John Edward - psychic or what?

[TubbaBlubba]

4) Oliver said that he was getting the sensation of more than one person within this person, one arguing with another.

- My uncle was, again, schizophrenic.

This sets of an important alarm clock. As I'm certain you know, schizophrenia, contrary to a still popular belief, does not equal or include multiple personality disorder (dissociative personality disorder). Not unlikely, John Oliver did not know this when he, in whatever way, stumbled upon the information that your uncle was a schizophrenic.

This also indicates that he had specifically found out that your uncle was schizophrenic, and not just that he'd had mental problems of some sort.

That's the popular idea of schizophrenia, and it's usually wrong. OK, some schizophrenics do hear voices, but only a minority of them (My ex was schizophrenic and he didn't hear voices, he just had delusions.)

Even so, auditory hallucinations are way, way different from multiple personalities.

To me, that particular 'hit' sounds quite a lot like warm reading - especially when coupled with the repeated mentions of 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest'. He didn't give any details of your uncle's actual behaviour - schizophrenia doesn't mean "double personality" and is in fact just a general term that covers a huge variety of symptoms. I think Oliver just had a general idea of "mental illness!" and gave you his misconception of it.
(Of course, if your uncle's symptoms did consist of hearing voices and arguing with them out loud, it would be a different story.)

It mens "divided mind", so it's not strange why someone would get the idea. I agree with you, though.

 

[I Am He]

This guys first and last name thing keeps confusing me. I've went through my whole life using my middle name, as a matter of fact all my identification except my drivers license and registration have my birth name on it, my second name is on everything else like, Credit Cards, Draft Card and Military ID, when I served, Seaman Papers, Bank Account etc. When I first got my learners permit I remember they call my name and I did not know it was my name they were calling until the examiner look straight at me. So in my case I would of never told anyone that I went by my second name and never would have stood up if someone call my birth name.




I Am Me

 

[kedo1981]

I still say he simply had access to seating arrangement.

Get ten skeptics in the audience and seat them apart from each other so they are covering all sections of the audience.
The wherever JE points there will be a skeptic to indicate a positive hit on anything he says.
Then lead him on a merry path so to speak.
JE says "I'm getting a M name, a woman, skeptic nearest indicates a hit, then provides ridiculous confirmations of whatever JE says.
"Yes my aunt Maggie has past, flowers, yes she was addicted to marigold seeds, a bracelet, yes she would wear wild elaborate jewelry when she molested me.

 

[Senex]

I didn't say that these were unlikely scenarios. I didn't say I thought he achieved the information through paranormal means. In fact, much of the response to this thread seems to have taken an odd turn wherein I am the believer.

It wouldn't have been right for the person who ran the Challenge for three years to not be open to the possibility that paranormal abilities exist. Confirmation bias and all that. Remie is doing it correctly.

Constantly defending myself by flashing my Real Live Skeptic card is becoming tiresome.

What else have you got

 

[Robert Oz]

I think the bar scenario (or something similar) is far more likely. Who pulls their license out? I do at the airport, and did about 2 months ago on the side of the highway (damn cop), but other than that, my license probably only leaves my pocket less than 10 times a year. Remember, even if he had his wallet open at some point, like when checking in, the person looking over his shoulder would first have to know that he was going to the show at some point in the future.

I don't deny that the bar scenario is a possibility.

However, I, and most people I've met, carry my license in a transparent window in my wallet. I cannot get anything out of my wallet without revealing my license unless I hold it against my chest like a poker player.

I also don't find it unlikely that a John Edward groupie might have wanted to preserve the ticket stub to a John Edward show as a memento, in which case, placing it carefully into one's wallet would not be an act that would surprise me. Or, failing that, I can think of many, many reasons that a wallet might come out in the course of a night.

I'm not saying that this is the way it happened. I'm just saying that, to me, the story - particular Edward's request to show his license - strongly suggests that someone in Edward's group saw Liam's license at some point in the night.

I think it is likely that RemieV happened to attend a show where out of the 150 guests, someone got a lucky glimpse at the license of one of the guests and gave John Edward an opportunity to do a hot read. Since RemieV has been to many of John Edward's shows and said that this was the first time she had seen something like this happen only confirms that it was a rare case of someone being at the right place at the right time.

RemieV also confirms that Edward quickly did the license trick and then continued with a typical cold reading. Again suggesting that the license is the key to getting Liam's full name.

It is the most likely scenario I can think of, but, of course, it isn't necessarily what happened.

 

[Robert Oz]

A man carries his wallet everywhere and the top card is usually the DL...

...He opened his wallet to take out some cash and someone peeked.

I completely agree. I think this is most likely the answer.

 

[plumjam]

This is one of the more amusing threads I've seen lately.

Agreed.

It's a good object lesson in the lengths people will go to to avoid the most obvious explanation, simply because the most obvious explanation goes against everything they've spent years of their lives setting themselves up to represent and defend, no matter what.


In this example, and countless other examples over millenia of reported human history, the evidence would suggest that - shock of all shocks - there are aspects of existence that our current culture of choice on this particular planet does not yet fully understand.
And that therefore - slightly milder shock - the most rational course would be to be scrupulous about maintaining an open-minded outlook (which is, after all, the bedrock of science).

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Agreed.

It's a good object lesson in the lengths people will go to to avoid the most obvious explanation, simply because the most obvious explanation goes against everything they've spent years of their lives setting themselves up to represent and defend, no matter what.


In this example, and countless other examples over millenia of reported human history, the evidence would suggest that - shock of all shocks - there are aspects of existence that our current culture of choice on this particular planet does not yet fully understand.
And that therefore - slightly milder shock - the most rational course would be to be scrupulous about maintaining an open-minded outlook (which is, after all, the bedrock of science).

The most obvious conclusion being the utter destruction of the laws of physics and tremendous logical gymnastics, I presume?

 

[Garrette]

Agreed.

It's a good object lesson in the lengths people will go to to avoid the most obvious explanation, simply because the most obvious explanation goes against everything they've spent years of their lives setting themselves up to represent and defend, no matter what.


In this example, and countless other examples over millenia of reported human history, the evidence would suggest that - shock of all shocks - there are aspects of existence that our current culture of choice on this particular planet does not yet fully understand.
And that therefore - slightly milder shock - the most rational course would be to be scrupulous about maintaining an open-minded outlook (which is, after all, the bedrock of science).

Complete and utter twaddle.

Ignoring that your idea of what constitutes the most obvious explanation along with what constitutes and open mind, your statement about being shocked that there are aspects of existence not yet understood is an idiotic strawman.

 

[plumjam]

The most obvious conclusion being the utter destruction of the laws of physics

Why would you assume that an improvement necessarily involves the utter destruction of what has gone before?
Most physicists believe that Einstein's improvement of the Newtonian understanding was no destruction, but was simply that... an improvement.

and tremendous logical gymnastics, I presume?

has nothing whatsoever to do with logic.
Unless you somehow believe that the study of logic is somehow inextricably linked with the current state of understanding of the physical universe.

 

[plumjam]

Complete and utter twaddle.

Ignoring that your idea of what constitutes the most obvious explanation along with what constitutes and open mind, your statement about being shocked that there are aspects of existence not yet understood is an idiotic strawman.

Hmm.. I see you're still pissed about last time.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Why would you assume that an improvement necessarily involves the utter destruction of what has gone before?
Most physicists believe that Einstein's improvement of the Newtonian understanding was no destruction, but was simply that... an improvement.

Even if the workings of the brain are not well understood, the components are. There is no room for the information transfer that would be required, and would call for enormous special pleading.

[/quote]has nothing whatsoever to do with logic.
Unless you somehow believe that the study of logic is somehow inextricably linked with the current state of understanding of the physical universe.[/QUOTE]

Has very much to do with logic. Why stand on stages guessing peoples' names when you could go and make a million right away, guess the lottery number, etc? Any explanation of this involves, of course, special pleading supported only by the initial assumption that a "paranormal" explanation is correct.

 

[Garrette]

Hmm.. I see you're still pissed about last time.

Not in the slightest. Very little in discussions angers me. I did, however, learn that there is no point in beating around the bush with you. If you're going to run off from the discussion without answering any questions, best to get you to do it early so you waste less of my time.

 

[plumjam]

Even if the workings of the brain are not well understood, the components are.

Meaningless.
And even if the components of the brain were understood, how would that translate to mind?

There is no room for the information transfer that would be required, and would call for enormous special pleading.

You've heard it here folks.
TubbaBlubba has informed us that even though most of you will be reading this conversation via some kind of wi-fi technology, nevertheless there is "no room" for any information transfer to the human brain-mind other than via the fleshy senses and then by a cable network.

Humans have already created the internet, wi-fi, global communication via waves in the atmosphere... but we cannot create anything that is living or reproducible or aware, and yet you somehow believe that the latter group (the living, the able to reproduce, the aware) would not be using the former abilities (various forms of communication whose means are invisible to the crude senses).

To me, that is a bizarre belief, based only on doctrinaire stupid materialism.

Has very much to do with logic. Why stand on stages guessing peoples' names when you could go and make a million right away, guess the lottery number, etc? Any explanation of this involves, of course, special pleading supported only by the initial assumption that a "paranormal" explanation is correct.

Nothing whatsoever to do with logic. I know you're young, but try to be careful about the terms you use in argument.

 

[plumjam]

Not in the slightest. Very little in discussions angers me. I did, however, learn that there is no point in beating around the bush with you. If you're going to run off from the discussion without answering any questions, best to get you to do it early so you waste less of my time.

Well you didn't really make any points. It was just an expression of miffedness*.

* British sort of expression, sorry.

 

[Robert Oz]

It's a good object lesson in the lengths people will go to to avoid the most obvious explanation, simply because the most obvious explanation goes against everything they've spent years of their lives setting themselves up to represent and defend, no matter what.

Obvious explanations can often be wrong.

• The obvious explanation for power bracelets is that they improve one's balance.
• The obvious explanation for dowsing is that twigs can locate water.
• The obvious explanation for David Copperfield zipping around the stage is that he can fly.
• The obvious explanation for John Edward correctly guessing a person's first and middle names is that he is psychic.

However, we can either accept these obvious explanations that contradict our current understanding of reality - which, you are correct, may be wrong - or we can compare them to other explanations that may not be quite as obvious, but should be considered more likely, because they don't contradict our current understanding of reality.

• The likely explanation for power bracelets is that buyers are convinced that they improve balance, because of a mixture of the placebo effect coupled with some simple tricks that take advantage of one's centre of gravity.
• The likely explanation for dowsing is that dowsers are being led by the ideomotor effect.
• The likely explanation for David Copperfield zipping around the stage is that he is suspended by wires.
• The likely explanation for John Edward correctly guessing a person's first and middle names - especially considering the fact that he immediately called for the man's license - is that someone John Edward knows caught a glimpse of the license beforehand.

One who still believes that the obvious explanation is correct is of course welcome to provide evidence of such by submitting to controlled testing.

 

[Robert Oz]

Duplicated post deleted.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Nothing whatsoever to do with logic. I know you're young, but try to be careful about the terms you use in argument.

That's the best you can do? A bald denial and an ad hominem?

Welcome to my ignore list. I will not bother giving the rest of your (rather thoughtless, I must add) post a reply.

 

[jadebox]

TubbaBlubba has informed us that even though most of you will be reading this conversation via some kind of wi-fi technology, nevertheless there is "no room" for any information transfer to the human brain-mind other than via the fleshy senses ....

That's correct (if you remove the double-quotes around "no room").

A Wi-Fi transmitter consumes power, has a visible antenna, produces signals that are detectable, and it can be easily demonstrated that information can be exchanged by Wi-Fi.

The brain, however, doesn't consume enough power to transmit information outside the body, it has no antenna, there are no signals radiating from the brain that could transmit information, and there's no evidence that the brain communicates except through actions of the body.

-- Roger

 

[Tommytwonines]

Not only that, but the box office is run by the casino, not by the staff of the show. It is extraordinarily unlikely that, even if Edward's team asked, the casino would cough up a list of attendees.

Are some of the casino employees/ushers giving JE's team information? Maybe not for every show, depending on who's working, but much of the time?

It's in everybody's self-interest
- that night's show is a great success, so JE wins
- the casino is abuzz with happy showgoers, and more sold-out performances should follow, so the casino wins
- the audience gets comfort from loved ones communicating from the beyond, so the attendees win (in a warped way)
- the one skeptic in the audience gets... er, uh, gets... gets 10 other skeptics to cough up $300 to attend another JE show, please NOOOOO!!!

Vegas is not exceedingly coy about these cozy relationships. Pick up a savvy guide book on Vegas and it will tell you as much. One example: My parents have been going to Vegas for years, and every time my father checks in at his hotel on the strip, he discretely puts a $50 bill under his credit card, and says something like "we'd love a view of the strip if something is available." Nothing too pushy, and no promises. It's worked every time for him (I think he started this "trick" about 10 years ago - and they avoid weeks when big conventions are in town). I mentioned this to a few friends who were traveling to the same hotel (although I don't think it really matters), and they were similarly "lucky". Three or four nights in a suite, paying the regular room rate. This happens and the management knows it happens.

And if you're a putting on a show, you're adept at these sorts of things, and there's really no danger of being exposed. You're better at reading people, obviously, so you know who to approach. You start small, low stakes, no real repercussions if they don't play ball. Some get hooked, and voila - very useful information for the night's show.

And if I'm a psychic, I don't want ushers with "bad vibes" polluting my audience hall.

Also, if Liam did pull out his wallet, as some have surmised, and a staffer got a five-second look at his driver's license, what a goldmine! First the picture - has he/she lost weight or gained a few pounds? Glasses gone? New beard? Change of hair color (ladies)? And the written details - Does the full name maybe include a Jr. or the III? Does she have a Jersey accent, but a Sarasota address?

One thing for the OP - I know you wear disguises, but do you think you've ever been recognized by JE's staff (or a casino employee)? You live in or around Vegas, you've attended quite a few shows, you're recognizable (to them) based on your field of interest, etc. And do you think any of them keep tabs on the "opposition", as it were, by reading the JREF forum threads and the like? I imagine they do, which is why you PM at times.