Examples of Skeptics Cold Reading?

[Clancie]

Posted by Untrickable

Who was he trying to cold read??

At Cal Tech, various members of an audience of about 250 people who'd come to hear him (Some say, "It was an audience of skeptics! What would you expect?" But, imo, they were quite receptive to participating, IF the readings would have fit).

At TAM2, he did another demo for an audience--there's a thread here (something like, "How was the Cold Reading Demo at TAM2?") that (briefly) stayed on topic about it--but apparently, nothing exciting, demo-wise.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by T'ai Chi

Dude, Clancie was talking about Mark Edwards (or Edward?) here.

Yes, thanks for clarifying that. Mark Edward is the one on the Skeptic Society video I mentioned and he also did the cold reading demo for P&T. He describes himself on the video as "skeptic and believer".

Ian Rowland wrote the book, "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading", did a lecture/demo at TAM2, and appeared last year at Cal Tech, but no one's ever mentioned seeing a video of it. (I was there in person, as were some others from this board).

Unlike Mark Edward, as far as I know, Ian does not characterize himself as a "believer" in anything paranormal at all.

 

[UnTrickaBLe]

At Cal Tech, various members of an audience of about 250 people who'd come to hear him (Some say, "It was an audience of skeptics! What would you expect?" But, imo, they were quite receptive to participating, IF the readings would have fit).

At TAM2, he did another demo for an audience--there's a thread here (something like, "How was the Cold Reading Demo at TAM2?") that (briefly) stayed on topic about it--but apparently, nothing exciting, demo-wise.

You've got to be kidding me if you are saying this guy's cold reading was a "flop" while he was demonstrating the technique to a room full of paying, intelligent, educated skeptics at Cal Tech!!

 

[CFLarsen]

At Cal Tech, various members of an audience of about 250 people who'd come to hear him (Some say, "It was an audience of skeptics! What would you expect?" But, imo, they were quite receptive to participating, IF the readings would have fit).

No, no, no. You are again ignoring what you know perfectly well: If a person, who poses as someone who can communicate with dead people, wants to perpetrate that notion, people have to believe that he can.

At TAM2, he did another demo for an audience--there's a thread here (something like, "How was the Cold Reading Demo at TAM2?") that (briefly) stayed on topic about it--but apparently, nothing exciting, demo-wise.

You know what? It was an audience of skeptics, which is why he failed. We knew - I was there - that he was trying to fool us. You know that nobody can succeed under those circumstances. Why do you ignore this?

You are not saying that someone, whom the audience know is a fake, can pose as a real medium. Are you?!?

Yes, thanks for clarifying that.

How would you know what I write? Don't you have me on ignore?

Unlike Mark Edward, as far as I know, Ian does not characterize himself as a "believer" in anything paranormal at all.

Then, I stand corrected. I withdraw my comments.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But I acknowledged that I was wrong. Do you agree?

I agree, you were wrong. I'd have hoped someone like you would know what "experiment" means though.

You may think so. However, anyone with a brain will recognize that a statement is not an insult if it is true.

It is only your belief that you are correct, however.

Are you going to provide UnTrickaBLe with the transcripts you have?

You aren't really interested in this Claus. Heck, you couldn't even get the user name right. Why don't you provide Untrickable with transcripts? From your first post in this tread you dragged me into this with your personal vendettas. Get bent.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Untrickable

You've got to be kidding me if you are saying this guy's cold reading was a "flop" while he was demonstrating the technique to a room full of paying skeptics at Cal Tech!!

The thing that people seem to minimize or overlook about a skeptic performing for an audience of skeptics, is that "playing along" simply reinforces everyone's confirmation bias.

In other words, unlike a JE performance, the better Ian looks in a demo, the better the case for cold reading looks. (Of course, whether believer or skeptic, imo, most people won't lie just to help out a demo by "making it fit". It was an unsuccessful demo not because the audience was uncooperative (they weren't), but because, imo, Ian's guesses weren't working well that day).

 

[CFLarsen]

I agree, you were wrong. I'd have hoped someone like you would know what "experiment" means though.

Please don't make up answers for me. Respond to what I ask you, don't make up things. You do that a lot.

Do you acknowledge that I acknowledged that I was wrong, yes or no?

It is only your belief that you are correct, however.

I refer to logic, common sense and brains.

You aren't really interested in this Claus. Heck, you couldn't even get the user name right. Why don't you provide Untrickable with transcripts? From your first post in this tread you dragged me into this with your personal vendettas. Get bent.

I already acknowledged that I was wrong. Please accept that, instead of implying that I did not.

You have the transcripts, don't you? Why do you try to shift the onus on me? You have the transcripts, but you refuse anyone to see them.

Why? Are they secret? Why this secrecy? Why this cloak-and-dagger? Why imagine you are guarding a secret? Does it make you feel important? You tried to do an "analysis" of them, but realized you were not capable of doing so.

Why don't you just make those 20-odd transcripts available? You asked for people to find them for you, and submit them to you. Yet, we have never seen any of them. You don't own those transcripts, T'ai Chi. Why do you cling on to them, as if they were your closely guarded property?

It is far easier to just make them public. Email them to me at webmaster@skepticreport.com, and I will put them up for everyone to see. I will give you full credit for accumulating them.

Will you?

The thing that people seem to minimize or overlook about a skeptic performing for an audience of skeptics, is that "playing along" simply reinforces everyone's confirmation bias.

In other words, unlike a JE performance, the better Ian looks in a demo, the better the case for cold reading looks. (Of course, whether believer or skeptic, imo, most people won't lie just to help out a demo by "making it fit". It was an unsuccessful demo not because the audience was uncooperative (they weren't), but because, imo, Ian's guesses weren't working well that day).

No, the thing that you "overlook" - and I say this deliberately, because we both know that you are perfectly aware of this - is that anybody whom the audience knows is a fake will never be able to pull it off. If we know the guy up there is a fake, we will never believe he is a true, real medium.

It's very simple, but you ignore this.

 

[UnTrickaBLe]

The thing that people seem to minimize or overlook about a skeptic performing for an audience of skeptics, is that "playing along" simply reinforces everyone's confirmation bias.

In other words, unlike a JE performance, the better Ian looks in a demo, the better the case for cold reading looks. (Of course, whether believer or skeptic, imo, most people won't lie just to help out a demo by "making it fit". It was an unsuccessful demo not because the audience was uncooperative (they weren't), but because, imo, Ian's guesses weren't working well that day).

This is absurd.

This is like saying that a guy showed up at a magicians convention, to demonstrate sawing a girl in half, but he was a "flop" because no one actually believed that the girl was cut in half!

The fools who believe in "psychic mediums" are, on average, probably about 20-30 IQ points below the scientists and skeptics who came to see Ian demonsrate the well-known techniques behind the fraudulent and shameful business of "talking to the dead."

The only real test would be to let someone like Ian or Randi attempt to fake out an audience of "believers" who did not know who they (Randi or Ian) were.

 

[Interesting Ian]

You've got to be kidding me if you are saying this guy's cold reading was a "flop" while he was demonstrating the technique to a room full of paying, intelligent, educated skeptics at Cal Tech!!

Well, it's skeptics who seem to think that cold reading can produce miraculously accurate statements.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie
At TAM2, he did another demo for an audience--there's a thread here (something like, "How was the Cold Reading Demo at TAM2?") that (briefly) stayed on topic about it--but apparently, nothing exciting, demo-wise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You know what? It was an audience of skeptics, which is why he failed. We knew - I was there - that he was trying to fool us. You know that nobody can succeed under those circumstances. Why do you ignore this?

You are not saying that someone, whom the audience know is a fake, can pose as a real medium. Are you?!?
[/B]

But you're ignoring the fact that skeptics want cold readers to be successful. They will be anxious to confirm any hits or anything that can be construed to be a hit, because this will seem to lend credence to their contention that all such readings are cold reading.

 

[Interesting Ian]

The thing that people seem to minimize or overlook about a skeptic performing for an audience of skeptics, is that "playing along" simply reinforces everyone's confirmation bias.

In other words, unlike a JE performance, the better Ian looks in a demo, the better the case for cold reading looks. (Of course, whether believer or skeptic, imo, most people won't lie just to help out a demo by "making it fit". It was an unsuccessful demo not because the audience was uncooperative (they weren't), but because, imo, Ian's guesses weren't working well that day).

Yes indeed

 

[Interesting Ian]

No, the thing that you "overlook" - and I say this deliberately, because we both know that you are perfectly aware of this - is that anybody whom the audience knows is a fake will never be able to pull it off. If we know the guy up there is a fake, we will never believe he is a true, real medium.

It's very simple, but you ignore this. [/B]

You and they don't need to believe it. You will still want the reader to appear to be correct and to try and fit his statements.

 

[Interesting Ian]

This is absurd.

This is like saying that a guy showed up at a magicians convention, to demonstrate sawing a girl in half, but he was a "flop" because no actually believed that the girl was cut in half!

Huh?? I don't understand how this is analogous to Clancie's point

The fools who believe in "psychic mediums"

Ooooooo!! LOL It always astonishes me the skeptics antagonism over anyone who disputes their world view. What are they all frightened of? Amazing.

are, on average, probably about 20-30 IQ points below the scientists and skeptics who came to see Ian demonsrate the well-known techniques behind the fraudulent and shameful business of "talking to the dead."

Yea, it's shameful to believe in anything remotely tainted with the paranormal!

Are you sure you're not !XXRationalXX!'s sock puppet?? LOL

The only real test would be to let someone like Ian or Randi attempt to fake out an audience of "believers" who did not know who they (Randi or Ian) were.

Yeah!! Believers like me! Ummm . . .no . . .no-ones like me are they? Ha Ha Ha!

That's cos I'm so special!

 

[UnTrickaBLe]

Huh?? I don't understand how this is analogous to Clancie's point

Because in both cases, it would be someone on stage showing how "magic tricks" or "frauds" or "illusions" are performed. In both cases, not even one single person in the audience is likely to believe that a) the girl was sawn in half or b) "mediums" can talk to the dead.

They certainly won't believe that the person up there showing them the secrets behind the trick is actually *doing* the trick.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Because in both cases, it would be someone on stage showing how "magic tricks" or "frauds" or "illusions" are performed. In both cases, not even one single person in the audience is likely to believe that a) the girl was sawn in half or b) "mediums" can talk to the dead.

As I've already explained, this is irrelevant.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Untrickable

...in both cases, it would be someone on stage showing how "magic tricks" or "frauds" or "illusions" are performedIn both cases, not even one single person in the audience is likely to believe that a) the girl was sawn in half or b) "mediums" can talk to the dead.

Exactly. If you're impressing people with your "trick", the trick should work.

A cold reading demo isn't a flop because people don't believe its real mediumship. Of course they won't believe its real mediumship, whatever info is stated. As Ian says, that's not the point.

A cold reading demo is a flop if there's little information, no interesting "hits", little that can show how cold reading really does produce accurate, identifiable information for the sitter.

In your scenario, the comparison would be a magician who is there to saw a girl in half and...he pulls apart the cabinet...but she still appears the "same as ever". He should show the trick first..."wow!"...then expose it.

If you first can't show that cold reading works--that a cold reader really -can- bring some good information out for people whom he doesn't know--then it's not very convincing just to say, "Well, I can't show it to you, but, trust me. This is the way they do it."

 

[T'ai Chi]

The fools who believe in "psychic mediums" are, on average, probably about 20-30 IQ points below the scientists and skeptics who came to see Ian demonsrate the well-known techniques behind the fraudulent and shameful business of "talking to the dead."

Do you have any actual studies that show the lower IQ's, or is it just your belief?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Please don't make up answers for me.

You said what I did was an "experiment". That is wrong. You have said that I did an experiment in other posts too. You were wrong there too, but somehow didn't correct yourself on your own then, as I doubt you'd have corrected yourself here if I didn't expose your mistake. The fact that you'd even call what I proposed an experiment shows you don't even grasp what it is I proposed. The fact that you didn't correct yourself until I said something is revealing.

I refer to logic, common sense and brains.

Yeah, which apparently you believe allows you to critique statistical arguments, call me a "lousy statistician", and say some analyses are "flawed", for examples, while at the same time admitting that you know next to nothing about statistics.

You contradict yourself with your statements.

You have the transcripts, don't you? Why do you try to shift the onus on me?

You shifted the onus on me in your first post in this thread, dude. Why did you even go there? Why not provide whoever asked some examples of transcripts? I'm not going to do your work for you. You said there is "plenty". I didn't. YOU provide the poster with them.

Why? Are they secret?

I'm not going to show my analysis, etc. until I am done with the analysis. That is SOP. If you can find one, just one, study were data was made available to anyone who asked at any time of the study, please, let me know. Just don't hold me to higher standards.

You can't and you know it.

It is far easier to just make them public. Email them to me at webmaster@skepticreport.com, and I will put them up for everyone to see. I will give you full credit for accumulating them. Will you?

Yahweh, in another thread, already pointed out that your webpage has nothing to do with me, despite your attempts to use it in that manner. It is simply your red herring.

I will put things on my webpage sometime as I said. I will also put my critiques of some of the content on skepticrepork on my webpage (this will be sure to be in an extremely tiny footnote). I will put your and Clancie's ongoing post counts for all to see and evaluate. I only evaluate things in an objective statistical manner, so I will not have any emotional or humor articles as your page often does. I also will not engage in monthly self promotion of my webpage.

You'll like it..

 

[HenDralux]

A cold reading demo isn't a flop because people don't believe its real mediumship. Of course they won't believe its real mediumship, whatever info is stated. As Ian says, that's not the point

Hey Clancie,

I think you may be ignoring the huge power of suggestion a little with regards to this. It plays a major part in showperson demonstrations such as mediumship. The fact the medium 'holds' a certain position in the short relationship he/she has with his/her reader. Almost an authoritative stance over the occasion.

Most mediums have a certain 'way' about them. It often involves a kind of over-familiarity with the subject, making the client feel quite special and that something special is indeed occurring. Lots of touchy feely comments, use of words like 'darling', 'bless you'.
That would be completely negated if the subject knew it was a false and deliberate act.

It is very important for a subject to be of the opinion that the reader believes in what he is doing - it really does play a big role in the illusion of what is apparently taking place.

I strongly disagree that cold reading does not need 'belief' from the people being read - it changes the whole ball game. You lose many aspects of the body language and verbal feedback cold reading techniques needs to feed on.

Basically, it's just not the same.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Hey Clancie,

I think you may be ignoring the huge power of suggestion a little with regards to this. It plays a major part in showperson demonstrations such as mediumship. The fact the medium 'holds' a certain position in the short relationship he/she has with his/her reader. Almost an authoritative stance over the occasion.

Most mediums have a certain 'way' about them. It often involves a kind of over-familiarity with the subject, making the client feel quite special and that something special is indeed occurring. Lots of touchy feely comments, use of words like 'darling', 'bless you'.
That would be completely negated if the subject knew it was a false and deliberate act.

It is very important for a subject to be of the opinion that the reader believes in what he is doing - it really does play a big role in the illusion of what is apparently taking place.

I strongly disagree that cold reading does not need 'belief' from the people being read - it changes the whole ball game. You lose many aspects of the body language and verbal feedback cold reading techniques needs to feed on.

Basically, it's just not the same.

I would tend to agree with you that "believers", erroneously believing a cold reader is genuine, would on average be more impressed than skeptics confronted with a cold reader who states upfront to them he is a cold reader (of course if he pretended to be a real medium I can guarantee they wouldn't be impressed at all! ). But don't forget that skeptics wish very much for cold readers to sound convincing. So if skeptics are not impressed at all with a given cold reader who admits to them he is a cold reader, then although believers might be disposed to feel slightly more impressed (if they do not get informed he is a cold reader), even they would not likely to suppose that the reader is genuinely in contact with their loved ones.

It seems to me that skeptics are desperate to think of any "normal" explanation no matter how wildly implausible, rather than just acknowledge that a reader has obtained information by anomalous means.

Let's be honest, do you really believe you're going to convince any intelligent believer with these wildly implausible hypotheses?? Let's be honest, you're not are you??

What you need to do is produce a cold reader who can do as well as the best allegedly genuine mediums. If they can't, and in fact are nowhere near as accurate, then you cannot expect someone like me, or Clancie, or any other intelligent open-minded person to think to themselves:

"Ah yes! Even though no cold reader is anywhere near as good as the best alleged real mediums, I think I've changed my mind and now think it is definitely all cold reading!"

It just ain't going to happen is it (and indeed it is to our credit that we would not change our minds as that would not say much for our intelligence!)