Vision From Feeling

[Uncayimmy]

Minor point - prior knowledge is 'hot reading' or 'warm reading' when used with cold reading techniques.
Cold reading is trying to get info and hits with no knowledge about the subject other than what they give away during the reading.

Apologies if it has been mentioned in the billion posts before this.

Since we don't have a word for "things we have learned beforehand but don't recall learning or even realize that our 'impression' is based upon this knowledge" I chose to use the term cold reading and define how I was using it.

Like with vasectomy guy. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that VFF heard directly from VG or friends of VG that he had a vasectomy. Forgetting about it wouldn't surprise me either. And when attempting to "read" the guy it wouldn't surprise me that this led to an "impression" that VG had a little snip-snip done.

It would not surprise me that an imaginative person would visualize this in her mind. It wouldn't surprise me either to hear that person speak of the procedure in the singular not realizing that there would be two snip-snips, not one.

What does surprise me is that a rational person would dismiss such a simple explanation and instead walk around the mall trying to see if she could "sense" vasectomies in strangers.

It also surprises me that a rational person after failing to see vasectomies in anyone else despite there being a 1:6 prevalence in men over 35, would continue to believe that she really did see a vasectomy that one time.

It would NOT surprise me to hear that an irrational and/or delusional person would behave that way.

 

[Locknar]

Doctor: But you can still go on talk shows.

Patient: <giggling> That's great. I can't wait to tell David Letterman that I detect heart issues.

Doctor: But it has been widely reported that Letterman underwent heart surgery back in 2000.

Patient: Ah ha! Another hit! I have never been wrong.

Doctor: But it was in the news...

Patient: I was in Sweden in 2000. Swedes don't watch Letterman, so this is seemingly impossible for me to know. Besides, I saw the vibrational signature of the scar tissue. Even if I did know, that doesn't explain my ability to detect vibrational information.

Priceless!

 

[Ashles]

Since we don't have a word for "things we have learned beforehand but don't recall learning or even realize that our 'impression' is based upon this knowledge" I chose to use the term cold reading and define how I was using it.

Oh I see now.
There is a term for 'subconscious' or 'unrecognised' learning which a tutor mentioned years ago but completely escapes me at the moment.
I did think it was 'innate learning' but it doesn't seem to be that.

I recall the experimant involved exposing people to patterns of numbers which had a complex but logical progression, then asking people to decide the next number in the series based on whatever hunch they felt, but they would actually turn out to be right above chance because on some level (unrecognised) they were actually identifying the pattern.

 

[Ashles]

Because, dear Ashles, my university is where I work and study. Just accept that I think it makes a difference, and live with it.

Quick point on this - I was asking why you were okay if another University approaches you, but you aren't going to actively approach them.
Why do you have to wait for them to approach you?

 

[desertgal]

Oh I see now.
There is a term for 'subconscious' or 'unrecognised' learning which a tutor mentioned years ago but completely escapes me at the moment.
I did think it was 'innate learning' but it doesn't seem to be that.

Retained knowledge?

 

[desertgal]

Priceless!

Absolutely!

 

[Uncayimmy]

I resent this paragraph, because I do acknowledge the possibility that my perceptions may be the result of cold reading for instance, and the possibility that my "apparent" accuracy may not be accuracy at all. These are things that can not be revealed in my everyday experience of the perceptions, and that is why I am looking forward to the study and the tests.

You've got it bass-ackwards. You have experienced things 100% explainable by common and ordinary means. You acknowledge this. Therefore, there's no need to test anything. It's a waste of time.

You see, it was one thing when you came in here all hot and bothered that what you experienced was "seemingly unexplainable." But now, as indicated above, you have learned that there is a perfectly reasonable and very likely explanation. Rational people accept the reasonable and likely. Irrational people reject it and go with the unproven and very unlikely.

You are not special, you are irrational. There is no Nobel awaiting. Your vibrational algebra is just fantasy and imagination. It's all fantasy and imagination built up from bricks made of cold reading and prior knowledge.

I resent having my evaluation of my awareness of the claim and my intentions with the claim trashed like this.

I really don't care whether you resent it or not. Really. Seriously. No kidding.

Again I resent that.

Again, I don't care. Really. Seriously. No kidding.

I've experienced plenty situations of confirmed apparent accuracy where the sense of accuracy was not due to my interpretation or intentions.

A rational person would never state that as fact.

I have never backed off when brought towards progress in testing my main claim of medical perceptions in live people.

So you admit to backing off the other tests. Finally!

Your main claim has never been tested. Ever. And there isn't one to test. You have no specific testable claim. The stuff you have claimed is easily explained and not worth testing.

Claimant: My dog can talk.
Skeptics: Right. It's called barking.
Claimant: No, really. Listen. Fido, what is on top of a house?
Dog: Roof!
Claimant: Who's your favorite baseball player?
Dog: Ruth.
Skeptics: Get outta here, ya knucklead!
Later at home...
Dog: Maybe I should have said Dimaggio?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Minor point - prior knowledge is 'hot reading' or 'warm reading' when used with cold reading techniques.
Cold reading is trying to get info and hits with no knowledge about the subject other than what they give away during the reading.

Apologies if it has been mentioned in the billion posts before this.

You are right, and I was tempted to correct that before, but was daunted by the task of searching the Augean stables for the precise post or posts.
When we were told earlier that she got accurate readings from friends or family, that may have been hot reading, based on information from those people through normal sensory means. Or she could have been deluded or lied.
When we were told that she detected vasectomies and other surgical interventions in strangers, that could have been warm reading based on cues she received through normal sensory means. Or she could have been deluded or lied.
Cold reading , I think, is a remote possibility in her case. That skill, which involves close attention to all the feedback that people give you to your Forer style statements and rapid switching to other approximations to further refine your guesses is probably not in her repetoire. Besides, we only have her word for that, too.

Kids, have fun stormin' the castle!

 

[Jeff Corey]

Oh I see now.
There is a term for 'subconscious' or 'unrecognised' learning which a tutor mentioned years ago but completely escapes me at the moment.
I did think it was 'innate learning' but it doesn't seem to be that.

I recall the experimant involved exposing people to patterns of numbers which had a complex but logical progression, then asking people to decide the next number in the series based on whatever hunch they felt, but they would actually turn out to be right above chance because on some level (unrecognised) they were actually identifying the pattern.

That sounds close to the term "latent learning". But more likely "learning without awareness".

 

[desertgal]

There is no Nobel awaiting.

I'm not sure which I find more astonishing: that she actually thinks that she will become a Nobel Laureate, or that a science student from Sweden seems to have no inkling about the Nobel criteria.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....confirmed apparent accuracy ....

 

[Reno]

Anita, I just don't understand where you manage to find the time to read and write posts in this thread. Shouldn't you be using your time for your studies?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Cold reading , I think, is a remote possibility in her case. That skill, which involves close attention to all the feedback that people give you to your Forer style statements and rapid switching to other approximations to further refine your guesses is probably not in her repetoire. Besides, we only have her word for that, too.

Wiki defines cold reading in part saying that a cold reader can obtain "a great deal of information about the subject by carefully analyzing the person's body language, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc. "

It is in this context that myself and others are using the term. She doesn't read strangers and ask for confirmation. She only does it with friends and family. For example, she was all a twitter that she detected that her friend had stiffness in his neck. Turned out he had just gotten back from an airshow and his neck *was* stiff from looking up.

So, what temperature is the reading when you don't consciously remember that last week your friend mentioned the air show and when you don't consciously realize his neck looks a little stiff but you determine through sensing vibrational information and forming an image of the atomic structures therein that, in fact, his neck is stiff?

Or what about feeling like you have to pee but understanding that it's really your paranormal ability that is telling you that your friend is the one who has to pee and that you were right without being aware of any clues whatsoever that could indicate your friend needed to pee?

How about we just call it subconscious reading and leave out the temperature?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Wiki defines cold reading in part saying that a cold reader can obtain "a great deal of information about the subject by carefully analyzing the person's body language, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc. "

It is in this context that myself and others are using the term. She doesn't read strangers and ask for confirmation. She only does it with friends and family. For example, she was all a twitter that she detected that her friend had stiffness in his neck. Turned out he had just gotten back from an airshow and his neck *was* stiff from looking up.

So, what temperature is the reading when you don't consciously remember that last week your friend mentioned the air show and when you don't consciously realize his neck looks a little stiff but you determine through sensing vibrational information and forming an image of the atomic structures therein that, in fact, his neck is stiff?

Or what about feeling like you have to pee but understanding that it's really your paranormal ability that is telling you that your friend is the one who has to pee and that you were right without being aware of any clues whatsoever that could indicate your friend needed to pee?

How about we just call it subconscious reading and leave out the temperature?

No. Wiki is wrong and it doesn't help potential skeptics to confuse the various techniques that are used to scam people. Hot, warm and cold reading are technical terms that refer to different ways of obtaining information. And "subconscious reading" is just as wrong and as silly as whatzername, Anita.

 

[Uncayimmy]

No. Wiki is wrong and it doesn't help potential skeptics to confuse the various techniques that are used to scam people. Hot, warm and cold reading are technical terms that refer to different ways of obtaining information. And "subconscious reading" is just as wrong and as silly as whatzername, Anita.

No, Wiki is not wrong unless you are arguing that a cold reader does NOT take into consideration things like race, body language, clothing, hair style and so on. I said their entry "in part" defines cold reading to include those things. No cold-reading psychic is going to look at an obese man in a wheelchair surrounded by his overweight family and say, "I see you tossing a ball around with your kids...maybe there are other kids around...like at a practice field...and you're feeling the coach is being unfair..." That's just not a good tack to take.

I dispute that cold, warm and hot reading are "technical" terms - I didn't see them in Encyclopedia Britannica. Randi's cold reading article uses information gathered through "hot" means without ever mentioning temperature. Even if they are technical terms, I doubt that a skeptic would get confused by the misuse of one label for another.

The techniques are relevant to this thread, not their labels. If you want to take up discussing the labels in another thread, I'm game.

As for subconscious reading or whatever you want to call it, what I'm referring to is something we do all the time when we say, "That guy gives me the creeps. He looks shady." When asked to explain why, most people will have a hard time identifying the specific things they see, much less relating them to specific experiences in their past in such a way as to justify their impression that somebody is creepy.

Contrast that with the conscious cues I noticed about Anita when I pulled some cold reading on her. It's amazing the educated guesses you can make just by seeing a few fingernails in a picture.

Does she know the reasoning behind her impressions? I doubt. Could she be failing to recall that somebody told her an important detail that she's using in her impression? Sure. Nobody remembers every conversation in detail.

 

[Hokulele]

UncaYimmy, I recommend Ian Rowland's Full Facts of Cold Reading book. It really goes through the various techniques used quite well, and is more reliable than Wiki for this sort of thing.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, I recommend Ian Rowland's Full Facts of Cold Reading book. It really goes through the various techniques used quite well, and is more reliable than Wiki for this sort of thing.

You and I went through this once already when *I* was the one saying that I looked at cold reading as an "active" technique involving fishing and educated guesses. While I didn't agree with the *label* as people were using it in this thread, I did agree with what they meant by it and adopted it.

You replied in part, "As has been mentioned, cold reading can also be done by knowing someone's general age, gender, physical condition, ethnicity, marital status, and even how they dress."

You also said, "There are two people who either currently post here or have posted here (chillzero and Miss Anthrope) who used to be practicing psychics. I don't think either of them did so for money, and both learned that they were using cold reading techniques and never knew it. When they controlled for these techniques, they couldn't perform as they expected, and eventually came to realize there was nothing paranormal about what they were doing."

Now that we are repeating ourselves, maybe it's time to take a break.

As for Wiki, I don't trust it much. I go there for informal terms. If I don't like what I see, I log in, change it to what I think it should read, then quote it. Works like a charm.

 

[Hokulele]

Okie-dokie. After 34 pages, these discussions seem to blur into each other.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Okie-dokie. After 34 pages, these discussions seem to blur into each other.

You wanna have some fun? Go back and read the moderated thread. Not so much my stuff but her stuff. Take it slowly and really digest it. It's amazing, really.

 

[Hokulele]

You wanna have some fun? Go back and read the moderated thread. Not so much my stuff but her stuff. Take it slowly and really digest it. It's amazing, really.

Heh, I had read that when it looked like it might go somewhere (not your fault, of course). I think I will re-read it more slowly, as there are probably details that will stand out more now, after the last few pages in this thread.