Medium to the Stars?

[Frank McLaughlin]

Cold reading needs no information, just cues and subjective validation. But there is plenty of information available, especially about celebrities, with the minimum of research.

Cold reading involves--I think--reading a person's facial expressions. Henry makes a point of not looking at his subject prior to the reading while he is settling down and during the reading itself. I have not ever seen him glance up at who he is reading....he keeps his head over to the side.
....so we can rule that out since to do a cold reading one would need to be looking intensely for very subtle changes.

Have you ever seen a clip of a cold reader? It is comical when you watch. The the questions, the stopping and starting, changing mid-sentence. Henry does none of that.

The kinds of information Henry reads that makes Henry so impressive, are things not obtainable through research. His asking a woman if she had gall bladder surgery, and it turned out she had a severe gall bladder attack, not surgery. You can't look that up, and if you could, it would take an exceedingly long time to figure out say my father's name, my aunt's nickname, even if you could.
....so we can rule that out (unless there is collusion with the production company. Given their reputation I think it unlikely but I have to admit quite possible.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

You do realize there isn't a paranormal or supernatural topic that Schwartz hasn't put a pseudo-intellectual imprimatur on, don't you?

We have differing opinions of Schwartz, but mine could be out of date. He's unusual because most reputable scientists won't take on psychic claims for fear of undermining their career or of wasting time with so many invalid claims.

What "supernatural topic" has Schwartz validated? I was asked for a peer review link. I have nothing on Henry so I offered something similar, Edwards/Schwartz. I'm under the impression that his John Edwards studies were peer reviewed.

None of this is relevant to my argument that Tyler Henry has a unique ability.

 

[8enotto]

The production company has to keep the show hot to get advertising. Tyler is the one saying don't make me look stupid on my own show.

He gets outed by John Oliver on John's show that brushes away and few seen it, hid believers will discredit John.
He looks the fool on his own show and by his own words? Ouch. Now he did it in front of his fans.
Nobody will allow that and whatever you think you see is only a small fraction of what really goes on.

It's all about the money. Advertising money. If an endless loop of a toy monkey banging cymbals brought in more advertising adios Tyler.

Only people on the set know how he gets his information and know revealing that means a bunch of people start looking for work again. It most likely isn't magical powers or anything like it.
His mannerisms and poses are all just part of his act. They all have some and one here in Mexico has temp tats of magical symbols on her face (they change each appearance) to ward off evil .
She too is on tv so are her psychic powers real? She says so. It pays her bills.

E! is an entertainment channel filled with fluff and he is one of their products. That should be a big clue.

 

[Pixel42]

You are referencing me out to a skeptics source? Co'mon.

And you have the gall to accuse me of being close-minded?

And what are those tricks?

Cold reading, warm reading and hot reading.

I have not seen any evidence against Henry's show. I was hoping to obtain some here, but so far that ain't happening. You have presented none. Or did I miss it?

The evidence against mediums consists of knowledge and understanding about human psychology and cognitive biases acquired by decades of painstaking scientific research. It's all in those sceptic sources you refuse to read.

 

[Pixel42]

Cold reading involves--I think--reading a person's facial expressions.

You think wrong, that's only a very small part of it. I'd give you a link but it would be to one of those sceptic websites you refuse to read.

 

[xjx388]

I was referring to science in general, not Henry. I don't believe Henry has undergone testing. Apparently, he doesn't care whether you believe him or not.

Right. And that's something you should consider. He is putting on a show. On E!. It's pure entertainment and it doesn't matter if it is real or not if you are entertained because he's raking in the bucks regardless of your beliefs. Thats what all modern mediumship is -entertainment and a way to make money. I would hope most people who watch this stuff understand that fundamental thing and don't put much stock in it. Much like we might watch "The Bachelor" for entertainment without putting much stock in the idea that the show is a great way for people to meet and fall in love.

Scientists are often the last ones to accept a new idea whether that is the age of the Sphinx, continental drift, the appearance of pre-Clovis civilization in North America, what drugs post-menopausal women should be taking, the effect of a meat diet on health, the value of Ayurvedic medicine, the fact that the speed of light may change in a vacuum...I'm adding to this Tyler Henry's ability.

To paraphrase Richard Feynman, the first step in the scientific method is that you guess. I'm guessing. Testing happens each week on TV if you think about it.

Link: John Edwards, who does basically the same thing as Henry, has submitted to a series of studies at the Univ of AZ. Three of the studies are discussed in: "The Afterlife Experiments" by Gary Schwartz, Harvard Professor of Psychology, Surgery, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry. Bonus about the book is that it makes Randi apoplectic.

As you said yourself, metaphysics is not subject to proof. As such, why are you so interested in whether or not scientists accept it? Why do you think 'testing happens each week on TV,' when metaphysical things are not subject to testing?

I'm beyond the point where I try to convince people that mediumship is not a real phenomenon. If you enjoy the show, good for you! If you believe it's real, good for you! But please don't come on to a skeptics forum with your "nuh-uh! This is like totally real, but it's unprovable," schtick because that schtick don't fly here. Just eat your popcorn, get your jollies watching a con-artist an entertainer take advantage of grieving people put on a good show and enjoy yourself!

 

[JayUtah]

I have nothing on Henry so I offered something similar, Edwards/Schwartz. I'm under the impression that his John Edwards studies were peer reviewed.

You cited only a book written by him (with kudos from Deepak Chopra, of all people) for the popular press. Those are rarely if ever peer-reviewed. In response I have merely noted that Schwartz has written often for the lay audience, almost always on paranormal topics, and almost always from the position that the various paranormal claims are true. He seems to follow a pattern of latching onto various claims of the paranormal -- the existence of God, spiritual healing, communicating with the dead -- and pretending for the benefit of a non-scientist reader that those topics have scientific validity. The criticism of those books agrees that much is left to be desired from a scientific standpoint. Further, it's difficult from the start to believe that Schwartz is a critical examiner of Edwards' claims when he co-authors books with Edwards.

He once wrote a book on "synchronicity" wherein he tried to pretend he was a physicist and -- as so many charlatans before him have done -- drew upon quantum mechanics to lend an air of scientific whiz-bang to his otherwise unsupported hypotheses. While he may have come from an enviable academic background (that did not, however, include formal training in physics), his offerings for the popular audience -- which is where your cited reference comes from -- is the worst sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense. He seems quite willing to prostitute that background to give hope to the faithful. Therefore I am not impressed.

If you intend us to digest peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals, to the effect that a skeptical audience (i.e., us) would be well advised to consider the objective scientific validity of Schwartz's claims regarding the category of entertainers that includes Edwards and Tyler Henry, then those are the references you should be providing. The book you cited is not in that category.

None of this is relevant to my argument that Tyler Henry has a unique ability.

Then you probably shouldn't have brought him up. If you're willing to withdraw your claims regarding Schwartz and Edwards, then we can focus on Tyler Henry, as you seem now to want to do. Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific publications that test Henry's claimed ability specifically? No? So then you probably shouldn't have tried to distract from that by bringing up irrelevant pseudo-science and then backpedaling frantically when challenged.

 

[arthwollipot]

Tyler Henry doesn't do anything that can't be duplicated by someone pretending in order to fool someone. None of them do.

 

[theprestige]

I see you have memorized the Randy line. Alas, the world is more complicated than Randy. Performing under controlled conditions has been done, published and then refuted by others who didn't like the results.

Randy? Do you mean the James Randy who works with with Stephen Hawkins and Alfred Einstein?

 

[bytewizard]

Randy? Do you mean the James Randy who works with with Stephen Hawkins and Alfred Einstein?

You left out Charles Darwood.

 

[JayUtah]

I have not seen any evidence against Henry's show. I was hoping to obtain some here, but so far that ain't happening. You have presented none. Or did I miss it?

You're shifting the burden of proof. Mentalism is a field of entertainment that employs well-known tricks to create the illusion of exceptional mental or supernatural ability. I too have read a number of books on the subject and have amused my friends with cold-reading examples. A few people dedicate themselves to developing those techniques to the point of being able to attract paying audiences and even making a living at it.

Among those practitioners -- at least the ones who write books about it -- there is no question that the talents are fake. That is, there is no question that "mentalism" is nothing more than ordinary manipulation techniques that can be learned and practiced by ordinary people. The only difference, these authors emphasize, is that some practitioners admit they are faking it while others do not -- those others "work strong," as the industry slang goes. And you must consider the number of people who work strong, but then get caught using the same old tricks as everyone else.

With all that in place, Tyler Henry -- and you, if you're up to defending him -- has the burden to show he's not just doing the same thing as everyone else. When there is a well-known system for achieving the results he demonstrates, without invoking supernatural powers, then someone claiming he's doing it via supernatural powers has that burden of proof.

 

[theprestige]

You left out Charles Darwood.

And Dick Findman.

 

[Elvis666]

You don't get on weekly TV with 2 million viewers unless you can do something "that others cannot."

What do any of the reality TV performers do that the average viewer cannot?

 

[dudalb]

John Oliver's runs a comedy show. You are suggesting Oliver is a valid source in determining what we think about Tyler Henry?

Many a true word has been said in jest, as the saying goes.

If Oliver is using humor backed by evidence to expose a phony medium, then yes, he is a valid source.

 

[dudalb]

We have a true believer here, folks. This is going to be fun.....

BTW I still think one of the best things ever done to show up mediums is the classic film "Nightmare Alley" with Tyrone giving his best performance as a carny showman who goes into the Medium Racket, with bad results. Made in 1947, but most of the techniques shown are still used by the mediums to con the suckers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare_Alley_(film)

 

[JayUtah]

You don't get on weekly TV with 2 million viewers unless you can do something "that others cannot."

No, the ability to attract a paying audience does not equate to proof of one's claims. Besides, Duck Dynasty managed to attract throngs of viewers just by having rednecks behave naturally, something easily mastered by quite a few Americans.

And if it were shown that he was faking it, I would suggest to you, that would make the show even more incredible and his ability unique.

The ability to fake being a medium is hardly unique, although as with any skill there are varying levels of proficiency. And you basically are telling us that "getting on weekly TV" could be achieved without actual supernatural talent. You managed to juxtapose two sentences, the second refuting the first. Well done.

Even collusion with the TV production crew, would not be enough--the celebrities would also have to be in on the con and be able to fake emotion. Not likely.

Bwahaha, you have no idea how television works, do you? Have you ever considered that the reason the show features celebrities might be that these are people who are accustomed to performing under contract, including non-disclosure agreements? Since most of his guests are actors, and since actors make their living by faking emotion, I think you're way off in the weeds here.

I'm not saying that's what has to be the case here. But your worst-case scenario is hardly as implausible as you make it sound. I've never done anything in film or television without legally bullet-proof NDAs in place.

 

[Norman Alexander]

If the subjects are famous people then their backstories are far more detailed and accessible. Using standard online research techniques, it has been shown it is ridiculously easy to link to the rest of their family and their family history in turn, with plenty of dates. And friends, etc. Often TV and movie stars have TV or movie star families and friends, which makes it even easier to get all the good gossip going back decades.

Even for the average punters, if they are asked to pay for tickets in advance they will supply credit card details and a postal address, or even just a zip code. Bingo! Name and address... From there it's easy pickin's just looking up local newspapers online, births and deaths and marriage registers, etc, etc. Lots of juicy details there alone. And so much more from other sources... facebook... instagram... pintrest... ancestry.com...

So the notion of these mediums being able to "know detailed family stuff that they could not possibly know because they have just met me!!" is complete and utter bollocks. Believe that and you have fallen into their first trap.

Incidentally, this has been proven many times. Skeptics have made up complete backstories and posted them online, then bought tickets as per above. Lo and behold, the fake backstory surfaced like clockwork.

 

[JayUtah]

Using standard online research techniques...

Or not even online. I once saw a lawyer show up to the first day of a jury trial armed with PI-produced dossiers on all the potential jurors. As each one came up for voir dire, he had the sheet in hand. This was before everyone's life was lived in public on the web.

So the notion of these mediums being able to "know detailed family stuff that they could not possibly know because they have just met me!!" is complete and utter bollocks.

Another great story :--

Some of you may remember the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case. I was minding my manners at home on the day she was found when there was a knock at my door. A news crew from CNN wanted to know if I had any comment on the case, and could they look around the back yard.

WTF?

It turns out that within a very few short hours after the kidnap suspects had been apprehended, a private news organization had managed to reconstruct their entire lives. And it turned out that one of the kidnappers had briefly been a tenant in my house, long before I bought it. And these were essentially street people, with few connections to the typical institutions and no presence on the web.

Had I been thinking, I would have had them dig up the backyard. With special emphasis on the garden plot that needed turning over.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Or not even online. I once saw a lawyer show up to the first day of a jury trial armed with PI-produced dossiers on all the potential jurors. As each one came up for voir dire, he had the sheet in hand. This was before everyone's life was lived in public on the web.



Another great story :--

Some of you may remember the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case. I was minding my manners at home on the day she was found when there was a knock at my door. A news crew from CNN wanted to know if I had any comment on the case, and could they look around the back yard.

WTF?

It turns out that within a very few short hours after the kidnap suspects had been apprehended, a private news organization had managed to reconstruct their entire lives. And it turned out that one of the kidnappers had briefly been a tenant in my house, long before I bought it. And these were essentially street people, with few connections to the typical institutions and no presence on the web.

Had I been thinking, I would have had them dig up the backyard. With special emphasis on the garden plot that needed turning over.

And made them pay you for that privilege.

 

[Axxman300]

You don't need "controlled conditions" if you have visual evidence in front of your face.

I'm sorry, I'm a ghost hunter, since when do psychics get a pass on submitting to the scientific procedure?

I've had all kinds of stuff "in my face", but that doesn't exclude me from the rules of science. Your eyes are the least reliable sensory organs, and are subject to emotional interpretation of what they see in the context of where, and when they see it.

As far as television goes, if you believe anything without proof you're a fool. There are a bunch of ghost themed, and ghost-hunting shows that have migrated to the Travel Channel, and as I ghost hunter I don't believe any of them.

You don't accept Schwartz with an exceptional list of papers on many subjects, a Professor at Harvard, but you accept Randi the magician? Really? This answers the question as to why mediums don't bother with scientific research. People without scientist credentials yell "fake" because Schwartz's conclusion is not what you want to hear.

Randi's job was getting paid to fool people in front of their eyes. I like Penn & Teller more because they show how the tricks are done (which made me respect magicians that much more). The bottom line is that science sided with Randi, not Schwartz.