Cold Reading Demos at TAM2

[Clancie]

Posted by NoZed Avenger

I would prefer to finish discussion on my last points before moving to a new topic.

Well, um, with all due respect, I think the topic of this thread came first....

 

[thaiboxerken]

most skeptics are familiar with.

I would have to say most Americans, not just skeptics.

I also started a thread about Arthur Ford (very famous, fairly recent) and it went absolutely nowhere.

Who? I would think a famous person would be well known.

I know that Mike D. and dharlow have mentioned SPR research...Piper...Palladino...Home...etc. with very little response around here. Not only do skeptics hardly seem acquainted with the "going beyond JE" areas of mediumship, but very few even seem interested!

This is just a lie. Many of these other "mediums" have been discussed. SPR research has been discussed as well. The discussion is extensive, yet short. It really comes down to the fact that there is NO evidence to support mediumship.

As far as mediums go, it's "JE, JE" from you guys.

And you as well. You never seem to miss a cue to mention JE when someone mentions cold-reading.

JE and cold reading seem to be about as far as most people with strong opinions about mediumship here have looked into this subject (and, for many, that apparently is enough!)

Since there is no evidence to support the claim that mediumship is a reality, is there really a need to look into it at all? Is it wrong to disbelieve in pixies without looking into the history of them?

JE isn't my "favorite" medium.

Yet you mention him alot.

The two mediums I had my best readings are people that I'm sure you've never heard of.

Probably not. Care to offer names and any evidence that these people really have superpowers? How many "mediums" have you went to? How much did it cost for a visit?

Piper? Home? Palladino? I'd prefer Piper, since her work is the best documented and researched.

I'd prefer to stick with reality. Let's start with your objective criteria for determining the difference between a fake medium and a real one.


The point still stands. You will not be impressed, or admit you are impressed, by anyone that claims to be a cold-reader. A cold-reader that claims to be a medium, however, is likely to impress you based on your own subjective biases.

Very minimal content-discussion, imo. (I'm not talking about posts bashing Keen or Fry personally).

The credibility of the researchers is a valid discussion, especially when it comes to paranormal claims.

If I went away, and JE was still on the air, I'm sure an appearance on LKL would elicit some "Biggest douchebag in the universe" comments from someone here...

True, but ANY mediumm or psychic that appears on LKL would illicit similar threads. JE seems to be in the spotlight more often than the others.

Steve posted the link to SPR online which is a huge and useful database that I bet no one here ever pursued.

Because it's a collection of crap. Sorry, but it should be the believers that give us the evidence that supports their claims. I don't believe in mediumship because I have seen no evidence of it. Please show me some real evidence and I might change my mind. Giving a link and saying to look for it does nothing to convince me.

Other than SPR most information is in books, not online. dharlow already recommended quite a few good ones. Did anyone purchase them? I bought three.

No. Have you bought any books on the existence of bigfoot? Have you researched how to cast spells?

What kinds of references did you have in mind?

Reliable, credible references that can withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community.



I would think with all of the knowledge you've acquired, you'd be able to lay down some objective criteria for determining a medium from a cold-reader. Can you do that?

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Beyond that, there are books ("most of them about mediums who are dead...worthless!")...more books ("self serving auto-biographies of the living mediums detailing how good they are...the phonies!")...more books about sitters' experiences ("gullible believers telling anecdotes about pink unicorns") and only one contemporary researcher who's published his studies (yep, Schwartz..."sloppy, sloppy, etc.")

What kinds of references did you have in mind?

You, like Barkhorn1x, make an excellent point!

Bravo, Clancie - now you're getting it!

Barkhorn.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, um, with all due respect, I think the topic of this thread came first....

You have said this about 'hot' reading before, but I really don't understand why that distinction makes a difference in this context. I had no information or advantage that would not be available to JE (or most psychics) on seeing a sitter. I had her name and a piece of readily visible jewelry, from which I concluded her middle name and the name of a grandmother. I then got very lucky on "twins" and a couple of other items.

This could all be done by any competent cold reader -- in fact, with experience, I am sure that one could do percecptively -better- than my initial attempt. You keep saying that part of it was a hot reading -- but the same information would be present for any supposed psychic. That is -especially- true for JE, who has the names and birthdates available to him for every person in his studio audience prior to the show.

You denigrate the reading (now) by saying it was a hot reading -- but the only way you know that is that I admitted it.

If I put the reading on tv and never explained my methods, the transcript mught even now be floating around the ether with various believers citings it with a postscrpit: "Explain THAT, skeptics. Explain how he got her middle name, and the twins. Explain THAT with cold reading." This is much what is happening with JE right now -- If I had not explained how I got the hit, I daresay people might still be speculating. Well, JE has never explained -- without that explanation, how sure can you be that some of his work isn't just as 'hot' as me seeing jewelry on someone?

And the rest of the sitting was bad? Really?

Twins?
Paternal Grandmother?
Fishing/Fishing Pole?
Younger Sister?

The only 'warm' part of the reading was the name Rose, itself. If only the first part was 'good,' then I maintain that 95% + of -every- single psychic medium's readings are likewise not good.

Which leaves us with what?

With all due respect.

If you don't want to continue the discussion from the point it had reached back on page one, just come out and say it. I won't press further; I won't follow you from thread to thread.

But -please-, just say so. If you have a response, please quote the part responded to. If you have no response, then say that and we're done.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by NoZed Avenger

Okay, but I didn't start this thread to argue about cold reading (again)--I wanted to know if there'd been any new demonstrations of it. I'll address your points; I hope you'll address my question, too.

You have said this about 'hot' reading before, but I really don't understand why that distinction makes a difference in this context. I had no information or advantage that would not be available to JE (or most psychics) on seeing a sitter.

There's one difference. The sitter didn't know you had access to her name. If I go to a reading and someone says my name, its a little different than being introduced to a small crowd and then producing a correct name. You also had a chance to see her close enough to observe a small piece of jewelry; JE doesn't have that opportunity in his crowds.

from which I concluded her middle name and the name of a grandmother. I then got very lucky on "twins" and a couple of other items.

I told you, good "thinking on your feet Sherlock-Holmes style" for that part. That's all the first half.

That is -especially- true for JE, who has the names and birthdates available to him for every person in his studio audience prior to the show.

That would be more significant to me if JE's hits were often the person's name and his/her birthdate.

You denigrate the reading (now) by saying it was a hot reading -- but the only way you know that is that I admitted it.

I don't denigrate it; it's a fact. How would you have replicated that same effect in an auditorium of 3000 people--no assigned seating?

If I put the reading on tv and never explained my methods, the transcript mught even now be floating around the ether with various believers citings it with a postscrpit: "Explain THAT, skeptics. Explain how he got her middle name, and the twins. Explain THAT with cold reading."

Maybe. Maybe like Ian on PT (or, yes, JE on CO), editing would have helped you out. But its not all about editing. That's why I've made a lot of effort to see mediumship live and in person.

Well, JE has never explained -- without that explanation, how sure can you be that some of his work isn't just as 'hot' as me seeing jewelry on someone?

He, perhaps like you in this circumstance, has the motive...unlike you, not the opportunity. (And he has explained "ADC". You just don't accept his explanation....)

 

[Clancie]

Part 2, NoZed, (a long question...and didn't I already address this in the original thread? )

And the rest of the sitting was bad? Really?

I find the second half very weak, yes.

• “6” connection – either a connection to June or the sixth of the month? A Miss
  
• You stretch it...
  "anniversary? special occasion? for grandma?" It's still A Miss
  
• "paternal grandmother?" -- 50/50 chance. You got it right.
  
• "father"...(you already know he's passed) "a little boy fishing. Is there someone who – is fishing important to anyone?"
  
  So...her father fished at some time as a child. Depending on your part of the country, that probably isn't unusual..
  
• You pad with emotions...yes, some may sound a bit like you here, but it isn't evidential...: "because I am seeing a little boy fishing, and getting a feeling like almost exasperation. It- It isn’t anger or anything like that. More like “oh, he’s fishing again” kind of thing. Like he was always doing it, or always wanting to do it. And I’m getting a picture of a dark green or dark fishing pole. Either dark, dark green or black with green on it, and I want to say it is connected to the boy. Does that make sense?"
  
• The sitter laughs. Doesn't seem to be getting anything evidential from all this description. A Miss
  
• "a sister" Yes. "Younger" Yes. Good guessing. No names. No detail (other than 50/50 brother/sister; 50/50 older/younger. Fine effort...not evidential).
  
  [*]"I’m also getting some concern...finances...or your job....Lol. I read Ian's book, too. This didn't apparently yield anything (and rightly so!)
  
  [*]...children connected to your work, but not directly. Not like you’re a teacher, but somehow connected to schools or schoolwork. Do you understand that?
  
  No validation recalled or recorded.
  
  [*]"And its like- its like you want to be more creative and do something more creative, like your job is not allowing you that, and you are sometimes frustrated with it, but you are concerned about making it, or being a success. Does that make sense?"
  
  Lukewarm response from sitter, "Some". Again, this is Ian's book...no mediumship here...not much psychic payoff either.
  
  Then you list a bunch of generalities about her job which, really, probably apply to nearly everyone... ......."I believe that this is related to your job, that she feels that you have been dissatisfied with some parts of your job, because- I feel there was a big change within the last year or so? There was some kind of change in how you have been looking at your job and the chance to do something else or make a change related to that?"
  
  Nothing impressive here. Sorry.
  
  [*]S: Yeah. (followed by "advice from grandma not to worry" which elicits a noncommital grunt). Again...nothing.
  
  [*]Success means just having more money to some people, but others would be happy to have things published or- Or just know that they have created something new for themselves, even if no one else saw it. Does that make sense?
  
  Sitter agrees. In real life, instead some sitters would do this
  
  [*]Because I get the feeling that she understood success and the real meaning; and I am getting- getting a real feeling that she wants you to know that understanding too.
  
  S: Okay. Nothing.
  
  [*]M: And let me just say, to end this- I get a very strong impression that you are independent- a very independent thinker, but you sometimes let yourself be talked into listening to other people and go against your instincts, but then you usually regret not just going with your gut. Do you understand that?
  
  S: Yes. [laughing]
  
  More "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading", imo......"You're this...and you're also this opposite thing...."
  
  [*]M: Okay, and she is telling you to trust yourself more and your own decisions more. Okay.
  
  Nothing much here.

What can I say, NZA? You are as good as Shermer, maybe better, and he thought he could go pro! But it doesn't do it for me. The first part is pretty good, but the second isn't evidential at all.

Which leaves us with what?

Barkhorn1x's Theory.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

I would think with all of the knowledge you've acquired, you'd be able to lay down some objective criteria for determining a medium from a cold-reader. Can you do that?

To my satisfaction, more or less, though not to yours.

Who? I would think a famous person would be well known.

He -is- well known, even if you haven't heard of him.

Since there is no evidence to support the claim that mediumship is a reality, is there really a need to look into it at all? Is it wrong to disbelieve in pixies without looking into the history of them?

A bit of a tautology here, ken, but don't let it bother you. I understand the evidence for mediumship is no different to you than the evidence for pixies.

I'd prefer to stick with reality. Let's start with your objective criteria for determining the difference between a fake medium and a real one.

Oh. I thought you asked me to pick someone we could talk about. Guess not....

The point still stands. You will not be impressed, or admit you are impressed, by anyone that claims to be a cold-reader. A cold-reader that claims to be a medium, however, is likely to impress you based on your own subjective biases.

Wrong. I'm very open to seeing a good cold reading. If people here think Ian was disappointing in LV, then I don't think I missed a good cold reading there either. I'm still looking though...One of these days....

Please show me some real evidence and I might change my mind. Giving a link and saying to look for it does nothing to convince me.

I know.

I would think with all of the knowledge you've acquired, you'd be able to lay down some objective criteria for determining a medium from a cold-reader. Can you do that?

For you? No.

P.S. Nice change in posting style, tbk. I may have to go back to your thread in Flame Wars and change my vote if you continue down this path.....

 

[TLN]

For you? No.

For anyone? Doubtful.

 

[thaiboxerken]

To my satisfaction, more or less, though not to yours.

Could you list the objective criteria that you use, so we can discuss it?

He -is- well known, even if you haven't heard of him.

And most of my peers haven't heard of him either.

. I understand the evidence for mediumship is no different to you than the evidence for pixies.

Yes, because the evidence for both are nonexistent. Prove me wrong, find me something that passes scientific scrutiny.

I thought you asked me to pick someone we could talk about. Guess not....

Exactly. It's rather pointless to talk about specific "mediums" until we know your criteria for determining who's a real medium and who's not. Can you present your objective criteria from differentiating the difference between cold-reading and a true medium reading?

Wrong. I'm very open to seeing a good cold reading. If people here think Ian was disappointing in LV, then I don't think I missed a good cold reading there either. I'm still looking though...One of these days....

No, I'm correct. It's virtually impossible to convince yourself that the cold-reading is good because you already know it's.. "just a cold reading". "True mediumship" is what really impresses you.

For you? No.

I doubt that you have any objective criteria. It is my opinion that you determine a true medium from a fake by using subjective criteria. You could prove me wrong by simply listing your objective criteria for differentiating a cold-reading from a true reading. Until you post that criteria, I'll assume it doesn't exist.

P.S. Nice change in posting style, tbk. I may have to go back to your thread in Flame Wars and change my vote if you continue down this path.....

I don't think you can in this forum. Anyone that voted no, however, was ignorant or dishonest. I had posted at least 1 rational argument in the forum prior to that poll.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'll address your points; I hope you'll address my question, too.

I thank you for the more direct response to my post. In answer to your question, I did not take any notes at the convention. Not only did I not bring a pen or paper to the lectures on Saturday, but I was largely tired of the whole cold-reading thing before then.

Mr. Rowland correctly got a question concerning a medical condition for someone that I know, but the rest was largely extrapolations from that. He got the name "Marie" (unrelated) and a few scattered hits. He had more luck with one or two other people, but as I know the process, I really didn't follow it with as much interest.

That said, his book is still probably the best geberal reference on the subject available today -- I own 6 other books, and while some of them cover points not really covered in his, his overview of the process is first rate.

There's one difference. The sitter didn't know you had access to her name.

We disagree on a large number of your assumption in the rsst of the post, I am afraid. Since both of us are tired of the subject, we can just disagree, but she knew I had her name or at least her first name, but I did not have her middle name.

The 'twin' bit was completely cold, and just lucky. I could get just as lucky with 3000 people in the audience -- and in fact, I think that the odds would be even better for me with that many people just waiting to validate my reading.

JE doesn't have that opportunity in his crowds.

JE has that opportunity on his show and with private readings; almost any medium/psychic has that opportunity.

N/A

 

[Clancie]

Posted by NoZed Avenger

In answer to your question...

Thank you for the added detail. You're right, I'm tired of debating cold reading, too (but, no, I'm not tired of seeing demonstrations of it or reading details of them. Not at all, where that's concerned).

He had more luck with one or two other people, but as I know the process, I really didn't follow it with as much interest.

That surprises me, really. But...my loss, because it looks like no one else who posts here did either.

That said, his book is still probably the best general reference on the subject available today -- I own 6 other books, and while some of them cover points not really covered in his, his overview of the process is first rate.

No argument from me on that. I don't often pay $55 + shipping (from UK) for a self published paperback, but I feel this one is definitely worth it.

We disagree on a large number of your assumption in the rsst of the post, I am afraid. Since both of us are tired of the subject, we can just disagree,

Great. Thanks.

...but she knew I had her name or at least her first name, but I did not have her middle name.

The 'twin' bit was completely cold, and just lucky. I could get just as lucky with 3000 people in the audience -- and in fact, I think that the odds would be even better for me with that many people just waiting to validate my reading.

Well, I understand your confidence since you had such success the first time out. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see if "lightning would strike twice" so to speak...if you could really keep it up. (Too bad you don't have that grant....)

JE has that opportunity on his show and with private readings; almost any medium/psychic has that opportunity.

Yes, that's why one needs to rule out the information mediums can get like that. (Note to tbk: That's ONE, but it's all I'm posting. I'll send you the book.... )

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Garrette

Was it you or Neo (I honestly do not remember which) who spoke of being at a JE seminar when he read someone else but you were certain it was meant for you. You (or Neo) just couldn't get JE's attention.

It was neo.

And I'd have to know the circumstances of a "me, too" to decide if it worked for someone or not. I thought neo's was good...and she had a prior connection to the person JE was reading as well.

Since you (or Neo) are willing to credit JE and the spirits with a good reading even when the person they are reading disagrees, would you object to the same latitude for TAM2?

If Ian brought through -equally specific and detailed- information for someone related to his sitter at TAM2...well, depending on the reading and circumstances...no, I probably wouldn't object to the same latitude for him (lots of "ifs" and "supposes" in that, aren't there? But I can't make a blanket statement about it, because I don't accept all of JE's "me toos" as convincing to me, either.

 

[CFLarsen]

I would think with all of the knowledge you've acquired, you'd be able to lay down some objective criteria for determining a medium from a cold-reader. Can you do that?

To my satisfaction, more or less, though not to yours.

"Objective" does not mean "to my satisfaction". "To my satisfaction" is "subjective".

If Ian brought through -equally specific and detailed- information for someone related to his sitter at TAM2...

But this is exactly what you cannot define. You point to "objective" criteria for determining a medium from a cold reader, but you are not able to specify them.

Very weak argumentation.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, that's why one needs to rule out the information mediums can get like that. (Note to tbk: That's ONE, but it's all I'm posting. I'll send you the book.... )

Yes, and how do you go about ruling it out, objectively?

 

[BillHoyt]

Sorry, Hoyt, but you owe Ian an apology for this one. He makes perfect sense here.

He is saying that we, the skeptical community, know about the alpha project because it was successful. Had the researchers discovered the boys, we would not have heard about it. We can never know this, of course, but it is not an altogether unreasonable assumption. Your comment does not blow a hole in Ian's argument; it reinforces it. It is because they were not detected that they are such a story in the skeptical community.

Now, have the decency to apologize to Ian.

Mercutio,

You're missing a few things here. First, is that I didn't post the second comment you attribute to me. Second, you miss the significance of your own "we can never know this, of course." That is entirely right. Ian's claim is an argumentum ad ignorantium. He is claiming to know what would have happened. He is effectively claiming to be able to predict the future.

He is also arguing against himself here. He defends parapsychologists against other scientists and skeptics and then proceeds to give us this prediction of how the parapsychologists would have behaved had they discovered the fraud. He says they would have covered it up and "file drawered" the study. Some defense, huh?

 

[Starrman]

Clancie said:

One reason I've gone for mediumship readings of my own was that some of JE's hits were so interesting and seemed inexplicable as cold reading.

Who ever said cold reading was the only explanation for these hits. How about:

1) hot reading
2) sitter not being truthfull
3) luck
4) sitter not remembering correctly

Can you really say that any one of these is less likely than someone speaking to the dead?

Sometimes I think people believe this garbage because of their lack of imagination. They can't think of another way it could be done so they swallow it whole rather than admit they just don't know.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Sorry, Hoyt, but you owe Ian an apology for this one. He makes perfect sense here.

He is saying that we, the skeptical community, know about the alpha project because it was successful. Had the researchers discovered the boys, we would not have heard about it. We can never know this, of course, but it is not an altogether unreasonable assumption. Your comment does not blow a hole in Ian's argument; it reinforces it. It is because they were not detected that they are such a story in the skeptical community.

Now, have the decency to apologize to Ian.




BillHoyt sez

You're missing a few things here. First, is that I didn't post the second comment you attribute to me. Second, you miss the significance of your own "we can never know this, of course." That is entirely right. Ian's claim is an argumentum ad ignorantium. He is claiming to know what would have happened. He is effectively claiming to be able to predict the future.

He is also arguing against himself here. He defends parapsychologists against other scientists and skeptics and then proceeds to give us this prediction of how the parapsychologists would have behaved had they discovered the fraud. He says they would have covered it up and "file drawered" the study. Some defense, huh?

If the parapsychologists had discovered the conjurers I scarcely think they would have bothered shouting it from the rooftops . And even if they had it is implausible that the skeptical community would have banged on about how they tried to fool parapsychologists but dismally failed!

 

[BillHoyt]

If the parapsychologists had discovered the conjurers I scarcely think they would have bothered shouting it from the rooftops . And even if they had it is implausible that the skeptical community would have banged on about how they tried to fool parapsychologists but dismally failed!

Ian,

Who cares what you scarcely think. That you scarcely think is abundantly obvious. Read Hansen's The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research paper on deception in parapsychology Then read his references, including papers on psi researcher-discovered fraud.

That you would try to beat skeptics over the head by telling us of the ethical deficiencies of some or many of, and by impugning the motives of nearly all psi researchers is a psichedelic trip. Welcome to our side of the argument anyway, and be careful of overstating our case as you just have.

wow.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Has any skeptic agreed to sit in Schwarz's chair yet?

 

[BillHoyt]

Has any skeptic agreed to sit in Schwarz's chair yet?

Under the conditions he gave Randi? Where only his lab can publish or discuss the results and not the skeptic? Are you kidding?