Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[Garrette]

So, fraud is out, what is the rest?

I think cold reading is fraud under these circumstances, but I think you mean hot-reading is out. (Hot reading being the presentation of information previously obtained). I also think hot-reading is out, but not for the reasons presented.

Cold-reading!

Yep.

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."?

You don't think the industry has progressed to the point where practicioners realize this is the likely reaction?

As a magician who occasionally does mentalism effects, I can tell you that occasionally being wrong, especially under the circumstances in this rosebush case (i.e., a strong hit already obtained but I take a chance on making it stronger) go a long way in selling my "legitimate" abilities.

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?

Yes, because she's not trying to convince Randi; she knows he has already sussed her out. She also knows that she's in a friendly environment with a supportive Larry King and an audience that already believes.

Let´s see it before going to the other propositions of mine.

See above.

 

[Garrette]

All of which, omegablue, ignores Ersby excellent post about increasing a "one" thing to a "two" thing being common. When it doesn't work, it doesn't matter. When it does, people latch on to it.

 

[CFLarsen]

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".

It's mind mapping software. It runs under Java, so you need that installed, too.

FreeMind.

It's simply great - and yes, it's free.

 

[fls]

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.

I suggested the contrary because you seemed oblivious to the techniques, even after they were pointed out to you.

This is old bleep Linda, anyone knows about fraud among "mystics" using psychological artifacts.

I wasn't trying to suggest the process hasn't been known for some time. Recent books and articles call it by the name of cold reading, so my reference to that name was to make it easy for you to search on a term that was likely to give you the information you wanted (if you needed more information).

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.

I agree. Claus and I both demonstrated how Rosemary's hits and misses were consistent with cold reading (Claus did a great job on that last post), and Randi did the same on the Larry King show. Cold readers have provided demonstrations where the audience thought they were psychic. What other demonstrations are you looking for?

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?

Whether or not King would accept this is speculation. King has lots of psychics on his show, so I suspect he would not want to do a debunking show, as it would obviously alienate his viewers. There's no reason to think that his viewers are any more open to persuasion than you.

But what you are describing has already been done on numerous other occasions - skilled cold readers presenting themselves as psychics and only revealing the secret after they have fooled the audience. How many times does this exercise have to be repeated?

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.

Go for it.

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.

With a typical sitter, cold readers come up with the same kinds of hits and misses that psychics come up with. If the sitter provides no information, psychics don't do as well.

Originally Posted by fls
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.

You didn't answer my question.

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.

This thread is 7 pages long. I have expended a lot of time and effort to feed you information and references to answer your questions. I think it's time for you to take responsibility for your own ignorance and look for the information that will answer your questions yourself.

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

According to my calendar, Garrette is male, although the confirmatory data is hidden. I'm not sure of the details of Rebecca's screening process, so at this point, I would have to admit that my belief that he is male is based on wishful thinking.

Linda

 

[fls]

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.

Yeah, I misspoke.

Linda

 

[Garrette]

IAccording to my calendar, Garrette is male, although the confirmatory data is hidden. I'm not sure of the details of Rebecca's screening process, so at this point, I would have to admit that my belief that he is male is based on wishful thinking.

Me Tarzan?

 

[Garrette]

Yeah, I misspoke.

Linda

I suppose that after making 530 excellent posts you're allied one with a minor slip-up.

Actually, I rather expected you understood the distinction. I was aiming more at lurkers who don't know the difference, at omegablue who may or may not know the difference, and those like Rodney who know the difference but blur it in order to keep their arguments (apparently) sound.

 

[fls]

I suppose that after making 530 excellent posts you're allied one with a minor slip-up.

To be fair, it should be "one that was caught" (wouldn't want you to look like a Sylvia apologist ).

Linda

 

[Garrette]

To be fair, it should be "one that was caught" (wouldn't want you to look like a Sylvia apologist ).

Linda

As long as I don't look like Sylvia herself.


P.S. Kind of you not to point out my own misspelling.

 

[CFLarsen]

Added:

I focused on the two guesses that King was referring to, but Altea also waffled about who it actually was she was "connecting" to:

It doesn't look impressive at all.

 

[CFLarsen]

An improved version:

Altea has a huge number of possibilities, and yet, she only scores a hit on the cancer guess (which is a doozy), and is unfortunate that the sitter can verify two of the inflated choices re. the house.

And yet, this is hailed as a great reading...

 

[omegablue]

Sorry, i´ve been out of time to post and to resond to all points you all make. So i´ll try being succint this time.

Basically , all of you who are advocating in favor of cold-reading are just showing your opinions. Many good points were raised though, but still we cannot be sure whether if it is quite the answer to this issue or not. You might well imagine this, that and that other thing, but....how can we be so sure? Remember you are the ones advocating against being sure about anything without scientific evidence. So...

If a psychic have to risk for increasing the number of a thing , like two rosebushes for example, would they do it when they already have a hit? Why is that? Why ruin the hit, and not use this artifice to just fish for a hit when still he needs it? I cannot understand how a clever cheater would think about doing this.

It´s funny you know , you all take it for granted without asking for scientific evidence. But everything that goes agaist your beliefs you are allways asking for scientific evidence, and even if someone present this scientific evidence you are always sure that the evidence is bunk because of this, this and that.

Linda said, "go for it", when I told her that I´m still to see any sci ev to this. But when one come here and say: "Hey JREF people, psychic powers does exist!", would you like if he/she came up with the same answer ("go for it!") when inquired for evidence on his/her claim? See where´s exactly the pitfall i´m pointing out? I don´t know if i´m not being able to communicate my issues very well, or you are just repeating arguments who does not address what i´m asking just for the sake of it.

cya all later

 

[Garrette]

You still misunderstand, omegablue.

We are not presented Altea's claims in a vacuum. Your stance requires forgetting that we know about magic tricks, about cold reading (and the links to examples of it being successfully done by non-psychics), about hot reading, about frauds, about the self-deluded, about the history of psychology, about statistics, about what has been learned regarding proper experimentation. In short you are asking us to forget about all the many things which point to a non-psychic explanation for the rosebush.

If we did that, if we ignored the history of verified knowledge, then yes; from that standpoint we would be hypocritical to give lesser weight to the psychic explanation of this phenomenon than to the non-psychic explanation.

But I won't forget. I know too much of it, have experienced too much of it, have read too much of it, have verified too much of it, to simply pretend--as you do--that it doesn't exist or that it doesn't have the weight of history and evidence behind it.

This isn't a cage match where two equally unsupported ideas (psychic vs. non-psychic) are asked to fight it out for primacy.

This is a wrestling match where the non-psychic explanation is a sumo wrestler and the psychic explanation is a 76 pound jockey.

You can crow all you like about the jockey being as likely to win as the sumo wrestler, but until he actually does it instead of just swearing up and down he does without demonstrating it, then it's just hot air before the match.

You are a rowdy football fan throwing beer bottles because you think your local club of popular guys down the pub has a shot against Manchester United.

 

[Ersby]

If a psychic have to risk for increasing the number of a thing , like two rosebushes for example, would they do it when they already have a hit? Why is that? Why ruin the hit, and not use this artifice to just fish for a hit when still he needs it? I cannot understand how a clever cheater would think about doing this.

Well, you actually demonstrated why cold reading works.

First, you said they already had a hit with the rosebush.

No, they didn't. The sitter told them that, but in yourmind, when you think back, you remember a hit for the medium. That is one thing that cold readers rely on - mis-remembering what was actually said.

Second, why risk increasing the number?

Because there is no risk. If they get a hit, they look great. If they fail, then it's not big deal since people will mostly forget about it or mis-remember it.

A clever cheater needs to think about this because cold reading won't work unless the illusion of communicating with a departed spirit is maintained, which is why they sometimes throw out wild guesses. If it is a hit, then fine. If it is a miss, then that's fine too since people like yourself will think "Well, no one would guess such a thing! That must have come from a departed spirit!" It's a win-win situation.

I hope this makes it clearer.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sorry, i´ve been out of time to post and to resond to all points you all make. So i´ll try being succint this time.

Basically , all of you who are advocating in favor of cold-reading are just showing your opinions. Many good points were raised though, but still we cannot be sure whether if it is quite the answer to this issue or not. You might well imagine this, that and that other thing, but....how can we be so sure? Remember you are the ones advocating against being sure about anything without scientific evidence. So...

I see you continue to reject natural explanations.

If a psychic have to risk for increasing the number of a thing , like two rosebushes for example, would they do it when they already have a hit? Why is that? Why ruin the hit, and not use this artifice to just fish for a hit when still he needs it? I cannot understand how a clever cheater would think about doing this.

A psychic's reputation is based on how many hits he can get, and in particular how precise and fantastic they are.

Why wouldn't he continue, especially if the threshold for a "hit" is so low? Look at the hit you thought was so great and compare it to Altea's guess about the collapsing roof. Both are detailed, yet she guesses right the first time (sort of), but misses entirely the second. She takes a chance both times and gets specific, that's all.

If you want to claim that the example of the rosebushes was such a great hit that it can't be cold reading, then you have to explain why the example of the collapsing roof was cold reading.

If you are saying that the example of the collapsing roof wasn't cold reading, what was it then?

It´s funny you know , you all take it for granted without asking for scientific evidence. But everything that goes agaist your beliefs you are allways asking for scientific evidence, and even if someone present this scientific evidence you are always sure that the evidence is bunk because of this, this and that.

Linda said, "go for it", when I told her that I´m still to see any sci ev to this. But when one come here and say: "Hey JREF people, psychic powers does exist!", would you like if he/she came up with the same answer ("go for it!") when inquired for evidence on his/her claim? See where´s exactly the pitfall i´m pointing out? I don´t know if i´m not being able to communicate my issues very well, or you are just repeating arguments who does not address what i´m asking just for the sake of it.

cya all later

You clearly don't understand what scientific evidence is.

We can't see inside Altea's mind and know what really goes on. We don't have a signed confession from her.

But that doesn't mean that we can't give natural explanations. Altea could actually be talking to the dead. But she could also be nothing but a cold reader who throws out a lot of guesses and gets lucky from time to time.

When we have natural explanations, we don't need supernatural/paranormal ones. If your doctor cures you of cancer, there is no reason for you to invoke a deity. If we can explain everything that Altea does, there is no reason for you to invoke paranormal abilities.

You clearly don't see it this way. It is up to you to explain why you choose to either point to fraud or paranormal abilities.

What kind of evidence would satisfy you?

 

[omegablue]

Still just words Garrette. You are now even assuming to know about me and what I am and am not. I use the example of the rosebush (which in fact I suspect its not the best hit of Altea´s) to illustrate that doubts can be raised against what you believe. Now you are saying you know much about this , this and that other thing and therefore cannot be fooled, and implying that what you think about it is the right answer to the doubt. So again no scientific evidence is presented whether cold reading could be responsible for a psychic reading or not and it makes me skeptical about it. So , I might conclude that your point is just about intimidation, a little flaming and disguising your beliefs as facts.

 

[Moochie]

I cannot understand how a clever cheater would think about doing this.

That's exactly right. You do not understand. No "A-ha!" moment for you.

M.

 

[Garrette]

No, omegablue, it is because I both know and admit that I can be fooled that I don't share your viewpoint.

You are still looking at it as even the two claims come from even starting points.

There are two general weaknesses in your argument. You are ignoring both:

1. Absent any proof of psychic abilities, it has been amply demonstrated that effects which appear psychic can be replicated with non-psychic means. Your curt dismissal of Katie Coleman does nothing to lessen this; it merely demonstrates your unwillingness to accept a possibility you do not like.

2. Absent any proof of cold-reading abilities, the evidence provided in support of the psychic hypothesis crumbles under scrutiny. Altea did not have a hit about two rosebushes being planted. As Ersby and CFLarsen (among others) have repeatedly demonstrated, the claimed hits are only apparent hits and not actual hits.

If you think the rosebushes aren't the best evidence, then by all means present better. But don't expect us to accept a claim as evidence by itself. The claim must actually demonstrate what it purports to demonstrate.

 

[omegablue]

Well, you actually demonstrated why cold reading works.

First, you said they already had a hit with the rosebush.

No, they didn't. The sitter told them that, but in yourmind, when you think back, you remember a hit for the medium. That is one thing that cold readers rely on - mis-remembering what was actually said.

It was a hit, or what believers do consider a hit. Leave the skeptics out of this for now. Altea do not need the skeptics agreeing that it was a hit in order to make the caller believe her. Her career as a fooler has nothing to do with what skeptics think about her hits. The believers makes her fame. So i was not arguing whether if you think it was a hit, but the general believer public.

Second, why risk increasing the number?

Because there is no risk. If they get a hit, they look great. If they fail, then it's not big deal since people will mostly forget about it or mis-remember it.

It is a risk. The hit (in the believer´s mind) was already been established, so why risk it to become a miss? The caller and LK was aready convinced about the hit. If she would miss the number os rosebushes, then the hit would be a miss, even in the mind of a moderate believer, or a would-be-believer. But ok, there is a throng of ppl who do ignore the misses and keep up the hits based on wishful thinking. But to my analysis here, it would have been a miss. So, ok, it was a lucky guess, but well, I don´t know if Altea, the smart gambler would think that this was the time for a little gamble, once nearly everyone (the vast majority of people are believers) were already been fooled.

"Well, no one would guess such a thing! That must have come from a departed spirit!" It's a win-win situation.

Again, the assumption about what do I believe. Where did I say that if Altea was a psychic , the info came from spirits? Oh come on.

I hope this makes it clearer.

Good points to persuade someone towards one natural explanation only, but still it does not suffice. Yours (and i presume the others too) is a clear claim: "this is cold reading". But why it does not require sci. ev.? It just does not make any sense. Has it been demonstrated somewhere? Othwerwise you can state that this is cold reading and suggesting that i refuse to take up the natural explanations. I chose to be skeptical about it, and I see no reason I could not do that rationally. Forget about imagination, beliefs, and opinions.

 

[omegablue]

That's exactly right. You do not understand. No "A-ha!" moment for you.

M.

Any help on making my a-ha show up??