Examples of Skeptics Cold Reading?

[CFLarsen]

Of course, it's a well-known psychological phenonmenon that many people who have been tricked and swindled by mediums and other frauds will refuse to admit to themselves that they have been played for fools.

Indeed. What is interesting with Clancie's example is that, although she admits that she has been conned again and again and again, she keeps seeking the next medium, and the next, and the next.

I think that her belief runs much deeper than most of the poor sods that are swindled by the mediums. What I find very interesting is her need to find as many mediums as possible that she can claim are "real". She's not like another poster here, neofight, who clings on to just one medium. No, Clancie collects "real" mediums like a hunter collects trophies from the African savannah.

This fanatic drive to get as many mediums under her belt might have something to do with the way she thinks. Note how she constantly refers to the many anecdotes - she truly believes that the greater number of anecdotes, the better a claim is supported. If she can point to a number of self-experienced mediums that she can claim are real (without providing real evidence, of course), she thinks her belief is validated.

Her habit of ignoring contradictory evidence is nothing more than standard procedure for believers.

I know she pretends to ignore me, but try to ask Clancie just how many mediums she has seen. You will not get a straight answer - mostly because I honestly think that she has lost count herself.

The "Carlos" hoax in Australia is a perfect example of that. Even once the hoax was revealed, many of "Carlos's" devotees came up to him and swore that he was "the real thing" -- even though he was a complete and utter fraud!

Yep. Scary.

 

[glee]

I don't agree. For example I was just watching Derren Brown last night. Even though he's not very good at chess, he simultaneously played 5 good chess players at once, a couple of grandmasters amongst them, and he managed to beat most of them. They all seemed to be extremely impressed. But I twigged on how he did it.

My sheer raw intelligence you see

I think this is an excellent example of how our memory is not perfect, and helps explain why people think psychics have done well - because sitters don't 'remember' things from a psychic session precisely.

Derren played 9 chessplayers, not 5.
There were 4 grandmasters, not a couple.
Derren won 4 games out of 9, not most.

None of the players were impressed with the chess result, because they all knew once they saw the studio layout exactly how Derren would do it. (There are only 3 ways to beat a bunch of international chess players: bribery / use Kasparov / play 'mirror' chess.) Indeed one strong player turned down his invite, saying he already knew how it would be done.

I should add that Derren is an extremely clever illusionist and mentalist, as well as a jolly pleasant person. It's just that the remarkable chess trick is only possible by the 3 ways stated above.

 

[glee]

He actually played 11 opponents, I think. The trick was he simply remembered each player's moves, and duplicated them on other tables. In effect, the grandmasters were playing each other.

They revealed the solution on the show.

9 opponents, not 11. (Shows how difficult it is to remember details accurately.)

There were 4 grandmasters, who played each other. Another 4 international players were also paired together. The weakest player did not have a 'mirror' opponent, so Derren must have been fed moves by a strong player in the studio (or used a computer).

I understand this trick perfectly (and Derren did well to carry it off). But if Derren had not been a well-known magician, and had not helpfully explained the trick afterwards, how many of the public would have been fooled?
Isn't this a useful example of gullibility and wanting to believe?

 

[glee]

He did indeed. He arranged that the last guy would be the poorest player, and he did beat him. The others were wins, draws and losses, as you would expect. It wasn't actually just a demonstration of his playing prowess, though.

At the start of the performance he gave one of the players an envelope with a long series of digits in it. When the games were completed the number was revealed and it turned out to be a prediction of the number of pieces remaining on each of the boards (10,6,5,9 etc)

It wasn't perfect (one error as I recall), but it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur.

I don't know if it was a trick. He is a magician, after all.

(First, sorry if I'm repeating myself - I'm reading thru the thread and answering as I go.)

Good grief! How gullible are you, TheBoyPaj?

1. Derren didn't beat anybody. He doesn't have any 'playing prowess'. He didn't play any moves of his own. 8 of the games were 'mirror chess', and the last was played by a strong player (or a computer) feeding Derren the moves.

2. I have no idea what you mean by 'wins, draws and losses, as you would expect'. These are the only possible results of a chess game. Obviously mirror chess results in symmetrical results, so from the 8 mirror games there will be an even number of draws (or none), and as many wins as losses.

3. 'it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur'.
No, it was an example of switching an envelope (which Derren did very well).
After the games finished, the players had post-match interviews. This gave time for Derren to prepare a duplicate envelope with the numbers in. then he just used misdirection to switch it.

YES, IT WAS A TRICK!
NO, HE DOESN'T HAVE MENTAL POWERS!

Can I sell you a bridge?!

 

[glee]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian (bolding mine)

I was only paying a little bit of attention to the programme actually cos on Internet as always. So not sure how he did that. But he can engineer the correct results by doing what you suggested and also, if he just apparently randomly asked the various chess players how many pieces they had left on their boards, this completes the explanation (because it won't actually have been random).

Strewth!
Derren has no mental powers.
Why on earth do you think he does?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I think this is an excellent example of how our memory is not perfect, and helps explain why people think psychics have done well - because sitters don't 'remember' things from a psychic session precisely.

Derren played 9 chessplayers, not 5.
There were 4 grandmasters, not a couple.
Derren won 4 games out of 9, not most.

None of the players were impressed with the chess result, because they all knew once they saw the studio layout exactly how Derren would do it. (There are only 3 ways to beat a bunch of international chess players: bribery / use Kasparov / play 'mirror' chess.) Indeed one strong player turned down his invite, saying he already knew how it would be done.

I should add that Derren is an extremely clever illusionist and mentalist, as well as a jolly pleasant person. It's just that the remarkable chess trick is only possible by the 3 ways stated above.

If you want to be pedantic he only played 1 chessplayer. OK, there were 5 games played but he played against 9 players By beat most of them I meant his combined score was greater than theirs. And some of the chess players looked pretty impressed to me. Of course they could have been putting on an act and lying. I can't really discuss this programme in detail though because I only was paying a little bit of attention to it whilst on the Internet (as in the vast majority of TV I "watch"). Didn't think I'd be quizzed about it the next day. Didn't think anyone else would have seen it! It wasn't on one of the 5 normal channels!

 

[Interesting Ian]

9 opponents, not 11. (Shows how difficult it is to remember details accurately.)

There were 4 grandmasters, who played each other. Another 4 international players were also paired together. The weakest player did not have a 'mirror' opponent, so Derren must have been fed moves by a strong player in the studio (or used a computer).

I understand this trick perfectly (and Derren did well to carry it off). But if Derren had not been a well-known magician, and had not helpfully explained the trick afterwards, how many of the public would have been fooled?
Isn't this a useful example of gullibility and wanting to believe?

Well, certainly not a useful example of that, no. For a kick off I see no reason why people would want Derren to win.

 

[Interesting Ian]

(First, sorry if I'm repeating myself - I'm reading thru the thread and answering as I go.)

Good grief! How gullible are you, TheBoyPaj?

1. Derren didn't beat anybody. He doesn't have any 'playing prowess'. He didn't play any moves of his own. 8 of the games were 'mirror chess', and the last was played by a strong player (or a computer) feeding Derren the moves.

He specifically denied he was being fed the moves. This was the weakest player he was playing against.

2. I have no idea what you mean by 'wins, draws and losses, as you would expect'. These are the only possible results of a chess game. Obviously mirror chess results in symmetrical results, so from the 8 mirror games there will be an even number of draws (or none), and as many wins as losses.

I'm not sure who doesn't understand this.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Strewth!
Derren has no mental powers.
Why on earth do you think he does?

"Mental powers"?? I don't understand what you mean by "mental powers".

How does resigning at a particular point, or suggesting a draw constitute mental powers?

Of course if it simply a blatant cheat of switching envelopes, then this wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Marian]

He actually played 11 opponents, I think. The trick was he simply remembered each player's moves, and duplicated them on other tables. In effect, the grandmasters were playing each other.

They revealed the solution on the show.

I remember first reading about this trick in the book "If Tomorrow Comes", by Sidney Sheldon. The trick is used as part of a con game on a cruise ship, the game is played with 2 grandmasters, each in another room. The con artist (in the book a woman, Tracy Whitney) remembers the moves, and in essense they're playing each other. They also had stipulated that no one could switch rooms (other than the woman playing both) once the games had started, and that the ship docked almost immediately after the game ended, so they were able to get away before they were caught. And in the book it was obvious early on to both grandmasters that she was employing the moves of the other master, but each assumed the other had tutored her in order to publically embarass them by losing to an unknown player.

I couldn't find the original publication date, but it seems to be early to mid 1980s.

 

[Interesting Ian]

She knew I was from California. That's my "accent".

She had the first name. Probably would assume I was Caucasian...if she guessed ethnic background based on my name, she could easily be wrong.

I called. And, even if she saw the number,...like what?

Sure, always a possibility. You try to say very little, obviously. And, fortunately, there is a tape to listen to later to see if it sounds like building on the clues.

Ever had a reading, Thomas?

Clancie, did you just telephone her up out of the blue? Or did you arrange somehow or other to telephone her at a particular time? You say she knew your name and that you were from California, but it is unclear to me if she knew these things before you telephoned for the reading? Even if you had telephoned earlier, and said basically nothing at all, they might have been able to get your number then find out details? (although of course the "snake" connection seems unlikely etc)

Basically we can confidently reject the cold reading hypothesis. Given the detailed reading this is utterly implausible. But I'm just wondering about the hot reading angle

 

[glee]

If you want to be pedantic he only played 1 chessplayer. OK, there were 5 games played but he played against 9 players By beat most of them I meant his combined score was greater than theirs. And some of the chess players looked pretty impressed to me. Of course they could have been putting on an act and lying. I can't really discuss this programme in detail though because I only was paying a little bit of attention to it whilst on the Internet (as in the vast majority of TV I "watch"). Didn't think I'd be quizzed about it the next day. Didn't think anyone else would have seen it! It wasn't on one of the 5 normal channels!

I'm not getting at you, merely showing how memory is not 100% reliable.
I think this program is a fascinating example of how some posters read something paranormal into what is just a trick.

I think it it important to be pedantic (here meaning 'completely accurate'), so we can differentiate between e.g. cold reading and mediums. If a sitter comes out of a reading and says 'those 'hits' were inexplicable!', it helps if we can see exactly what was said.

So to be accurate:

Derren played no games at all. Eight were mirror chess, and he is simply not strong enough to have won the last game by himself.

He won 4 out of 9. Your description of this as 'beating most of them' is not mathematically correcte.
(Please note that if this was just chatting about a TV program, I wouldn't be bothered. But since we are talking about extraordinary claims, we must be very accurate in our record of what took place.)

I can assure you the players were not impressed by the chess, since they knew once they saw the set exactly what Derren was going to do.

Finally the program was on Channel 4.

 

[glee]

He specifically denied he was being fed the moves. This was the weakest player he was playing against.

I haven't seen a quote of him denying this.
The weakest player was about 160 BCF rating, and the way he was defeated (K-side breakthrough / use of opposite coloured bishops) had all the hall marks of a 200+ player.
There are only about 120 players in England of that strength, and, even if you have the talent, it takes at least 5 years regular practice to be that good.
Derren moves the pieces like a beginner (and there is no record of him ever having played for a club or in a tournament).

"Mental powers"?? I don't understand what you mean by "mental powers"

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
but it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur.

TheBoyPaj evidently thinks Derren has mental powers. Presumably he assumed Derren waited till the right number of pieces were on the board, then 'influenced' the game to end immediately.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm not getting at you, merely showing how memory is not 100% reliable.
I think this program is a fascinating example of how some posters read something paranormal into what is just a trick.

I think it it important to be pedantic (here meaning 'completely accurate'), so we can differentiate between e.g. cold reading and mediums. If a sitter comes out of a reading and says 'those 'hits' were inexplicable!', it helps if we can see exactly what was said.

So to be accurate:

Derren played no games at all. Eight were mirror chess, and he is simply not strong enough to have won the last game by himself.

He won 4 out of 9. Your description of this as 'beating most of them' is not mathematically correcte.
(Please note that if this was just chatting about a TV program, I wouldn't be bothered. But since we are talking about extraordinary claims, we must be very accurate in our record of what took place.)

I can assure you the players were not impressed by the chess, since they knew once they saw the set exactly what Derren was going to do.

Finally the program was on Channel 4.

But no-one is reading anything paranormal at all in this chess stunt At least not on this thread. I certainly haven't. TheBoyPaj certainly didn't. No-one has! As I said (and TheBoyPaj said originally), he could engineer the number of pieces left on the board by resigning at a certain point or suggesting a draw. Nothing paranormal about that!

 

[CFLarsen]

By beat most of them I meant his combined score was greater than theirs.

What are you talking about? How do you calculate his score?

 

[Kerberos]

What are you talking about? How do you calculate his score?

A win gives one point and a draw gives half a point.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
He specifically denied he was being fed the moves. This was the weakest player he was playing against.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I haven't seen a quote of him denying this.

He said he hasn't got any ear piece in his ear feeding him the moves. Maybe he just blatantly cheated and someone played the game for him. But this was not the impression he gave. So if what you say is correct then he is a flat out liar. (which of course we know to be true anyway eg that gun stunt last year).

The weakest player was about 160 BCF rating, and the way he was defeated (K-side breakthrough / use of opposite coloured bishops) had all the hall marks of a 200+ player.

I never saw that information being given out. Nor did I see any of the games. Didn't think it showed any of the games actually being played! Of course he wouldn't be able to beat a player of such a ranking. So if you are correct, he's lied yet again. OK, so what? We all know he does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
"Mental powers"?? I don't understand what you mean by "mental powers"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
but it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Glee
TheBoyPaj evidently thinks Derren has mental powers. Presumably he assumed Derren waited till the right number of pieces were on the board, then 'influenced' the game to end immediately.

Of couse people can psychologically influence other people, and this is not regarded as having anything to do with the paranormal! Anyway, him simply resigning at a particular point doesn't involve influencing his opponent at all.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Interesting Ian

Clancie, did you just telephone her up out of the blue? Or did you arrange somehow or other to telephone her at a particular time?

It was planned ahead. She had (part) of my first name and I emailed her (not my computer or email account).

You say she knew your name and that you were from California, but it is unclear to me if she knew these things before you telephoned for the reading?

Part of my first name before and I told her that I was in California when I called (no, Untrickable, I did not consider this a major revelation).

Even if you had telephoned earlier, and said basically nothing at all, they might have been able to get your number then find out details? (although of course the "snake" connection seems unlikely etc)

Well, I'm open for someone to explain how. As I say, she had part of my first name and I scheduled the reading via someone else's computer and email account.

Oh, and just a couple of minutes into it she said, "You're the Gemini" and "You teach, he's showing me that." I'm sure people don't take my word for how close mouthed I am in readings, but the advantage of having "several" is that you learn to be more disciplined that way (she thought I was a skeptic--as did Robert Brown, lol).

Anyway, I think the normal explanations are "lucky guess", "hot reading" or "remembering the hits and forgetting the misses". But, with the latter, the hits are still hits. If they're lucky guesses...well,we've seen that's rather difficult even to get a book title right with Boy Paj's book test (which was much like correctly guessing the zodiac sign).

And as for hot reading...well...I'm open to the idea, but...."How?" (Oh, and the phone I called her on wasn't registered in my name).

 

[Clancie]

Oh, and just to add...in the link above, Randi described hot reading (again) for his key "validations"...not cold reading.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II

Clancie, did you just telephone her up out of the blue? Or did you arrange somehow or other to telephone her at a particular time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

email
It was planned ahead. She had (part) of my first name and I emailed her (not my computer or email account).

I was thinking about it being planned ahead using your own telephone. If that were so, then knowing your number then there might have been some way of finding out about you. Not by email though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say she knew your name and that you were from California, but it is unclear to me if she knew these things before you telephoned for the reading?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Part of my first name before and I told her that I was in California when I called (no, Untrickable, I did not consider this a major revelation).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if you had telephoned earlier, and said basically nothing at all, they might have been able to get your number then find out details? (although of course the "snake" connection seems unlikely etc)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, I'm open for someone to explain how. As I say, she had part of my first name and I scheduled the reading via someone else's computer and email account.

So did you only make the one telephone call, the time when you actually obtained the reading?

Oh, and just a couple of minutes into it she said, "You're the Gemini" and "You teach, he's showing me that." I'm sure people don't take my word for how close mouthed I am in readings, but the advantage of having "several" is that you learn to be more disciplined that way (she thought I was a skeptic--as did Robert Brown, lol).

Gemini? Is that your star sign?

Anyway, I think the normal explanations are "lucky guess", "hot reading" or "remembering the hits and forgetting the misses". But, with the latter, the hits are still hits. If they're lucky guesses...well,we've seen that's rather difficult even to get a book title right with Boy Paj's book test (which was much like correctly guessing the zodiac sign).

And as for hot reading...well...I'm open to the idea, but...."How?" (Oh, and the phone I called her on wasn't registered in my name).

Hot reading is the only "normal" possibility certainly.