The American comedian, Steven Wright, once had a joke that went:
“I like to reminisce with people I don’t know.”
Which, when you think about it, is what cold reading is all about. The process is geared towards giving the impression that one person knows more about another than they actually do and that this information is coming from sources unseen.
As with any trick, the idea is to make it look like one thing is happening, while actually something quite different is going on. If the medium repeats the same thing, is it because the spirit is insistent, or because the medium is trying to stretch the guess into something else?
A guess like “Was father called Anthony?” may look specific, and if it is correct it has a big Wow factor. But if it is wrong, which it usually will be, the cold reader always has the option to open out the guess to include anybody, or to include all A-n names, or both. Pretty much every guess has a safety net in this way: a specific guess about anything can be opened up using imagery.
Another example, “Are you a Gemini?” (didn’t NoZed Avenger use this guess too? I can’t recall), could mean what it says. Or it could, on later reasking of the question, become “Who’s a Gemini?” “Who’s a twin?” or “What’s the anniversary in (whenever Gemini falls)?” The odds shorten dramatically with each option.
A brief note about Clancie’s reading.
First, Clancie, I’d like to know if this is the same reading you mentioned before on tvtalkshows. You mentioned a successful reading that started with the medium talking about a father figure, a husband or brother figure and a connection to the name John. Is this the same one?
Second, I personally think the SLO hit is better than the snake one, since (if my impressons are correct) it required no stretching at all to fit.
This part, however, bothers me:
Part I. She first established the deceased, by name (not initial, or a string of names). She mentioned this quite important trip he and I took, and mentioned a specific destination. Third, she asked, "Did a snake come out on the trip?" and, in fact, the "Snake" was an important name
It gives a strong impression (certainly this was what I perceived) that the guesses were consecutive. But later Clancie talks about a guesses about Gemini and teaching. If these came amongst the string of guesses re. The trip to SLO then the narrative flow is broken somewhat. The idea of information about a specific topic coming from the dead is damaged if the topics are disparate and disjointed. For example, I could describe one of my readings thus:
“First I identified the deceased by describing his illness and by naming his brother by name, then I described where he lived (which had significance for the sitter, for that’s where they went on holiday) and then I named the deceased’s only living sibling.”
Now, this is accurate, but it is incomplete. And the impression it gives is quite different to what actually happened. Which is why, although I respect Clancie and don’t think she’s being deliberately dishonest, I can’t take this too seriously.
Lastly, I can’t imagine the Blue Book having much of a role in today’s psychic circles. If so, then Rupert Brown’s seems to contain only suggestions about guessing page numbers on the books besides peoples’ beds, John Edward’s focuses entirely on people who’ve lost their leg, and Suzanne Northrup’s must be just a collection of random nouns that she can yell at entire audiences!
). (And, just for interest, Brian also got the teacher-thing, and the subject).
Do you mean proof? Even then I do not understand what the word proof means outside of formal logic.
This is the problem you see. One cannot have a sensible discussion with skeptics regarding any controversial phenomena. One cannot discuss what the explanation of some phenomenon might be because they often deny it occurs in the first place! 