Cold readers discussion: Is is OK to lie to people?

[automatthias]

I had a long conversation with a friend about cold readers. It started with “Why did you go to this conference of skeptics?” and got stuck around this:

him: Why do you feel this urge to oppose cold readers?
me: Because they lie to people. It would be OK if they actually provided something to their clients. But they don't!
him: Yes they do. They provide consolation for people who mourn after their relatives.
me: But they're lying!
him: I don't care. If it makes their clients feel better, I'm totally fine with this.
me: (gasp.)

For me, truth is more important than consolation, but for my friend it doesn't appear to be. I find this attitude very condescending: “let's lie to the people just to make them feel better”.

I can see 2 ways to argue against pretending to talk to the dead.

1. Argue that it's generally not OK to lie to people and consolation is not an excuse.
2. Argue that the consolation doesn't work, that mourning people are still better off without being deluded like this.

Are there any other lines of argument? How to support these two?

[LibraryLady]

It's short term consolation. And when the lie is discovered, as it often is, it adds to the pain. It's like taking an aspirin for a broken leg. It reduces the pain a tad, but the bone is still broken.

Time, the support of true friends, counseling from trained grief counselors, reading constructive books, indulging in small luxuries, creating a memorial--these are all long term helps.

For the loss of a loved one there is no cure. You just get used to living with it.

[Fiona]

I agree with Library Lady. The cold readers are not selling "consolation". They are selling communication with the dead. That is the big lie and it is inexcusable.

[SophieHirschfeld]

You can console people without taking advantage of them and lying. Doing the action that provides the best benefit and the least damage seems to be the most moral route to take. Thus, cold readers are immoral since they both take advantage of people and are not taking the 'least harm' route.

[westprog]

It's short term consolation. And when the lie is discovered, as it often is, it adds to the pain. It's like taking an aspirin for a broken leg. It reduces the pain a tad, but the bone is still broken.

Time, the support of true friends, counseling from trained grief counselors, reading constructive books, indulging in small luxuries, creating a memorial--these are all long term helps.

For the loss of a loved one there is no cure. You just get used to living with it.

How about homeopathy? If you believe in it, and your headache goes away, then does it matter that the theory is rubbish? Is the placebo effect dishonest?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

How about homeopathy? If you believe in it, and your headache goes away, then does it matter that the theory is rubbish? Is the placebo effect dishonest?

And if your headache us really caused by a brain tumour and you postpone real treatment while the homeopodist farts around trying various bottle of distilled water to find the one that shares the right vibrations with yours? I suppose your death could be considered Natural Selection at work.

In the only episode of Sylvia Brown(e) (spit) I ever watched on the Montel (spit) show a woman said here husband had been missing for ten years and wanted information. "He's dead." Said the Witch and moved on to the next sucker. The poor woman looked as if she had been poleaxed. Maybe she was better off living with a faint hope. Some real therapy might have helped. The Witch's did not. :mad:

[osmosis]

Desecration of the memories of their loved ones. It doesn't get much more sickening than that.

[truethat]

Its interesting that you get upset with the "cold reader" (sorry I've not heard that phrase before so if I'm using it wrong I apologize) and not the people paying for the cold reader?

Is there a sense of responsibility that if you "see through" the hoax that you are supposed to "warn the people." People are not vulnerable idiots for the most part. We've all experienced the death of a loved one, we don't go traipsing out to the local psychic unless there is something really wrong with us? I think that perhaps the cold reader handles the emotional baggage of very unstable people. Perhaps they serve a purpose in keeping the loonies distracted so that the sane among us can make it through the line in Starbucks without having the crazy folks having a total melt down every day?

[Modified]

People are not vulnerable idiots for the most part.

Highly questionable.

[dustbunny]

Another plausible reason why lying is wrong is the consolation that a cold reader gives someone can turn on it's head. What I mean by this is, for eg, say a client goes for a reading to a supposed psychc. Afterwards they come away feeling comforted and more at peace than before.

What if the psychic who gave the reading was truly exposed as a fraud. Surely the client is going to feel another wave of grief knowing they had been duped because the psychic had never spoken to their loved ones in the first place. They're back at square one, the not knowing and wondering about their loved ones who they've lost. I think we'll see a lot more of this when it comes to people like Sylvia Browne or John Edward. The more they're exposed the more sad stories will emerge.

[mumchup]

Here's some harm they can cause beyond simply taking money to lie to people:
Cold readers are urging people not to go through the process of moving on with their lives. They are holding out the hope that lost loved ones can still take an active part in life, that you don't need to come to terms with the fact that you'll never get to have another conversation with Dad or that you'll never get to hug your wife.
If a person hasn't reached the point where they are ready to accept their loss and change the "relationship" to one of remembrance, they may be very susceptible to a con artist who promises active contact.
Of course they never actually provide that contact, just a simulacrum. Just enough to keep them from moving on with their lives. But no matter how many sessons they pay for they will never be able to hug their wife; or have a meaningful conversation; or watch their lost child get married.
These jerks aren't comforting people, they are prolonging suffering for their own financial gain.

[cj.23]

It's short term consolation. And when the lie is discovered, as it often is, it adds to the pain. It's like taking an aspirin for a broken leg. It reduces the pain a tad, but the bone is still broken.

Time, the support of true friends, counseling from trained grief counselors, reading constructive books, indulging in small luxuries, creating a memorial--these are all long term helps.

For the loss of a loved one there is no cure. You just get used to living with it.

Agreed totally. I have often done cold reading as a trick, and then explain what I am doing, and how i did it, to illustrate a point. I always ask first if the volunteer has recently suffered a bereavement or is grieving, because i'm frightened my little "stage show" will mess someone up while i am just trying to entertain.

No it's not alright. To mess about with someones deepest beliefs is understandable, when they are in agony, but its wrong. Full stop. The problem is that most cold readers probably don't evwn know they are doing it, cold reading that is.

Years ago I suddenly had a really vivid flash of someones sexual kink, which was harmless in itself but shall we say extremely obscure. I still don't know how I deduced it, but I have no doubt I did, from their behaviour and conversaation, over the time we had known each other. They were trying so hard ot hide it maybe they made it obvious.

I revealed it, and they were thunderstruck, and then sort of relieved, and i had to hear them drone on about it confessionally while i wished I'd kept my mouth shut. Yet there was no attempt to cold read, it was straight intuition, or deductive reasoning at an unconscious level. Now imagine i had claimed to be psychic? I could have doubtless seduced this lady, or fleeced her for alot of money. Instead i just said "How fascinating" and tried to forget I knew - it was not my secret, and I was not bothered or interested, but we remained good friends.

Things like this have happened a few times in life, but on reflection, each time i have been able to see how i guessed what I "knew". I also wonder just how many times my guess was simply wrong, and i firgot about it! Oh well!

Still decieving the grieving is not consolation. It's immoral and disgusting. End of sermon. :(
cj x

[CFLarsen]

How about homeopathy? If you believe in it, and your headache goes away, then does it matter that the theory is rubbish? Is the placebo effect dishonest?

The difference is that you don't cure with placebo. You trick the body into thinking so.

If you can't see anything wrong with this, do you also think that it is OK for African witch doctors to "cure" their patients?

Desecration of Raping of, and defecation on, the memories of their loved ones. It doesn't get much more sickening than that.

Let's call a spade a spade, hm?

People are not vulnerable idiots for the most part. We've all experienced the death of a loved one, we don't go traipsing out to the local psychic unless there is something really wrong with us? I think that perhaps the cold reader handles the emotional baggage of very unstable people. Perhaps they serve a purpose in keeping the loonies distracted so that the sane among us can make it through the line in Starbucks without having the crazy folks having a total melt down every day?

I strongly disagree that those who go to psychics are very unstable, or idiots. They are emotionally vulnerable.

If people want an example of why it is wrong for proclaimed psychics to lie to people, take a look at this (http://stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/montel_opal.shtml).

Don't click if you have just eaten.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I strongly disagree that those who go to psychics are very unstable, or idiots. They are emotionally vulnerable.

In another thread some time back asking whether any of us would ever be moved to consult a psychic in a time of despair, our own Stop Sylvia Browne crusader, RSL came up with what I think was a great turn of phrase. He said that people in desperate circumstances might be vulnerable to that sort of stuff unless they'd been immunized against it by having already learned some critical thinking skills or skeptical thinking. (OK--this is my own awkward paraphrase--it was the immunization analogy I liked.)

[Patsy]

It is not generally okay to lie to people, and it is better to console them with honest empathy and compassion for their loss and with concrete offers of help they can actually use (I'll come clean the house so it is ready for visitors, may I offer to babysit while you take care of business, can I come fix dinner and offer you my ear, does your lawn need mowing) rather than to fall back on useless, dishonest platitudes or scam them when they are vunerable. This is the behavior of a caring person. Lies are not caring.

[westprog]

And if your headache us really caused by a brain tumour and you postpone real treatment while the homeopodist farts around trying various bottle of distilled water to find the one that shares the right vibrations with yours? I suppose your death could be considered Natural Selection at work.


Homeopathy won't work on me because I'm familiar with the effect. Should someone with a headache be denied access to the placebo cure because someone else might have a tumour?

[Susan Gerbic]

Maciek,

The problem lies in that what they are being told is not all "puppies, kittens and rainbows" they give out the harsh stuff as well, "he isn't your real father" "she cheated on you" "your health is fine, just take some of these over the counter pills" this is the problem, tie that up with people paying money to hear this (thus they believe what they hear).

I think the best example of this was Landcaster's recent article (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/email_whatsylviatoldmygrandma.shtml). In a nutshell this article is about a woman who was told by Sylvia Browne that her dead husband had an ongoing affair with a woman named (a common name and also a name of a family member they were friends with). That bit of "truth" ruined the relationship between the family members (because the wife believed Browne).

At TAM6 we met a guy that runs a website called What's the Harm (http://whatstheharm.net/) I kept meaning to sit down and talk with this guy, but for some reason we just ran out of time. This site has some great info, not all cold-reading but some medical and other stuff. But still a great resource.

But the most important reason for traveling all the way over to America to attend TAM6 is to meet like-minded people. We are the best resource, what brains I have met here and at Skeptic events. There is something wonderful to be able to speak your mind to a group of total strangers and not have to guard your language and worry about the people at the next table throwing their food at you.

Don't forget August 7-10 Skeptic Toolbox (http://www.skepticstoolbox.org/) Eugene, OR very different than TAM, very small and hands on, great brains there also.

Susan

[borealys]

Homeopathy won't work on me because I'm familiar with the effect. Should someone with a headache be denied access to the placebo cure because someone else might have a tumour?

The role of placebo in treating things like chronic pain and psychiatric disorders is actually one of the more interesting questions in medical ethics, IMO. My first response to the question is No! Absolutely not! Give me proven effective treatment or give me nothing at all! But what about conditions that are mediated by our thought processes? Might there be a role for placebo in treating those? But then, wouldn't doctors have to lie to their patients? How can we tolerate that, even if it works? I would certainly lose faith in my doctor if I found out that she had prescribed me a medication with no proven efficacy beyond placebo, even if, strictly via the placebo effect, my condition had improved. And once I knew that the treatment only worked by placebo effect, would that effect then be reduced or even vanish, leaving me as distressed as I ever was?

In the end, I come down on the side that it is unethical, and ultimately damaging to the doctor-patient relationship, for a doctor to lie to a patient about the efficacy of a treatment. But it isn't a 100% simple, black-and-white kind of question.

[Susan Gerbic]

I would certainly lose faith in my doctor if I found out that she had prescribed me a medication with no proven efficacy beyond placebo, even if, strictly via the placebo effect, my condition had improved. And once I knew that the treatment only worked by placebo effect, would that effect then be reduced or even vanish, leaving me as distressed as I ever was?

The really odd thing (and that is what separates us from the believers) is that even knowing that they have been taking a placebo they still think it was effective and would ask for more of it.

Susan

[Chimera]

Have you checked out "What's The Harm (http://www.whatstheharm.net/)"? It was set up by one of our very own forum members.

Go to Supernatural and Paranormal/Psychics, then read some of the ways people have been wronged by well-meaning and sometimes not-so-well-meaning psychics.



ETA: Whoops, I see that the site was already suggested. No matter, it deserves a double plug.

[Rasmus]

The really odd thing (and that is what separates us from the believers) is that even knowing that they have been taking a placebo they still think it was effective and would ask for more of it.

Susan

My mom's a shrink and she works (primarily) with paraplegic patients. She is into too much woo for my tastes, but she did once explain a perfectly ethical and open way to use placebo on patients (in cases were a placebo therapy is promising)

The procedure is explained to the patient and the patients agrees to it.

The solution is simple: The patient is first put on a conventional therapy (or may already be on it) of real pain killers. Eventually, the doctors will simply switch the patient on placebos and see what happens.

Depending on the results, they may switch back to real medication if the placebo failed to work. Otherwise, the placebo therapy can be continued until it makes sense to inform the patient that he is complaint free.

So, every doctor using a placebo without the patients informed consent is not doing their job.

[gdnp]

There is a body of research that suggests that religious people are happier than non-religious people. here (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=n4Pmb9ik3GgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA207&dq=religious+people+happier&ots=CvSPM9sqtT&sig=zLJ34RbpKOPz3CqGbhF3fbzXyzw)is one link. I do not wish to derail this thread with a debate on the validity of this research. If people are interested, and it hasn't been done to death, we could start another thread.

Let us assume for the sake or argument that it is true: religious people, all else being equal, are happier, or if you prefer that they live longer. If so, is an atheist doing people a favor by trying to rid them of their religious fantasies, even if they are 100% correct and there is no God?

Just because many cold readers prey on vulnerable people and do damage does not mean that some could not also do good: Tell a woman, for example, who had a fight with her husband the day he died that he knows that she still loves him and that he forgives her. This may allow the woman a sense of closure, and aid her in getting on with her life. Even if it is a lie.

People lie all the time. Often it is done for evil purposes. Sometimes it is done for good purposes, to make people feel better or to avoid hurting their feelings. Placebos may be one such case. Certain psychics could be another. Religion? Maybe it does make people happier, and maybe religious people do live longer. A skeptic, however, cannot simply choose to believe. So at least for me, the point is moot.

[CFLarsen]

Certain psychics could be another.

How so?

[gdnp]

How so?

By using their "powers" to comfort gullible people in pain. I do not think this is necessarily bad.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to be lied to about a close relative or friend- whether they were dead or alive!

If someone I loved died and I was told phony information about them, I'd be infuriated. I'd be infuriated in several different ways, in fact.

While I believe the truth is almost always preferable to and more comforting than a lie, I agree that- in some situations- there is such a thing as a comforting lie.

I don't think cold reading is an example of a comforting or harmless or beneficial lie, though. It's exactly the opposite.

Cold readers aren't out to help or comfort people, first above all. Helping is not their motive or motivation. Except for perhaps the ones who are deluded, they aren't even a case of "misguided but sincere and well-meaning" or "someone paving a path to hell with good and selfless intentions".

They're intellectually lazy liars who justify it by telling themselves they are comforting people. Or cruel and greedy con artists who don't care about their victims.

[Rasmus]

There is a body of research that suggests that religious people are happier than non-religious people. here (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=n4Pmb9ik3GgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA207&dq=religious+people+happier&ots=CvSPM9sqtT&sig=zLJ34RbpKOPz3CqGbhF3fbzXyzw)is one link. I do not wish to derail this thread with a debate on the validity of this research. If people are interested, and it hasn't been done to death, we could start another thread.

Let us assume for the sake or argument that it is true: religious people, all else being equal, are happier, or if you prefer that they live longer. If so, is an atheist doing people a favor by trying to rid them of their religious fantasies, even if they are 100% correct and there is no God?

That depends.

Happiness is not the only thing I value in my life. I also value truth e.g. or knowledge and sincerity. I value reasons.

In short, I think it might be a good idea to cure an alcoholic no matter how happy he may be when drunk.

Just because many cold readers prey on vulnerable people and do damage does not mean that some could not also do good:

This assume that the same "good" (or more) couldn't be done based on a bunch of lies. It further assumes that there are psychics that produce (mainly) good results and those that produce (mainly) bad results. At the very least, it assumes that overall more good than bad results are produced.

Tell a woman, for example, who had a fight with her husband the day he died that he knows that she still loves him and that he forgives her.

Tell that to me after losing a loved one and you will loose conciousness for a while.

This may allow the woman a sense of closure, and aid her in getting on with her life. Even if it is a lie.

It might well not, if that woman was in any way like me.

And in either case there could be other and better ways to deal with the situation! Why do you assume there is basically a choice between the lies of a scummy psychic and a forever grieving widow?

People lie all the time. Often it is done for evil purposes. Sometimes it is done for good purposes, to make people feel better or to avoid hurting their feelings. Placebos may be one such case. Certain psychics could be another. Religion? Maybe it does make people happier, and maybe religious people do live longer.

Maybe that is because the religious are not persecuted by their own kind? Don't have to fear losing their jobs?

A skeptic, however, cannot simply choose to believe. So at least for me, the point is moot.

Indeed.

[CFLarsen]

By using their "powers" to comfort gullible people in pain. I do not think this is necessarily bad.

Give an example.

[Rasmus]

By using their "powers" to comfort gullible people in pain. I do not think this is necessarily bad.

I doubt you could find even one person setting up a psychic operation with the explicit aim to comfort gullible people in pain.

It might sometimes be a side effect of scamming gullible people out of their money, be they in pain or not.

Well, pardon me for godwining the thread, but I don't think building highways is necessarily bad. They might be good highways, too, allowing people to easier, and hence more often, visit distant cousins or sick and elderly great-aunties. Still, that shouldn't distract us from the unsexy truth that these highways are build to allow the quick and efficient transport of armies and supples to wage a more effecient war against an entire continent.

(Yes, i know: Why do I hate German Shephard Dogs?)

[westprog]

But it isn't a 100% simple, black-and-white kind of question.


I agree, and I distrust 100% simple black-and-white answers.

I, personally, prefer to accept the reality that homeopathy can't possibly work, even if it means a runny nose. But YMMV.

[tkingdoll]

If it's OK to lie about that then it's OK to lie about anything.

Any con is fine as long as there is a short-term emotional benefit...so, I can sell your friend a fake lottery ticket. That would be fine by his reasoning. People play the lottery not because they are likely to win, but because they enjoy the experience of imagining what they'd do with the money, of the moment in front of the TV when the numbers are drawn, the adrenalin rush that goes with that. That my lottery ticket is fake isn't relevant to your friend, as the transaction is emotion for money. Remember, just like with psychics, the emotion is only present if the victim of the scam believes they are buying something real. So that's all part of the deal, I have to claim the lottery ticket is real and he has to buy it believing it is.

Hit him with that, see what he says.

[zombiebex]

In short, I think it might be a good idea to cure an alcoholic no matter how happy he may be when drunk.

Excellent analogy. In this same vein, a person can go to a psychic over and over and over again, such as in the case of my aunt. (She's also seeing a hypnotist to help her stop smoking. She was proud of the fact she was once down to half cigarettes... but twice as many.)

People feel happy, feel better, are amazed... and they go back. The psychic has repeat business and continues to take money from his/her customers. We all know the cases of psychics who have swindled people out of huge sums of money by saying something ridiculous like their money has bad energy.

I'm also not a fan of saying these people are just asking for it. That reeks of victim blaming. In the case of those who have lost loved ones, they are sad, lonely, and vulnerable. It's like con artists who target old people. We as a society need to say that this isn't okay, expose frauds more often, and educate the public.

[Delvo]

If their lies actually helped people, there might be a case there, but they actually just make it worse.

[cj.23]

One thing that upset me after a recent bereavement - a lot of people sent emails or texts with one word "condolences". I was pleased to receive their best wishes, but I did think, "is condolences not a category description?" I thought condolences was a term describing efforts made to make you feel better, no matter how inept and platitudinous, like "he has a good innings", "he's at peace now", "you will meet again", "I keep thinking of you and imagining your grief, and want you to know we are here for you" - not a substitute for them. Of course no one really wants to deal with the frief stricken I guess - when bereaved you think, act and behave a little irrationally, and are not exactly fun to be around, and I genuinely appreciate these terse missives, not least because the longer messages and cards made me cry, but I did wonder if our societies were so uncomfortable with death and had so little idea of how to face it we had juts given up -- and the use of "condolences" as a shorthand substitute for actually attempting to write any may just show how little we can say in the face of tragedy. I don't think I could ever do any better though!

Anyway sorry, just me whittering.
cj x

[gdnp]

Give an example.

I gave one already. I will expand.

A woman has a fight with her husband and says some nasty things that she regrets. That night, before she can apologize, he has a car accident and dies. In addition to grieving, she is guilt stricken that he died before she had a chance to apologize. She sees grief counselors and a psychiatrist, but still is overwhelmed with the thought that her husband died before they could make up.

After six months of grief, she sees a psychic. The psychic tells her that her husband forgives her and knows that she loves him and is at peace. The psychic refuses to take any money from the woman, and sends her home.

Has this psychic performed an evil deed?

[tkingdoll]

I gave one already. I will expand.

A woman has a fight with her husband and says some nasty things that she regrets. That night, before she can apologize, he has a car accident and dies. In addition to grieving, she is guilt stricken that he died before she had a chance to apologize. She sees grief counselors and a psychiatrist, but still is overwhelmed with the thought that her husband died before they could make up.

After six months of grief, she sees a psychic. The psychic tells her that her husband forgives her and knows that she loves him and is at peace. The psychic refuses to take any money from the woman, and sends her home.

Has this psychic performed an evil deed?

Define 'evil'. It's not a black and white issue, for sure, but this woman's long-term mental health WILL NOT be helped by this sticking plaster approach. Unless she's particularly retarded, she will always doubt what the psychic told her, and if she didn't, then the psychic just taught her that there are no bad consequences to life and that we don't have to feel responsible for our actions. It's a tough lesson to learn, but "don't be a bitch and then let someone you love leave" is actually quite fundamental. Learning the hard way is hell to live with but that's actually what being a healthy emotional human being is. In my opinion it's immoral to lie to someone in order to fool them into forgiving themselves for an action they are responsible for.

Oh, and for the record, I speak from experience here, which I suspect most of you don't. The grieving woman doesn't want to be lied to just for lip service, even if that means having to face regret for the rest of her life. It's extremely insulting to her to assume she does.

[gdnp]

Define 'evil'. It's not a black and white issue, for sure, but this woman's long-term mental health WILL NOT be helped by this sticking plaster approach. Unless she's particularly retarded, she will always doubt what the psychic told her,
you underestimate the ability of people to believe what they want to believe.

and if she didn't, then the psychic just taught her that there are no bad consequences to life and that we don't have to feel responsible for our actions.
Only if you believe that 6 months of tortured guilt is inadequate punishment for losing your temper.

It's a tough lesson to learn, but "don't be a bitch and then let someone you love leave" is actually quite fundamental. Learning the hard way is hell to live with but that's actually what being a healthy emotional human being is. In my opinion it's immoral to lie to someone in order to fool them into forgiving themselves for an action they are responsible for.Well, this woman was later told by a kindly skeptic that the psychic was a fraud, there is no God, and there was nothing she could do to undo the past. She became despondent, began abusing alcohol, neglected her children, was fired from her job, took an overdose of sleeping pills, and died.

Who was more evil, the psychic or the skeptic?

Oh, and for the record, I speak from experience here, which I suspect most of you don't. The grieving woman doesn't want to be lied to just for lip service, even if that means having to face regret for the rest of her life. It's extremely insulting to her to assume she does.
Hey, she's my hypothetical woman. I can insult her all I want.

I think most people in a time like this would want to be told something they can believe that can bring them peace. If they gradually realize, over time, that it might not be true, they will have recovered enough to be better able to handle it.

I would not expect a skeptic to go to a psychic and obtain anything of value. Or a priest. Still, I'm not going to tell a grieving person who believes their loved one is in heaven that there is no God because she needs to know the truth. Or that her husband didn't love her, was planning on dumping her, and was boffing his secretary for the past ten years. It serves no purpose.

[Ladewig]

In the only episode of Sylvia Brown(e) (spit) I ever watched on the Montel (spit) show a woman said here husband had been missing for ten years and wanted information. "He's dead." Said the Witch and moved on to the next sucker. The poor woman looked as if she had been poleaxed. Maybe she was better off living with a faint hope. Some real therapy might have helped. The Witch's did not. :mad:

I despise S.B. but I so want to point out that what she did here is not specifically cold reading.

Cold reading is saying very general things that almost everybody will associate with. E.g. "You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. You pride yourself on being an independent thinker." Warm reading involves observing clothing, mannerism, speech patterns, and physical attributes in order to make educated guesses about a person's history, life, or profession. CJ.23's post is a good example. Hot reading involves researching a person's background and history before revealing this information in a mystical setting.

What S.B. did was simply pull an idea out of her butt and lie to the audience member. The ease with which she does this may indicate that she is an amoral, heinous predator incapable of thinking beyond herself.

[osmosis]

I agree, and I distrust 100% simple black-and-white answers.

How very rational of you.

The word itself derives from root word ratio, which means, basically, "some of this, some of that, but not 100% anything"

[CFLarsen]

Hey, she's my hypothetical woman. I can insult her all I want.

Yes, you certainly don't seem to care much for her.

I think most people in a time like this would want to be told something they can believe that can bring them peace. If they gradually realize, over time, that it might not be true, they will have recovered enough to be better able to handle it.

In your example, why not tell her that

1) She shouldn't feel guilty about it - it's not her fault.

2) She is being lied to.

What is the problem in that?

I would not expect a skeptic to go to a psychic and obtain anything of value. Or a priest. Still, I'm not going to tell a grieving person who believes their loved one is in heaven that there is no God because she needs to know the truth. Or that her husband didn't love her, was planning on dumping her, and was boffing his secretary for the past ten years. It serves no purpose.

It serves no purpose to point out that grieving people are being lied to?

Wow.

What do you think of the story I linked to in post #13? Do you think that was OK?

[gdnp]

Yes, you certainly don't seem to care much for her.
Hey, I'm not the one who says she deserves a lifetime of guilt so that she can learn a lesson about the realities of life.

In your example, why not tell her that

1) She shouldn't feel guilty about it - it's not her fault.

2) She is being lied to.

What is the problem in that?
Well, in the example she had been to a grief counselor and a priest and was still wracked with guilt.

It serves no purpose to point out that grieving people are being lied to?

Wow.


Read my post again. If I see someone lying to a grieving person, telling her that her husband loved her when I know that he didn't, had been having an affair, and was about to leave her, I am not going to correct the misinformation because she deserves to know the truth. In this case, and in my example, allowing the person to believe the lie is the compassionate thing to do.

Tell me, if you had been a friend of the person in my example, and she came to you to tell you that a psychic had contacted her husband and he said it was OK, and this psychic had not taken any of her money, would you feel compelled to tell her that she was being lied to?

Wow.

What do you think of the story I linked to in post #13? Do you think that was OK?
I think what Sylvia Brown did was despicable. So? The question was can a psychic ever do good by lying to people. I can believe that handguns are net bad and still admit that there have been times when handguns have saved lives.

[Rasmus]

Hey, I'm not the one who says she deserves a lifetime of guilt so that she can learn a lesson about the realities of life.


Well, in the example she had been to a grief counselor and a priest and was still wracked with guilt.


Read my post again. If I see someone lying to a grieving person, telling her that her husband loved her when I know that he didn't, had been having an affair, and was about to leave her, I am not going to correct the misinformation because she deserves to know the truth. In this case, and in my example, allowing the person to believe the lie is the compassionate thing to do.

Tell me, if you had been a friend of the person in my example, and she came to you to tell you that a psychic had contacted her husband and he said it was OK, and this psychic had not taken any of her money, would you feel compelled to tell her that she was being lied to?

Wow.


I think what Sylvia Brown did was despicable. So? The question was can a psychic ever do good by lying to people. I can believe that handguns are net bad and still admit that there have been times when handguns have saved lives.

:words:

Again, you confuse an accidental outcome that happens to be positive with the intend to produce a positive outcome.

I have no reason to assume that this is a common scenario, let alone the dominant one.

Tell me who is more evil, then: A child drowns in a lake and I can either safe it or let it die. Would you describe me as evil for saving the child if it turns out to be the next Hitler? How would you describe me if I let the child drown because I was genuinely worried that it might grow to be the even greater commander of all times?

[CFLarsen]

Hey, I'm not the one who says she deserves a lifetime of guilt so that she can learn a lesson about the realities of life.

Nobody is saying that she deserves a lifetime of guilt.

Well, in the example she had been to a grief counselor and a priest and was still wracked with guilt.

Then, you are constantly shaping your example to fit your argument, so you can never lose. That's an intellectually corrupt position.

Read my post again. If I see someone lying to a grieving person, telling her that her husband loved her when I know that he didn't, had been having an affair, and was about to leave her, I am not going to correct the misinformation because she deserves to know the truth. In this case, and in my example, allowing the person to believe the lie is the compassionate thing to do.

What is the difference between that, and lying to someone that her husband forgives her?

Tell me, if you had been a friend of the person in my example, and she came to you to tell you that a psychic had contacted her husband and he said it was OK, and this psychic had not taken any of her money, would you feel compelled to tell her that she was being lied to?

Yes, absolutely. I would not just tell her, I would explain how she was being lied to.

Just because a psychic doesn't take money doesn't mean that it is OK to rape someone's memories.

I think what Sylvia Brown did was despicable. So? The question was can a psychic ever do good by lying to people. I can believe that handguns are net bad and still admit that there have been times when handguns have saved lives.

In your opinion, has Sylvia Browne ever done something that was OK by you?