Merged The One - Australian TV

I just listened to the MMM recording and I can't see the what the complaint is about? Not to seem sycophantic but I think Richard stood up exceptionally well under the circumstances. It's a stark difference from the edited coverage we're seeing on TV (although that wasn't so bad tonight).

If anyone thinks it's easy to do a live debunk under those circumstances, I'd challenge them just to try and take notes during a reading (especially Charmaine's). I was trying tonight during "The One" and I was lost within a couple of sentences. That woman doesn't use a scatter-gun approach, she uses a machine gun! And if you think taking notes is easy, try debunking Charmaine while the grieving parent, sibling or spouse is still on the line and a handful of radio personalities are shouting you down.

While it's most likely true that no true-believers were convinced to disbelieve by that radio segment, I doubt any fence-sitters would have decided to go to the woo either.

I only wish we could see a bit of that Richard Saunders on The One.

Part one of tonight's review of The One, Episode Three is here: http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-three.html
 
Richard said:
I think you are being unfair. It is VERY hard indeed to be put on the spot like that. I did not know before hand that it would be this sort of thing. Anyway, I always could have done better, but you know what, I think I made some good points.

This sort of analysis of cold reading have never been done on Australian radio as far as I know. It's much harder than you think.

Judge for yourselves...

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/files/4MMM.mp3
Click to expand...

I can understand your frustration and appreciate the predicament you were placed in, but;

Plan the work and work the plan is an old adage.
If you are going to place yourself into the position of being "a renowned skeptic", you need to take guard at all times. Don't attend these sessions without a backup plan. Always go to a session with the view they are going to 'back-door' you.

Nearly all of the posts on this thread that say you are doing a great job, are of the opinion that niceness is the best attitude. Sorry, WRONG. You need to get down and dirty (not angry) with these people and start putting them on the spot. Next time get them to let you do the next caller and you cold read them. "I see a B or is it a D" etc etc. Maybe we will get remarks such as "wow, even skeptics are psychics".

Have a list with you at all times of questions you know (pre-tested) they can't answer. Don't try to wing it, they are very cagey as you know.

When they had the psychic on a couple of weeks ago, I tried to ring in and ask them a question but couldn't get through. This psychic was invited into the show and they sat and asked him questions. I wanted to ask them; "If this chap knew he was coming into the show and that you were going to ask him questions, why didn't he just bring in the answers and show them to you. He's a psychic for ◊◊◊◊'s sake". Just wish now I had got through. These are the sorts of things I feel, put them on the spot.

I may be marking you a bit hard and I'm trying not to be bad mannered but I do think you got everything you deserved by not being prepared.

:)
 
PBTree said:
Nearly all of the posts on this thread that say you are doing a great job, are of the opinion that niceness is the best attitude. Sorry, WRONG.

I may be marking you a bit hard and I'm trying not to be bad mannered but I do think you got everything you deserved by not being prepared.

:)
Click to expand...

You have a right to comment, but what I would rather hear is your radio interviews so I can learn from your winning tactics.
 
When they had the psychic on a couple of weeks ago, I tried to ring in and ask them a question but couldn't get through. This psychic was invited into the show and they sat and asked him questions. I wanted to ask them; "If this chap knew he was coming into the show and that you were going to ask him questions, why didn't he just bring in the answers and show them to you. He's a psychic for ◊◊◊◊'s sake". Just wish now I had got through. These are the sorts of things I feel, put them on the spot.
Click to expand...

They would just say "It doesn't work like that and these skeptics know it." They might even throw in a few disparaging remarks about how people who don't believe are closed-minded and scared of the truth - and the hosts would agree with them and start poking fun at you. The "psychic" might even offer to pray for you :) The hosts would probably then advise other callers that if they aren't interested in a reading, get off the lines and let the genuine callers through. Psychic 1 : Skeptic Nil. You have to remember the hosts don't have them on with the intent of embarrassing them.

These discussions are very much like political discussions and it's amazing what people can get away with when they avoid the question and change the subject. It's like trying to push a Liberal Party argument on the ABC.
I may be marking you a bit hard and I'm trying not to be bad mannered but I do think you got everything you deserved by not being prepared.
Click to expand...

I can only assume I listened to a different interview - the one in which the "psychic" admitted to her own disbelief in a lot of the nonsense that gets passed off as psychic powers. You don't hear that very often (it was a first for me).
 
Last edited:
I wanted to ask them; "If this chap knew he was coming into the show and that you were going to ask him questions, why didn't he just bring in the answers and show them to you. He's a psychic for ◊◊◊◊'s sake". Just wish now I had got through. These are the sorts of things I feel, put them on the spot.
Click to expand...

That kind of question will do no good whatsoever. Firstly, you just sound like a smartarse. Secondly, they will just say "Spirit doesn't work that way." Killer question instantly negated. Next caller.

I do not disagree that sticking the boot in can be a valid response, but it is not the only possible valid way to go about this.
 
I have a question.

Why didn't this show do an american idol style showing of the preliminary search for psychics? I think it would have been hilarious to see all the types of people that tried to show their abilities. I think maybe the preliminary tests would show that almost all of the people that showed up did a really horrible job and had zero 'hits'. Maybe that's why they didn't tape them?
 
Last edited:
Why didn't this show do an american idol style showing of the preliminary search for psychics? I think it would have been hilarious to see all the types of people that tried to show their abilities. I think maybe the preliminary tests would show that almost all of the people that showed up did a really horrible job and had zero 'hits'. Maybe that's why they didn't tape them?
Click to expand...

I asked that same question and made the same point on my first blog about the show.

Why is it okay for vicious judges to destroy the ambitions of young people and community choirs whose only crime is to think they can sing (and many of them do have potential), yet not okay to give the same treatment to people who already charge good money to supposedly do something which they apparently can not do very well, if at all?

Cold readers are apparently a special breed that TV executives are scared to upset either in fear of poor ratings or because they actually believe it would bring bad karma.

We could write to Channel Seven and ask them to air an "audition" show after this show ends but my spirit guides tell me they didn't video the auditions in a way that would be suitable for editing into a TV format. But if anyone can provide an email address for Seven's Programming manager, I'll send them a note.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
You have a right to comment, but what I would rather hear is your radio interviews so I can learn from your winning tactics.
Click to expand...

Point taken but that just shows neither of us is winning.

Obviously my comments are a bit too acid (grumpy old man syndrome), so I will apologise and refrain from any further comment.

But just remember, you are the one who is the "renowned Australian skeptic" who gets to appear on these shows. You are the one who started the thread to let us know the shows were on and you were attending as a skeptic representative.

So it behooves you to attend 'prepared', for all things relating to that show. Otherwise the show might as well just call in someone off the street and call them the skeptic.

The point I was trying to make (badly it seems) is that being able to shoot you down and make you look baffled on either of those shows, is probably worth much more to them than proving their ridiculous claims.


:)
 
You have asserted Richard hasn't been prepared (for the radio thing or the TV show in general? You seem to be jumping back and forth between the two). I see no evidence for that.

In fact as far as the show goes, I know it is not true.

Have you watched the show? After the first episode no one could say he is portrayed as the skeptic who can't explain anything. Of course he doesn't get time for a worthy monologue on subjective validity but the lines they are leaving in are good for our side.
 
nettiemoore said:
You have asserted Richard hasn't been prepared (for the radio thing or the TV show in general? You seem to be jumping back and forth between the two). I see no evidence for that.

In fact as far as the show goes, I know it is not true.

Have you watched the show? After the first episode no one could say he is portrayed as the skeptic who can't explain anything. Of course he doesn't get time for a worthy monologue on subjective validity but the lines they are leaving in are good for our side.
Click to expand...


Nope, didn't assert that at all. Read it again.

""So it behooves you to attend 'prepared', for all things relating to that show. Otherwise the show might as well just call in someone off the street and call them the skeptic.""

Richard said:
We had no idea this would happen. I thought it was just going to be an interview about the show and what I do. By the time we got going it was too late. I have asked that this does not happen again.
Click to expand...

I was trying to get across the point that I bet the medium knew exactly what was going to happen on the show and asked all sorts of leading questions before saying yes. Its called self preservation.
__


For my ten cents worth of opinion, I have watched the show and I think that as much as they allow Richard to do/say, I think he is doing fine.

I accept my chastisement and think I was using Richard as the whipping boy to get rid of my grumpiness at those fools. I won't criticise again as I agree with his previous deserved sarcasm (winning tactics). I'm not putting myself out there and until I do, I don't have that right.

:)
 
Richard, can you explain who was awarding points in this week's speed-reading exercise and how much of the reading session was edited out?

I ask because it would appear Ezio effectively cheated by switching his focus to a more willing audience member who stated agreement with all previous guesses - which he then quickly repeated to her, scoring points in the process (yes, I know, it's just a dumb TV show). The problem here is that we were told hits had to very precise (and "not the bleeding obvious") and there's no way any of the contestants got precise hits yet they all scored points. Charmaine got a point for guessing a woman's mother used to wear glasses!!! That's like saying saying she wore clothes.

The end result however, for the credulous or non-critical viewer, is an impression that the contestants actually had "precise" hits and therefore psychic powers must be real.

I'm also wondering if the readings were actually much longer in which case I can only assume we didn't see a lot of misses.
 
Last edited:
Me again (no, I don't have a life)

PBo has posted a comment over at SWIFT pointing to a new Youtube from an audience member at episode TWO of The One. He's unimpressed with the reading his comb received and he explains why.

Go here for the Youtube

Stick to the end to see just how bad She's reading really was and how the miracle of editing made it look "better" (and even that couldn't save it since it was 100% tripe).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom