John Edward - psychic or what?

[aggle-rithm]

And as we all know, the brain, mind and consciousness are entirely understood.
If ever there was a need for the roll-eyes emoticon, here it is.

There is a lot to learn still about the brain, mind, etc.

And the way we will learn it is through studying the way it behaves, not the speculative things we think would be really cool if it could do.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Absolutely. Of course, it's still possible that we're going to get something that does genuinely have a case to overturn some accepted physics - a quantum theory of gravity, maybe. And Dark Matter and Dark Energy still seem to my wholly uninformed layman's ears like a fudge in order to get the maths to work. But if those things really do supersede our current understanding of the universe, it's not going to make the currently-accepted models "wrong", as such. I mean, E demonstrably does = mc². That's not about to change.

A quantum theory of gravity is pretty much necessary, we know there are problems with general relativity on certain scales, so it won't really be a "revolution", rather a gigantic leap forward in progress.

Dark energy and dark matter are largely misunderstood. Based on our observational data, they're the best mathematical explanation for certain effects (lensing, galaxy formation, etc). No other theory (modified gravity, for instance) provides a satisfactory explanation.

We also know that dark matter exists to some extent, you may have heard of neutrinos.

 

[RemieV]

Sorry to have stepped out of the thread for a bit - real life got in the way.

I also think I've probably gotten enough information to move ahead with everything, and am mostly only seeing explanations that have already been discussed in slightly different phrasing.

I did want to mention something that drives me batty, though...

For some reason, skeptics tend to actually ascribe psychology as the root of mentalism acts. Think it over - why do you think that is the explanation?

There is no such person as Sherlock Holmes. The television show 'The Mentalist' doesn't accurately describe how a single one of those tricks works. And 'Lie to Me' is a severely prettied up version of how microexpressions actually work - in that they, at the very least, require close quarters, and for most people (by which I mean 'almost all'), a videocamera.

ynot is absolutely right in saying that the level of logical deduction based upon body language that some in here are saying Edward must have is so close to being psychic that using it as an explanation is nuts.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Firstly, someone is mingling with the audience lightly disguised using a false name and backstory and possibly carrying a listening device.

This is not far-fetched because we know that there was at least one person mingling with the audience, lightly disguised, using a false name and backstory and carrying a listening device.

So we only need to suppose that an employee of Edward's company was doing just what RemieV was doing.

And we know that Liam is not exactly tight-lipped with strangers.

I wonder if that really isn't his name, but he was conducting an experiment to see if Edward would jump on some false information that was casually tossed about.

~~ Paul

 

[Jeff Corey]

Sorry to have stepped out of the thread for a bit - real life got in the way.

I also think I've probably gotten enough information to move ahead with everything, and am mostly only seeing explanations that have already been discussed in slightly different phrasing.

I did want to mention something that drives me batty, though...

For some reason, skeptics tend to actually ascribe psychology as the root of mentalism acts. Think it over - why do you think that is the explanation?...

I'm not sure by what you mean by "psychology" here. In the sense that it is the scientific study of behavior, it obviously would be interested in studying how "mentalism" works, and Ray Hyman, a psychologist, has done so.

 

[ynot]

Sorry to have stepped out of the thread for a bit - real life got in the way.

I also think I've probably gotten enough information to move ahead with everything, and am mostly only seeing explanations that have already been discussed in slightly different phrasing.

I did want to mention something that drives me batty, though...

For some reason, skeptics tend to actually ascribe psychology as the root of mentalism acts. Think it over - why do you think that is the explanation?

There is no such person as Sherlock Holmes. The television show 'The Mentalist' doesn't accurately describe how a single one of those tricks works. And 'Lie to Me' is a severely prettied up version of how microexpressions actually work - in that they, at the very least, require close quarters, and for most people (by which I mean 'almost all'), a videocamera.

ynot is absolutely right in saying that the level of logical deduction based upon body language that some in here are saying Edward must have is so close to being psychic that using it as an explanation is nuts.

I think TV entertainers like Derren Brown have convinced people that they are actually mentalists and not merely good magicians creating mystique to enhance their act by presenting mentalism to be more than it is in fact. Derren’s theatrical act represents reality no more than CSI does. I suspect some here may argue with that.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Remie, given that John Edward is a magician all we can ask is 'how the hell did he do that?'. It doesn't seem all that impressive though, just check a similar thing Derren Brown does here which is far more impressive (around the 2 minute mark):



Seeing how Derren Brown admits he isn't psychic but achieves something much more extraordinary (but along the same lines at Edward) we can deduce that it's much more likely Edward just does a magic trick similar to Brown rather than actually communicates with the dead. We don't really have to find an answer to 'how the hell did he do that' because we know it's much more likely to be a magic trick.

 

[Robin]

ynot is absolutely right in saying that the level of logical deduction based upon body language that some in here are saying Edward must have is so close to being psychic that using it as an explanation is nuts.

What, for example, are suggestions that are nuts?

We do a lot of our conversation with facial expressions and body language.

Can you tell - at least some time - from someone's facial expression whether they are puzzled? Whether they are amazed? Whether they are friendly or hostile? When you get to a job interview can you sometimes have a look at the expressions and posture of the interviewers and think - "this is not going to be easy"? Can a teacher sometimes tell that with a new class?

That is the sort of body language and expressions that he would have to read - not "Lie to me" stuff.

I have said before that it is my opinion that Edwards had the information before he spoke to Liam, but it is not impossible that he could have guessed it.

A lot of the people here are way overestimating the amount he would have to guess. He wouldn't have had to guess the first name or the table.

If he points in a particular direction with a sufficiently large audience and says "Joshua" then it will probably mean something to someone - so someone stands up.

Given a subject and a name he next has to make a guess about who "Joshua" is. A dead friend or relative? A living friend or relative? A living or dead pet? His name?

That he might have made a guess of "his name, but not the one he goes by" is a long shot, but as I have said he occasionally does long shots. I have just never seen one pay off before.

But what makes me think he had the information before is that he does not ask Liam to confirm his suspicions. He asks him to hand the microphone to someone to confirm the name he used to introduce himself and then asks him to get out his drivers licence.

This seems to suggest a certain amount of confidence. My best guess is still a mingler - maybe someone at or near his table and possibly there is also someone backstage doing a bit of research.

Minglers have been the standard modus operandi or this kind of act from way back, even before they started pretending to be real.

 

[ynot]

Everything in this video is Derren being a magician not a mentalist. The “mentalism” is merely misdirection and mystique.

When Derren says - ” I’m telling you to think of A” he’s lying (as magicians do). Whatever letter the lady said would have appeared on the card. The letter is added to the card AFTER the lady says it. I can do this simple trick as well as Derren can and I’m not a professional magician.

 

[ynot]

What, for example, are suggestions that are nuts?

That you require it to be explained further than it already has suggests no amount of explanation would be sufficient for you.

 

[Robin]

And 'Lie to Me' is a severely prettied up version of how microexpressions actually work - in that they, at the very least, require close quarters, and for most people (by which I mean 'almost all'), a videocamera.

And has anybody suggested that Edwards reads microexpressions?

Let me give you an example I used earlier. Edwards is in the middle of a reading and he begins jocularly "Tell me about the ..." mentioning a very specific incident with a pet - I forget the exact details.

So if the subject had smiled then Edwards would have known there was immediate recognition of something and could have reacted accordingly.

As it was the subject didn't say anything or smile which meant no immediate recognition. This could have meant a) it rang a bell but she couldn't recall the details or b) no recognition whatsoever.

Now are you telling me that John Edwards would have been unable to tell the difference?

I think the blank unrecognition was pretty easily readable.

As it was he cut to the excuse pretty quickly.

 

[Robin]

What, for example, are suggestions that are nuts?

That you require it to be explained further than it already has suggests no amount of explanation would be sufficient for you.

Thanks for the evasion. That tells me that you are unable to supply the example and probably have not been reading much of what I wrote.

 

[Robin]

And incidentally, I did not ask for it to be explained further, I asked for examples.

 

[ynot]

Thanks for the evasion. That tells me that you are unable to supply the example and probably have not been reading much of what I wrote.

Okay I’ll play your silly game (and it is silly) . . .

We are talking about a specific incident that has been specifically described. Do you understand that?

RemieV said he pointed at a specific table (1 in 25/30 odds).

He then asked from that specific table about the name “Joshua” (1 against all other names of both sexes available odds).

He then said it wasn’t the person’s first name (Don’t know what the odds of that would be but wouldn’t be insignificant)

He then said that the persons first name was Liam (1 against all other male names available odds).

All this happened “from at least sixty feet away” and without Liam or anyone else saying a single word. Edward also didn’t go through the usual it sounds like a J or a K routine. He said both names directly and unequivocally in a relatively short space of time. How is it possible to cold read a name purely from a smile or any body language when questions aren't being asked and answered?

Exactly what information from Liam or anyone else was there in this scenario that Edward could possibly have cold read to get all this informationm so amazingly correct without any leading or mutiple sequence questions ?

I await your detailed and credible explanation with great interest (but I won't hold my breath).

 

[Robin]

Personally I think it is absolutely nuts that someone sitting in the audience in front of Liam's table, sixty feet away from Edwards would have been able to tell with certainty which table he was pointing at. Especially as she would have had to turn her head to see the table.

But some here have accepted that without demur.

 

[ynot]

Personally I think it is absolutely nuts that someone sitting in the audience in front of Liam's table, sixty feet away from Edwards would have been able to tell with certainty which table he was pointing at. Especially as she would have had to turn her head to see the table.

But some here have accepted that without demur.

I’m assuming you’re quite young. At least mentally if not chronologically.

 

[Robin]

Okay I’ll play your silly game (and it is silly) . . .

Let's skip the silly debating tricks and stick to the facts. Most of what you write verifies my suspicion that you did not read what I wrote before.

RemieV said he pointed at a specific table (1 in 25/30 odds).

RemieV was sitting in the audience in front of the table and would have had to turn around to see the table.

So do you accept that she would have been able to tell that he was pointing at that specific table sixty feet away from him from her vantage point?

Now that sounds nuts.

He then asked from that specific table about the name “Joshua” (1 against all other names of both sexes available odds).

No, he pointed in a particular direction in the audience and said he was getting the name - "Joshua".

The probability that someone in that general direction had some sort of Joshua reference, a dead friend, a relative a pet their own name etc is actually pretty high. That is how these acts work.

He then said it wasn’t the person’s first name (Don’t know what the odds of that would be but wouldn’t be insignificant)

No - he didn't say that. He said that it was his name, but not the way he had introduced himself at the table.

That could mean a number of things - for example if he had introduced himself as "Josh" then it would have been a hit.

If it had been his middle name then it would have been a hit. There are more ways than one in which this could have been a hit.

It was a long shot, but you are overstating the impressiveness of the trick by misrepresenting what he said.

He then said that the persons first name was Liam (1 against all other male names available odds).

You really didn't read what I said did you? Do you usually agree that people are nuts before you have read what it is that is supposed to have been nuts?

The OP is ambiguous on this matter. It was not clear to me that the name "Liam" was actually mentioned until the person next to him on the table was given the microphone and said it.

That is why I asked RemieV for clarification.

From my reading Edwards said something like "I have the feeling that although Joshua is your name, but you didn't introduce yourself that way at the table".

RemieV - can you clarify?

All this happened “from at least sixty feet away” and without Liam or anyone else saying a single word. Edward also didn’t go through the usual it sounds like a J or a K routine. He said both names directly and unequivocally in a relatively short space of time.

Even in a fairly small audience the initial letter routine sometimes throws up more than one response. I imagine that in a largish audience throwing out a full name to a particular section of it will get some sort of response.

Exactly what information from Liam or anyone else was there in this scenario that Edward could possibly have cold read to get all this informationm so amazingly correct without any leading or mutiple sequence questions ?

It all depends on the clarification about the "Liam" thing. If he has simply thrown out the name "Joshua" at a particular section of the audience and gotten a response and then guessed that Joshua is the person's name, but not the name he used at the table then all he needs to do is have a look at the guy's response and see if he is on the right track or not.

It seems to me that making guesses and working out whether he is on the right track or not is what John Edwards does for a living.

But if he also mentioned the name "Liam" before hearing it then it would probably have to be prior information.

And as I said before, the theatrical way he confirms his information also suggests prior information.

 

[Robin]

I’m assuming you’re quite young. At least mentally if not chronologically.

Again the vague insult with no details.

So what you are saying is that if I was mentally older then I would realise that if I am sitting some distance away from someone I would be able to tell with great accuracy what they were pointing at, even if the thing they were pointing at was behind me and sixty feet away from the person?

Yes?

 

[Robin]

An index finger is - what - a couple of inches long?

Or was it a straight arm point? A couple of feet.

 

[Robin]

All from a brief glance.