Medium to the Stars?

[JayUtah]

This guy, Tyler Henry, projects an innocent, fresh-behind-the-ears, mama's boy. Yes, he lives with his mother. And yes, he came out as gay. Oh the shock. So over all, the kind of sweet, young, shy, fresh-face young man is someone to trust!

Or someone we want to please. Psychology teaches us that we curry more favor with beautiful people, regardless of the person's sex or our orientation. We want to please handsome men and beautiful women more than we do the less attractive. And a common way to curry favor is lenience, letting people get away with more.

And obviously he's a better television personality if he's young, handsome, and charming. That helps answer the question of why him and not some other equally talented person.

Part of the technique is to lower the subject's standards for a hit. You do this explicitly by emphasizing the inherent uncertainty of the exercise. But you can do it implicitly just by being someone the subject wants to please. That way, if you get reasonably close to a hit the subject gives a beautiful person the benefit of the doubt.

 

[JayUtah]

...and arranges a contract and a rate.

...and the rider. Those effing riders...

 

[MEequalsIxR]

...and the rider. Those effing riders...

Or of you're a country and western fan and in keeping with the the theme ghost riders (in the sky).

 

[Pixel42]

Why don't you educate me as to how a magical performer can duplicate what Henry does. I'd love to see that.

James Randi did it many times. Of the current crop of stage magicians who do it Derren Brown is the best known here in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown

There are loads of clips of Brown duplicating mediumship on YouTube, pick any one.

ETA Derren Brown's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialDerren

and a 10 minute clip called Derren Brown Fools Psychic Readers & Talks To The Dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acnUkYNTk90

He gives three impressive readings at a spiritualist church and convinces the resident medium that he has a gift.

Here it is embedded so you don't even need to click on the link:

 

[P.J. Denyer]

James Randi did it many times. Of the current crop of stage magicians who do it Derren Brown is the best known here in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown

There are loads of clips of Brown duplicating mediumship on YouTube, pick any one.

ETA Derren Brown's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialDerren

and a 10 minute clip called Derren Brown Fools Psychic Readers & Talks To The Dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acnUkYNTk90

He gives three impressive readings at a spiritualist church and convinces the resident medium that he has a gift.

Here it is embedded so you don't even need to click on the link:

I've seen his live show, what he does in front of an audience, without the possibility of editing, is incredible. It's a very good thing he's an "honest liar".

Of course the same is true of most good stage magicians, but his particular interest in, and skill at that particular style of illusion would make him a particularly effective con man.

 

[Garrette]

I've seen his live show, what he does in front of an audience, without the possibility of editing, is incredible. It's a very good thing he's an "honest liar".

Of course the same is true of most good stage magicians, but his particular interest in, and skill at that particular style of illusion would make him a particularly effective con man.

Not sure if you're referring to Randi or Brown, but I imagine the same accolade applies to both, though I've seen neither in person. Sadly, in his later television offerings, Brown has at least edged up to the line of shady actions or claims; some say he's crossed over it. It's not really in mediumship that he's done so but rather in claims about psychological manipulation.

Still, Brown remains among the best of all time, in my opinion, in regard to mentalism, and his books are certainly among the best out there.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

James Randi did it many times. Of the current crop of stage magicians who do it Derren Brown is the best known here in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown

There are loads of clips of Brown duplicating mediumship on YouTube, pick any one.

ETA Derren Brown's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialDerren

and a 10 minute clip called Derren Brown Fools Psychic Readers & Talks To The Dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acnUkYNTk90

He gives three impressive readings at a spiritualist church and convinces the resident medium that he has a gift.

Here it is embedded so you don't even need to click on the link:

James Randi did it many times. Of the current crop of stage magicians who do it Derren Brown is the best known here in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown

There are loads of clips of Brown duplicating mediumship on YouTube, pick any one.

ETA Derren Brown's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialDerren

and a 10 minute clip called Derren Brown Fools Psychic Readers & Talks To The Dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acnUkYNTk90

He gives three impressive readings at a spiritualist church and convinces the resident medium that he has a gift.

Here it is embedded so you don't even need to click on the link:

I watched one video in its entirety--"Darren Brown fools readers and talks to the dead"--and if your point is there are magicians capable of fooling some people in an easy to work crowd environment while staring directly at the people and making a comical number of false starts, I already know this. (I did enjoy watching it, so thanks for sending).

There is a profound difference between what this magician did picking three receptive people out of a low sophistication crowd, never filling more than a few minutes of air time with each person...

....and what Henry did last night reading the Grammy-nominated Macklemore one-on-one with no false starts, his wife and manager watching and confirming on video from another room with no vague guesses (Brown: "you have lots of hats").

I play piano (I'd like to think) exceptionally well. A friend, a musician, came over, sat at my piano and began to noodle around. Noise really--he does not play. My dinner guests got excited. "How long have you been playing?" "You play piano too? Wow." (He's a guitarist).

The fact that some musically challenged friends of mine got fooled by crap noodling does not change the fact that I can play--and he can't. Henry can play; Brown can't. This might not be obvious in the 2 min:40 he spent with each guest before moving on, but it sure would be glaringly obvious during a longer time duration.

If Darren Brown is setting the bar, I need to re-evaluate Theresa Cupito. What she does is so much better than Brown, maybe she is real after all?

 

[JayUtah]

three receptive people...

Assumes facts not in evidence.

...a low sophistication crowd

Assumes facts not in evidence.'

...never filling more than a few minutes of air time with each person...
<skip>
...Macklemore one-on-one with no false starts

Do you understand how editing works?

...the Grammy-nominated...

Why does this matter?

I play piano...

Irrelevant analogy. You seem fond of distraction.

...maybe she is real after all?

Is your goal to prove that psychics are real, or to examine the evidence and come to an evidence-based conclusion either way?

 

[Steve]

I watched one video in its entirety--"Darren Brown fools readers and talks to the dead"--and if your point is there are magicians capable of fooling some people in an easy to work crowd environment while staring directly at the people and making a comical number of false starts, I already know this. (I did enjoy watching it, so thanks for sending).

There is a profound difference between what this magician did picking three receptive people out of a low sophistication crowd, never filling more than a few minutes of air time with each person...

....and what Henry did last night reading the Grammy-nominated Macklemore one-on-one with no false starts, his wife and manager watching and confirming on video from another room with no vague guesses (Brown: "you have lots of hats").

I play piano (I'd like to think) exceptionally well. A friend, a musician, came over, sat at my piano and began to noodle around. Noise really--he does not play. My dinner guests got excited. "How long have you been playing?" "You play piano too? Wow." (He's a guitarist).

The fact that some musically challenged friends of mine got fooled by crap noodling does not change the fact that I can play--and he can't. Henry can play; Brown can't. This might not be obvious in the 2 min:40 he spent with each guest before moving on, but it sure would be glaringly obvious during a longer time duration.

If Darren Brown is setting the bar, I need to re-evaluate Theresa Cupito. What she does is so much better than Brown, maybe she is real after all?

Anyone can talk to dead people. The insurmountable problem is that dead people don't talk back, for the simple reason that dead people do not exist in any form.

Any person that claims to be a 'medium' is either a fraud or delusional.

Any person that believes that 'mediums' exist is delusional. Any person who thinks that a prerecorded and edited TV show provides proof that 'mediums' exist is somewhere beyond delusional.

 

[Pixel42]

The only important difference between what Brown did in that video and what Henry does on TV is that Brown had no prior knowledge of the people he was reading, whilst Henry has plenty of notice of who it will be and, as they are celebrities, lots of information about them freely available. IOW Brown was limited to cold reading, unlike Henry who has plenty of opportunities for both warm and hot reading in addition. Yet Brown managed to produce readings every bit as accurate as most mediums, and considerably better than most. Anyone who tries to brush that performance off as unimpressive is so far down the rabbit hole of woo that they are probably beyond help.

I notice that he has still not responded to the challenge to post a link to the reading by Henry he considers the best evidence of genuine paranormal ability so the sceptics here can analyse and assess it. I wonder why?

 

[Scorpion]

Any person that claims to be a 'medium' is either a fraud or delusional.

Prove it, or its just your biased opinion.

 

[Steve]

Prove it, or its just your biased opinion.

It is indeed my opinion. Very much biased based on the fact that compelling evidence for the existence of 'mediums' is completely lacking.

 

[Scorpion]

It is indeed my opinion. Very much biased based on the fact that compelling evidence for the existence of 'mediums' is completely lacking.

If you had attended a spiritualist church for years, as I have, you might have got convincing messages. But then you would be in the same boat as me, because subjective personal evidence does not count.

 

[JayUtah]

It is indeed my opinion. Very much biased based on the fact that compelling evidence for the existence of 'mediums' is completely lacking.

Specifically, we have the category of mediums who admit they use the various well-known reading techniques. People in this category can generally provide convincing proof of this by explaining and demonstrating how the techniques work. Then there is the category of mediums who "work strong" and claim to be able to really talk to the dead. None in this category has been able to provide convincing proof that their results are achieved through actual necromancy. Most, in fact, eschew the opportunity to provide such proof, typically citing fears of unfair bias on the part of the examiners. So their claims are left unsubstantiated.

However, there is the subset of this category who have been proven convincingly to rely on the same reading techniques as the first category -- the honest entertainers. This is the troubling subcategory, because it informs how we should resolve the uncertainty in the working-strong group. Since some of them are known to be fake, and none of them is proven to be real, it seems the most reasonable position, given the current picture of evidence, to presume they are frauds until they can show evidence of authenticity. It's only a presumption, so it can be overturned by evidence. But the picture of evidence as it stands favors fraudulence over authenticity.

 

[JayUtah]

But then you would be in the same boat as me, because subjective personal evidence does not count.

No, it does not.

 

[Pixel42]

If you had attended a spiritualist church for years, as I have, you might have got convincing messages. But then you would be in the same boat as me, because subjective personal evidence does not count.

The difference is that Steve understands why anecdotal evidence "does not count" and consequently the sort of messages that convinced you would not have convinced him.

 

[Steve]

If you had attended a spiritualist church for years, as I have, you might have got convincing messages. But then you would be in the same boat as me, because subjective personal evidence does not count.

It is not possible to receive messages from things that do not exist. Subjective personal evidence has nothing to do with it. The basic premise of all churches is belief, without evidence, in messages from things that do not exist.

 

[Scorpion]

It is not possible to receive messages from things that do not exist. Subjective personal evidence has nothing to do with it. The basic premise of all churches is belief, without evidence, in messages from things that do not exist.

Yea! well its my experience that the spirit world does exist, and you just don't know anything about it.

 

[JayUtah]

Yea! well its my experience that the spirit world does exist, and you just don't know anything about it.

But that's just an expression of personal belief stapled to a veiled insult.

 

[Steve]

Yea! well its my experience that the spirit world does exist, and you just don't know anything about it.

No, it is your belief that the spirit world exists. Your actual experiences are likely the same as most people's. You just choose to interpret them to match your beliefs rather than to match reality.