Are all mediums con artists then?

[Rasmus]

It wouldn't be correct to say all mediums are con artists. The ones who can do what they say they can do are obviously real. This list is pretty short, however; the names of all legit mediums will fit on a blank fortune cookie slip.

Unless you know something I don't, the current list wouldn't require the cookie slip to be blank for it to fit on.

It wouldn't even require a slip to begin with.

Moose, care to name just one legit medium?

Rasmus.

 

[ChristineR]

I'm of the opinion that most mediums are deluded. I think you'd be surprised how many of them are out there. The frauds are few and far between, but of course they are the most impresssive.

 

[Ririon]

I'm of the opinion that most mediums are deluded. I think you'd be surprised how many of them are out there. The frauds are few and far between, but of course they are the most impresssive.

A spirit just told me you are a kind and generous person.

 

[Moose]

Stitch, Rasmus: I wasn't sufficiently clear, it would seem. Blank was the key word here, gents.

The medium upon which such a list could be written is immaterial, considering the list is of length zero. And I get to score a punny two-fer in the process of explaining.

 

[LTC8K6]

They are all con artists, unless they are not making any money from their efforts or their delusions.

 

[Quinn]

I'm of the opinion that most mediums are deluded. I think you'd be surprised how many of them are out there. The frauds are few and far between, but of course they are the most impresssive.

I dunno. I would guess this is true of most non-mediumistic psychic readers. But it seems to me that genuinely believing you're communicating with the deceased, requires a significantly greater depth of delusion than genuinely believing in the legitimacy of tarot cards or palmistry or what have you. I suspect the fraudulent-to-deluded ratio is higher among mediums than among the rest.

 

[Psi Baba]

When someone claims to be a psychic these days, all I care about is whether they are a fraud or deluded.

Building on this, the only point then for testing for psychic ability at this stage is to determine whether a "psychic" is a fraud or deluded. And the way you do that is to offer to test them for psychic ability. The ones who agree to be tested (and follow through) are probably deluded. The ones who refuse or pretend to agree and then weasel out of being tested are most likely frauds because they know they will be found out if tested and have to go to any lengths to avoid being tested unless they think they can cheat the test (which is why we see the familair pattern of applicants who agree to be tested at first but then as test protocols are hammered out, begin the traditional "backing out" process as they realize their opportunies for cheating are gradually being eliminated).

 

[Soapy Sam]

They have been given the ability by god to make vague, generic comments regarding the colour of something, the initial letter of a name and similar trivia.
They have not been given the ability to pass on any actual useful data from beyond the grave. In all history there is no evidence of a mediumistic communication producing a single useful idea, patent, or hitherto unknown fact.

If they have truly been given their ability by god, he has a warped sense of humour.

I think some must be genuine in the sense that they truly believe in their ability. But I have little doubt that anyone making money from mediumship is a conscious fraud.

 

[Ashles]

Surely any 'genuine; psychic would easily be able to demonstrate their ability.

Almost every psychic I have ever heard of does not tend to make vague claims, they make quite distinct ones. They appear to claim to be able to regularly contact dead people and pass specific messages on to specific individuals.

Anyone, any single person who could really do this would be able to demonstrate it very easily.

Also, how can these messages often consist of complex messages such as how they died, not to worry, they are happy, beware of a journey, etc. yet they seem to struggle so much with saying their own name.

The trouble is, of all the things we really want to believe, what could be stronger than the desire to believe that a loved one who has died is still in some way contactable.

Bottom line - any psychic who performs in a spritualist church, on TV, etc. could demonstrate their ability clearly and beyond doubt within about half an hour. If they were genuine.

 

[chillzero]

Takes a deep breath and steps into the firing line...

Hi all

I'm curious, do you all believe all mediums are just con artists or what? I am part beliver and part sceptic and the sceptic side of me can't believe they're all just con artists.

Are there any genuine mediums out there or is it all one big con?

Regards

Paul

I used to believe I had psychic abilities. I gave tarot readings (for free), and I consulted my spirit guide, and heard my (dead) grandmother speak to me when meditating once.

So, I would not consider the old me to be a con artist - I was not intentionally deceiving people. I honestly believed I was given the ability to interpret signs, and that I was using it for good. So I believed I was genuine, and so did plenty of other people.

However, even as I did all this, I constantly came up with questions about what I was doing, and how I managed to do it. Why could I only get instinctive flashes about things? Why could I not use this 'power' when I concentrated hard on something important? What about the times I was wrong (although they were freakishly few - even looking back as a hardened skeptic) - what happened then?

I soon realised that I was very good at picking up subliminal signals from people, or noticing things in the distance. My specialty was knowing when a driver was about to turn suddenly, or not turn where they signalled to. I could read the traffic around me uncannily. I tested myself on what external information I could possibly have noticed, and realised I am more of an expert on body language, or verbal subtleties than most.

I suffered some severe abuse from new agers and 'healers' over several years, but without this I still had a questioning nature and would have arrived where I am now anyway. The fact that others in my niche did not have any patience for my curiousness, and did not ask the same things of themselves is what finally made me take that final scary step out of the new age community. Otherwise I would still be living in la-la- land, and believing things about how my inquisitive nature was denying me an easy path in life, or my injuries and years of incredible bad fortune must be something I deserved, whether from something I had done in this life, or in another.

There are no genuine mediums. There are people with genuine intentions, but not psychic powers. There are people who could be helpful if you were discussing difficult choices you needed to make, but some friends can do that for you without the mumbo jumbo. It's a matter of reading, yes, but not reading cards, or signs, or what spirits show you - it's a matter of reading the environment and the person before you.

And then there are the con artists who read the newspapers, audience listings, area information, web sites, etc to glean what they need - as well as reading the people around them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They are either con-artists or self-decieved.

 

[Interesting Ian]

There are very few things I believe with any certainty. But one thing I believe with almost 100% certainty is that there is no genuine psychic phenomena.

I find that puzzling in the extreme. How can you be so certain it doesn't exist. What can someone experience which would convince them that psychic phenomena don't exist? It just doesn't make any sense. You might personally never have experienced any psychic phenomena. Your friends may not have ever experienced any psychic phenomena (although they might be mistaken in this). You may have experienced something which appeared to you to be psychic, but it subsequently turned out it wasn't. You may have heard of people faking it.

But none of this justifies even any reason to suppose this phenomena doesn't exist, never mind certainty!

I do appreciate you stating upfront your own position though. I think that most people on here share your certainty.

My own position is quite the opposite to yours in that I am virtually certain that psychic phenomena exist. There's just been a series of programmes in the UK called "psychic challenge". Unless the programme makers were in collusion with the psychics it would be simply be burying ones head in the sand to deny that these people were not sometimes obtaining information by anomalous means. Certainly cold reading was out of the question on some of these occasions. This is not to deny that on many occasions these psychics appeared to be simply guessing and were hopelessly wrong. But that doesn't negate the times when they were successful.

A lot of charlatans exist, yes. But that's what you would expect given the way people are. As I've always explained, the existence of charlatans cannot possibly provide evidence against the reality of psychic phenomena. Indeed, in a Universe where certain psychic abilities exist but they are unpredictable and capricious in nature, one would expect there to be more charlatans in this area than if we lived in a Universe which was totally absent of any psychic phenomena. The fact that some people can do it sometimes, makes it more plausible for people to think these charlatans are the genuine thing.

I of course share your disgust at those who make money out of vulnerable people. But you really shouldn't allow that to blind you to the reality of this phenomena.

I wouldn't say though that mediums are necessarily contacting dead people. Maybe they are, but strictly speaking that hypothesis is not entailed by the evidence. All we can say is that they are getting information by anomalous means.

 

[boojum]

They are all con artists, unless they are not making any money from their efforts or their delusions.

I make no exception for those who take no money -- every "medium" gets something, even if it's just attention, for "exercising" his or her "ability".

 

[Interesting Ian]

However, there have been no confirmed instances of genuine mediums, and without exception, every medium subjected to a rigorous scientific analysis throughout history has been proven to be either a fraud or misguided.

Well that certainly is not true. For those mediums who appeared to be genuine, there are very few of them who were subsequently proven to be frauds. And there are a fair few where the conclusion that they are obtaining information by anomalous means is the only reasonable conclusion.

 

[Interesting Ian]

People can be fooled into thinking that mediums are real because of subjective validation, confirmation bias, etc.

Indeed.

But it's also worth noting that cold reading is highly unlikely to produce bucketloads of accurate information. Some other hypothesis is required.

 

[Ashles]

Well that certainly is not true. For those mediums who appeared to be genuine, there are very few of them who were subsequently proven to be frauds. And there are a fair few where the conclusion that they are obtaining information by anomalous means is the only reasonable conclusion.

What?

Where has a medium demonstrate in any decent test a significant ability to contact the dead?

Unless you mean that for any medium believed by anyone to be genuine they have not subsequently agreed to be tested in any way that might expose them as frauds. And thus have not been exposed as frauds.

Thing is Ian, many of us believe that there are no psychics because there is no evidence towards the ability, whereas you believe there are psychics despite the fact that there is no evidence.

And just to clarify - I am referring to those people who claim to be able to talk to the dead or predict the future.

 

[Ashles]

Indeed.

But it's also worth noting that cold reading is highly unlikely to produce bucketloads of accurate information. Some other hypothesis is required.

Yes.

It's called hot reading.

 

[gypsynuke]

If you have a TV program with psychics doing cool stuff, then there's a good chance it's been edited and rigged. That's the reason people believe in John Edward so much. His 4 1/2 hours of taping is compressed to about 45 minutes.

 

[CFLarsen]

Indeed.

But it's also worth noting that cold reading is highly unlikely to produce bucketloads of accurate information. Some other hypothesis is required.

Which psychic has done this? Be specific.

 

[sophia8]

A lot of charlatans exist, yes.

Ian - in the context of mediums and psychics, how would you define a "charlatan"?