is it because such a hit would be too obvious a fraud or something?

 

[omegablue]

Hey lets not forget the hot reading, like when Popoff was useing that radio that randi caught him doing hot readings on his audiance.

Sitting with a chick like Kari sure could be classified as hot-reading also, indeeeeed.

 

[omegablue]

Why are you so dead-against cold reading for a "hit" that wasn't really a hit?

Think about it. If it had been a set-up, why didn't Altea simply say "He also planted a rosebush for the sister"?

That's one hell of a hit - yet, Altea has to rely on the caller to make the connection.

Is it because such a hit would be too obvious a fraud or something?

Holy! A good argument and you did not flame me!!

I do not know Altea very well, nor her most "successful readings". I mean the most staggering hits, or "hits" if you will. It may well be that the example that I brought up was not one of the best of her readings. But I chose to concentrate on this one because I recently watched this episode. That´s a really nice point you mention that if it was fraud, then probably they would set it up for Altea producing a even bigger hit like, "he is saying to me that the nickname he used to call you when you were from the age of 5 to 7 was "hoochie-coochie-coochie-cookie-kitty" and he coined that nickname while sitting with you by starlight under your favourite apple-tree called "Nancy" at 22:43 on May 1st 1986". That argument of yours, I admit pretty much can be used to rule out fraud as it was an average hit compared to the one I mentioned as example. But in fact if I had to advocate further in favor of choosing fraud over cold-reading I would still be able to come up with something that could be a possibility in support of fraud. But as I think this is a generally nice argument (yours) let´s stay with it for now.

So, fraud is out, what is the rest? Cold-reading! Hmmm...Still the issue of the 2 rosebushes. How could she have come with that if the caller was already amazed by her hit. What she could benefit for saying: "wait wait wait, he´s telling me 2 and not one."? Altea if a con artist would not be so stupid like this, ruining her own apparent hit right in front of James Randi, the bane of paranormal fraud. Does it make sense for you? Let´s see it before going to the other propositions of mine.

 

[CFLarsen]

Holy! A good argument and you did not flame me!!

I do not know Altea very well, nor her most "successful readings". I mean the most staggering hits, or "hits" if you will. It may well be that the example that I brought up was not one of the best of her readings. But I chose to concentrate on this one because I recently watched this episode. That´s a really nice point you mention that if it was fraud, then probably they would set it up for Altea producing a even bigger hit like, "he is saying to me that the nickname he used to call you when you were from the age of 5 to 7 was "hoochie-coochie-coochie-cookie-kitty" and he coined that nickname while sitting with you by starlight under your favourite apple-tree called "Nancy" at 22:43 on May 1st 1986". That argument of yours, I admit pretty much can be used to rule out fraud as it was an average hit compared to the one I mentioned as example. But in fact if I had to advocate further in favor of choosing fraud over cold-reading I would still be able to come up with something that could be a possibility in support of fraud. But as I think this is a generally nice argument (yours) let´s stay with it for now.

So, fraud is out, what is the rest? Cold-reading! Hmmm...Still the issue of the 2 rosebushes. How could she have come with that if the caller was already amazed by her hit. What she could benefit for saying: "wait wait wait, he´s telling me 2 and not one."? Altea if a con artist would not be so stupid like this, ruining her own apparent hit right in front of James Randi, the bane of paranormal fraud. Does it make sense for you? Let´s see it before going to the other propositions of mine.

So, if a hit is too accurate, that means she is a fraud??

You just made a classic, boiler-plate, believer argument.

 

[omegablue]

I didn't rely on the opinions listed by Larsen at all. I didn't read any of them before I went through my analysis of Rosemary's reading, and I only briefly scanned a few afterwards to confirm that they would provide an introduction to cold-reading for someone who was unfamiliar with it.

Yeah I´ve found that I was familiar with cold reading but not with its english name, and you two suggested the contrary, perhaps because of my doubt could have raised this certainty among you two. This is old bleep Linda, anyone knows about fraud among "mystics" using psychological artifacts. My doubt is about Altea´s hits, and Randi´s claims about this issue. Claims without demonstration are equally weak as mystical claims w/o demonstration too. Randi could have set up with King that he would try fooling the caller in order to show the public how dangerous it is trusting a "psychic". I bet Randi is more clever than me to have thought about this, and if he suggested King he would prolly accept bcuz this is what TV is all about, polemic , drama, action, excitement!! Are these reasons for raising suspicion about Randi´s certainty that he could in fact have fooled the callers with cold reading?

Every time people have analyzed complete transcripts (John Edward's shows, for example, are heavily edited) of readings from psychics, the readings are indistinguishable from cold-reading. There are several first-hand accounts of cold-reading by skeptics such as Michael Shermer and Kari Coleman. And there is much more information on the success of cold reading in Ian Rowland's "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading".

So are you saying that these provides the ultimate evidence that what in fact looks like pshychic powers are indeed cold-reading? I did not read this book and I do not know if it is about systematic and experimental testing or just more opinions and personal points raised against psi and paranormal.
I mean I would love to see evidence, with some rational and scientific bases leaving no or little room for doubts as far as it is humanly possible.

Interestingly, the same as the limits of psychic readings.

Which are? If you say skeptics does block someone from cold-reading them, this claim would be easily testable with double blind testings in which nor subjects nor readers would know what is the type of person he would meet for the playing. if they were sitting for consulting from a proclaimed cold reader or a proclaimed psychic, or if the sitters were or not believers in paranormal or skeptics.

What would you consider proof under those circumstances? Randi is essentially saying, "there's no evidence that an invisible unicorn whispered in her ear", and you're saying, "yeah, but it doesn't prove there wasn't."

No , Randi was precisely saying that this is "HOGWASH, WITH CAPITAL H" , his exact words. Randi does not leave room for doubts, he shoots his enemies right in the middle of their eyes. In other words, "They are all frauds. And if you doubt me, take up my test! Apply or disappear." Randi is indeed a funny figure.

Because the point that CJ brought up has been well demonstrated - the success depends as much on the sitter as it does on the reader. The sitter is not going to respond or subjectively evaluate the reading the same way with Randi the Debunker as they would with Rosemary the Psychic.

That´s why my proposed double blind test is all about to find out. Anyone has already done it yet? Sorry if it has already been done and I was unaware of that.

ETA: I see Garrette beat me to Kari Coleman's article.

But she did not beat you in etiquette, politeness and finesse with words. OOhh anyways is Garrette male or female?

 

[omegablue]

So, if a hit is too accurate, that means she is a fraud??

You just made a classic, boiler-plate, believer argument.

Dang man, when I think we can have a conversation you always show you can be full of ballooney.

It pretty much would leave room just for FRAUD or PARANORMAL, would not it? Or you would say that cold reading should also be able to be behind that fictional miracle I invented to exaggerate the hit. I´m speaking of the specific example we discussed above. Please stray from your rhetorical masks Larsen, have a conversation. Quit the craving for debunking games once a while please will ya?

 

[omegablue]

So, fraud is out, what is the rest? Cold-reading! Hmmm...Still the issue of the 2 rosebushes. How could she have come with that if the caller was already amazed by her hit. What she could benefit for saying: "wait wait wait, he´s telling me 2 and not one."? Altea if a con artist would not be so stupid like this, ruining her own apparent hit right in front of James Randi, the bane of paranormal fraud. Does it make sense for you? Let´s see it before going to the other propositions of mine.

Larsen I would like to read your opinion about this. Or anyone´s opinion.

 

[omegablue]

None needed. Mundane explanations need no evidence for this type of thing. It's the supernatural explanations that need to be backed by evidence. In other words, it is illogical to go with supernatural/paranormal explanations until mundane ones have been factored out. The only real way to do this is to get Rosemary Altea to take the test. Then again, she's already been caught cheating by P&T.. a fact that you keep ignoring, over and over again.

Oops didnt notice this post b4. Why mundane explanations need not evidence for this type of thing? Now you are trying to judge what needs and what needs not evidence for being took for granted? I´m on my rights to suspect cold reading cannot be ultimately behind all psychic claims because someone might have been able to fool someone with general readings somewhere. It would be quite a sloppy conclusion of mine. I´m not going with paranormal explanations....just precisely because the normal explanations, such as cold reading has not been factored out. It might well be behind it, but no evidence other than opinions or anecdotal tarot fooling episodes were presented to me. Is this Penn And Teller episode of yours constitute in any scientific evidence for cold reading being behind psychic reading claims? Ah come on, it is so easy to do. Tell me that they already did it somewhere and show me how can I have access to this, instead of accusing me of ignoring it over and over. Put up , or shut up. (ooh i´m becoming addicted to this! ) In other words give me a plausible reason to believe you with your claim that cold reading is behind Altea´s hits. And don´t act as if I am not admitting to see the evidence, because up till now there´s none for me, other than arguments, opinions, assumptions and fun-making.

 

[Kage]

I partially agree with you about what skepticism means except that I do think it would be OK to fund this type of research as long as the scientists involved were willing to provide full disclosure on their procedures and to provide the information necessary so that others who want to attempt to replicate their claimed results can do so.

Actually we are on the same page on this one. My biggest problem with PEAR wasn't that they were doing these experiments. My problem was that PEAR's methods were not scientific, and their practices were dishonest and contrary to the way science is performed--for the very reasons you cited. I take this personally because participating in this study changed the way I thought about the world, until I figured out what was going on. I would still be willing to buy their work if SOMEONE ELSE did it. I would love to be a part of doing that experiment.

I think that PEAR took their research personally, perhaps because of ego or because they knew that their continued existence depended on them not being proven wrong. They developed this sort of bunker mentality (which you can hear in Brenda's interview on All Things Considered) which perhaps came between them and doing science. Wanting and needing something to be real should be left at the door to the lab, but PEAR didn't. They could also be frauds.

 

[alfaniner]

I was involved of sorts, in beta testing the EGGs, or a device very much like it. At the time I had questions about the scientific "method" being used. When I have more time I'll post about it.

 

[CardZeus]

CardZeus, I couldn't find where the link was on the PEAR web site -- can you post the web site page where you found the link? TIA

So, does this count as a published release of PEAR's lab procedures and software?

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/future.html

 

[Kaylee]

Actually we are on the same page on this one.

We're not only on the same page, but I also had reason to take a very strong interest in PEAR's claims. I've learned the hard way that "credentials" may not mean much. Ultimately the fact that, for example, PEAR is affiliated with Princeton University, and that Rupert Sheldrake was educated at Cambridge and Harvard Universities and is currently affiliated with Trinity College, Cambridge really doesn't mean anything. Similar affiliations don't mean anything either -- by themselves.

I've learned about the importance of rigorous peer review and, especially, sucessful replications and to basically disregard any other "credentials".

If the mass media reporting were just the slightest bit rigorous -- IMHO, a lot of people's time would be saved.

Thanks again for taking the time to post about your experience!

 

[Kaylee]

I was involved of sorts, in beta testing the EGGs, or a device very much like it. At the time I had questions about the scientific "method" being used. When I have more time I'll post about it.

That would be great alfaniner!

@ cardZeus: Thanks for the url page with the link.

 

[Ersby]

Just a quick note on whether Rosemary Altea was using cold reading in the "rosebush" hit. Here it is again:

CALLER: It was a total shock. He had just planted a rosebush for my mother, and they had a nice day at the park, and he just was going to feed the dog and passed over.

KING: And he was drawn and thin, and...

ALTEA: May I just say there -- you mentioned a rosebush, and he holds up his hand and tells me that there were two special rosebushes. You only mentioned one, and he tells me that there were two.

CALLER: He planted two that day, you are right. One in my sister's yard and one in my mothers's.

While I can't give any "scientific evidecne" of cold reading, here are some other examples of mediums using the same technique of asking for a second example of something that's already been established:

They are making me feel as if there's two, not one. So she had two things correlating against her um blood wise. So I don't know if she had two separate blood issues, or if she had it, it went into remission and then it came back. ("That's what happened")

There's two Joes? ("Not that I know of.") OK. There's two Joes from what they're showing. There's your grandfather whose got the connection to Joseph and there's another Joe that they want to me acknowledge. So whether it's Joanne or Josephine, I don't know, but there's two Joes.

There's also two wives. Was he married twice? (“No.”) Was there a wife and a very significant friend? (“No.”) OK, let's just put it this way, I've got two female energies that I feel like I need to acknowledge for this man. So whether it be two wives, two very close females, a sister and a friend.

(“I'd just like to see if I could communicate with my sister.”) There's two of them, right? (“No, just one.”) No, there's two. what I'm getting is that there are two energies as I would see as being two her side who have passed (“Yes.”) Which means that you've got like two sister figures who have crossed, correct? (“Yes.”)

Who had cancer? (“My mother.”) Was she misdiagnosed? (“Yes.”) OK. She's telling me she had it twice; she's telling me it was in two separate parts of the body. Is this true? (“Yes. Yes. She had it in her back, and then she had it in her breasts.”)

I don't see anything about the rosebush hit which isn't merely the result of a fairly well-established cold reading technique.

 

[CFLarsen]

Larsen I would like to read your opinion about this. Or anyone´s opinion.

I've told you already: That's cold reading. She throws out a guess and lets the sitter connect.

Same here:

We go to Hanover, Pennsylvania, hello.

CALLER: Hello. I'm calling for information about my mother.

KING: Now, what do you need to know from her?

ALTEA: Nothing, actually. But again, even though it makes me sound like I'm doing this cold reading, I have to tell you, immediately I am hearing something. But I really -- I have to be really honest about this. I don't know if it's this person's mother. I don't know who this person is yet. If we had...

KING: Well, you have to assume it, right? I mean...

ALTEA: Not necessarily. No, it might be a grandmother, it might be somebody connected to somebody in the studio. I'm giving James incredible food here, absolutely. But I have to be really honest about what I'm doing. So I'm just saying that I am aware of and I don't see yet. I'm hoping to see, but I'm aware of a lady standing just behind me, just behind my right shoulder here, who tells me that she died of cancer.

She was very, very sick before she died. She's talking of hospital, she's talking of being in a hospital before she died, and I'm actually going use this little sketchpad here, because she's talking about a house. Something about a new house. Something about a move -- I don't know who she's talking about. I'm just telling you what I'm seeing here. A move, a house, renovations to part of the house, something about the roof of a house. It's something about the roof of the house collapsing, I think. She's -- I'm seeing very vaguely now, she's nodding at me as I'm saying that.

She is again coming back to her illness, and again, she tells me that -- she tells me that the end of her life was sort of quite quick, which is, you know, often not the case with people who pass with cancer. But she tells me it was a blessing when it happened. It was quite quick, quite fast. She had cancer, she tells me. She's talking about -- she's talking about getting over -- about thinking that she was doing better, thinking that she was doing well and being fine for a while, and then suddenly the whole thing came back again. And then it was really fast...

KING: Now, hold it right there. Ma'am?

CALLER: Yes. KING: Your comment.

CALLER: Yes, my mother did have cancer. And yes, she was -- had health problems, she thought she was fine and then it came back, and then she was gone within a matter of weeks.

KING: All right. What about the house?

CALLER: My brother is just moving into a brand new house. They just bought it and sold their house that they renovated, and they're moving in in about a month.

KING: So, to your knowledge, everything she said was on the mark?

CALLER: Yes.

Here is how it went:

Altea basically has two "forks": Disease and House. The disease has to be cancer, because Altea has already, earlier in the show, used the other cold reading favorite: "Chest problems".

"Chest problems" can cover a whole range of problems: Heart, lungs, breast cancer, influenza, pneumonia, etc. Heart disease is the number 1 cause of death.

Of the Disease "fork", she ventures four generalities, where three are not commented on by the caller at all, but the last is dead wrong: Something that takes several weeks cannot possibly be called a "quick end".

But the caller - and Larry King - clearly thinks this was a hit!

Of the House "fork", she throws out no less than three possibilities: Either it is a new house, or renovations of a house, or a collapsing roof.

But Altea doesn't say anything about who is moving, or when this happens. This is all connected by the caller. It isn't the deceased mother's house, it isn't the caller's house, no, the caller has to think of her brother to make it fit.

Again, the caller - and Larry King - considers this a hit.

The collapsing roof is a miss. A total miss. But note that, of all her guesses, this was the most specific. If she had guessed right, it would have been a pretty good hit - because of the specificness.

This is totally forgotten by King, who says:

KING: Wait a minute. We've taken two calls, and so far it's 100 percent.

It isn't. That's how cold reading works: You remember the hits (be they as stretched as can be) and forget the misses.

Here's a job for you: Explain the miss about the collapsing roof. There are three possibilities:

1. Altea is throwing out a guess
2. Altea and the caller have set this up - meaning fraud
3. Altea is really talking to the dead mother, but gets the wrong information

Which one do you think is the most likely? 1, 2 or 3?

 

[alfaniner]

That's an amazing graphic! Do you have a program for that? It's like diagramming a sentence -- would that it could be used for analysis of every cold reading, er, "psychic reading".

 

[Garrette]

Every time people have analyzed complete transcripts (John Edward's shows, for example, are heavily edited) of readings from psychics, the readings are indistinguishable from cold-reading.

Ponderingturtle already mentioned this but it bears repeating: No. Readings are most commonly indistinguishable from cold reading, but not always. Sometimes they are indistinguishable from hot reading, e.g. John Edward regurgitating previously discovered personal information about his cameraman.

I've said it many times and will continue to say it. Skeptical over-use of cold reading as if it encompasses all the tricks of a medium or psychic does not help us.

 

[cj.23]

I've said it many times and will continue to say it. Skeptical over-use of cold reading as if it encompasses all the tricks of a medium or psychic does not help us.

Yes, absolutely. That was pretty much my point in my previous example about audience members possibly giving false confirmation. Also, some 'cold reading' is doubtless intuitive and based on body language etc. It does help to be next to the person, observing their reactions. On the phone - I am not sure I could do it... (Also, I am often laughed at as ludicrously wrong - but in my example readings I was once so successful that everyone in the room was convinced, and I had to have the facts confirmed by others just so I did not believe the subject was just going along with me. I'm fairly hard headed, but I did seriously briefly consider if I was actually psychic as an explanation for that incident!)

And maybe sometimes its the dead talking, or ESP or goblins. The only thing I am pretty certain of is that there is no one single solution, like cold reading. The TV preacher with the ear piece radio famously debunked by James Randi was decidedly NOT engaging in Cold Reading!

cj x

 

[Garrette]

Nice try, but excuse me for calling bulldropping over you?

Call what you like; you need no excuse from me. It will not change what you are doing.

As if I was totally unaware that this was possible eh?

You knew about cold reading (by another name) already? You knew before discussing this that what Altea has done is indistinguishable from a mundane explanation?

Do you give equal weight to cold reading as the actual explanation and psychic abilities as the actual explanation?

This actress is just one of the huge number of cases I´ve locally spotted as frauds myself.

Excuse me for calling bulldroppings on you now.

You spotted Kari Coleman as a fraud? When? Where?

But let me tell you, she could not fool me with these shallow readings.

Of course not. You are unfoolable. Other, lesser humans may fall for the myriad cons in the world, but omegablue is too smart for that. He can tell without fail what would not have fooled him! Simply show him the admittedly fake readings of an admittedly fake psychic after the fact and he will tell you with 100% certainty that it is, indeed, fake.

Tarot is known to be like this.

It is identical to other fortune-telling/mind-reading/spirit-channeling except it is dressed in different garb.

Huge generalizations that are central themes of the human psyche.

Why do people call radio shows with Altea on them?

It´s applicated psychology with true craftsmanship.

Partly. In this respect it is identical to mediumship, etc.

I value tarot as a nice form of art or mythology, only! It is sure rich, but using it as a money making tool its evil, like this hottie who wrote the article also said.

What, specifically, distinguishes it from what Altea is doing?

So it still does not convince me that Altea-like hits are due to cold reading only. I think fraud has to be called over this as a more tenable explanation.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to prove cold reading as the actual explanation, only as a plausible one. If you think fraud is more likely, okay.

But to clarify: You're saying that actual psychic ability is the least likely explanation?

 

[Garrette]

Yes, absolutely. That was pretty much my point in my previous example about audience members possibly giving false confirmation. Also, some 'cold reading' is doubtless intuitive and based on body language etc. It does help to be next to the person, observing their reactions. On the phone - I am not sure I could do it... (Also, I am often laughed at as ludicrously wrong - but in my example readings I was once so successful that everyone in the room was convinced, and I had to have the facts confirmed by others just so I did not believe the subject was just going along with me. I'm fairly hard headed, but I did seriously briefly consider if I was actually psychic as an explanation for that incident!)

And maybe sometimes its the dead talking, or ESP or goblins. The only thing I am pretty certain of is that there is no one single solution, like cold reading. The TV preacher with the ear piece radio famously debunked by James Randi was decidedly NOT engaging in Cold Reading!

cj x

Agreed. I imagine most people have a legitimately uncanny "hit" at some point in their lives.

Not too long ago I was doing some toss-off magic tricks for my daughter, including a few mentalism things. She decided to challenge me and dared me to guess the one single word she had just thought of.

I took an educated guess and with solemn certainty said "Radio."

I was right. She was floored. It's only because she knows I'm just a magician that she didn't immediately begin telling her friends about my powers.