A Secret Skeptic...

[Legend]

Let's just take this with an open mind. Let's say, that a young man was a devoted critical thinker and skeptic. He has been around these "scenes" for a fair while now and hates to see the mentally blind sheep follow a corrupt shepherd.

He's disappointed that those with a critical and logical mind are a minority, among a sea of wayward thinkers.

In fact, so much so, that he is willing to use his life to try and make a difference. He tries something fairly radical, in an attempt to push things forward and doubly fool the fooled.

Warning: Now you have to realise how hypothetical this is...

Somehow, he uses his knowledge of Cold Reading, which is developed and impressive, to gain a fair amount of fame, claiming that he is a psychic; appearing regularly on TV shows and trying, as much as he can, to get his name out there.

Prior to his first major appearance, he contacts a few skeptic "Top Dogs", such as Randi, telling them that he is in fact a skeptic, with, self-admittedly, no 'powers'. He tells Mr. Randi a plan. Mr. Randi holds true to this and agrees to help him out, through getting his name out there by scrutinising everything he does.

After the 10 year period of fame has finished, his name is out there, his work is known and money made by merely fooling the stupid, his plan is completed.

Over a series of press conferences, he comes out as a skeptic, with no powers whatsoever. To back up his point, he has previously contacted James Randi, among other skeptics to hold true his story. Throughout his time making a lot of money, he too, has spent a lot of money. Donating profusely to charities and skeptic societies.

He goes to jail, for fraud, and perhaps his entire life is royally screwed.

My point and question to you:

But after all of this would this make a difference? Would this "secret skeptic" convince believers, or would their ignorance still prove too strong? He would, like all 'psychics', have a legion of loyal fans. Would they too turn to skepticism? What effect would this have, overall to skepticism or the world of critical thinking?



Some of you who know me a littler better may see autobiographical undertones, this is merely hypothetical.

Alex.

[UncaYimmy]

Has the existence of known and acknowledged frauds made any difference to the masses?

What I choose to do is "enlighten" people one at a time. It never happens because of any one thing I've said or done. Heated battles rarely work. Humor helps. Cajoling helps. A key statement here and there helps. Questions help a lot. Pointing to solid research helps.

You'll know you're making progress when people start asking you, "Hey, I heard about such and such. What do you make of it?" You see, skepticism is not about answers. It's about questions.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Look up the "Carlos hoax". A skeptic who had worked as a performance artist concocted a channeling hoax and revealed it was a scam after completing a successful tour. I believe he didn't take much money for it as a matter of principle but did sell supernatural objects.

And guess what. Many people persisted in believing him. "We know what they are saying about you but we have your back!"

I'm sure more than a few accepted it, though.

[Sideroxylon]

The '80s Carlos hoax that Randi was involved in didn't seem to have any effect on those who fell for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHLdUxcL-BA

[Legend]

I'm thinking on a much bigger scale. Imagine, just imagine, if Jon Edwards came out as a skeptic, or another big name, with the backing of Randi, Dawkins among others. It raises heaps of questions.

Would the truly deluded still cling to belief? Likely. How many? Would avid believers admittedly turn to critical thinking and skepticism? There are plenty. I guess I'm really asking, what effect would this have?

I don't know if this will work, and I hardly even have an opinion on it.

All I'm after are your opinions, which is exactly what you've given me. Thanks guys.

Alex.

[Legend]

Has the existence of known and acknowledged frauds made any difference to the masses?

What I choose to do is "enlighten" people one at a time. It never happens because of any one thing I've said or done. Heated battles rarely work. Humor helps. Cajoling helps. A key statement here and there helps. Questions help a lot. Pointing to solid research helps.

You'll know you're making progress when people start asking you, "Hey, I heard about such and such. What do you make of it?" You see, skepticism is not about answers. It's about questions.

I don't think anyone is interested in skeptical questions. I don't think anything involving questions is going to appeal to the masses. The reason they believe in these wooish things is because of their size and "coolness", if you like. How cool would it be if these guys never did actually walk on the moon? Pretty cool. Pretty fun to believe in.

How about the fact that a guy tricked tens of thousands of people over a 10 year period? It's a scandal, a scam, a hoax and a conspiracy. Its very being advertises itself.

If done correctly, it could yield results, I think.

Alex.

[Jonquill]

No it wouldn't make any difference to most Believers, people already know that some psychics are fakes but that doesn't stop them believing that there are other ones that are real. They want to believe, they don't want to have that taken away from them.

[Sideroxylon]

I reckon you would run into too many ethical problems with such a long-term hoax. Could you justify lying to the kinds of desperate people who seek out the likes of Edward and Browne?

[Legend]

That was my biggest issue and you worded that with my thoughts exactly.

Let's say our young man here, after his 10 years, started to meet people that he fooled. Or there were further interviews, talks that he gave and perhaps shows that he put on that tried to meet his former fans. Let's just say that he tried to tell them that they had been so easily and deeply fooled, and that they believed so avidly in him, and he was a fake, so 'that's how easy it is for other fakes to fool you'.

Perhaps I'm overrating the thought processes (if any) of these believers, because you're right, many are so crazy with belief, that they become so fully stubborn.

Alex.

[Legend]

I reckon you would run into too many ethical problems with such a long-term hoax. Could you justify lying to the kinds of desperate people who seek out the likes of Edward and Browne?

These are the posts I wanted and expected. Great work.

I suppose I see it like this: in reality, let's just say that this guy didn't exist. These desperate people who seek the help of Edwards and Browne end up going there, getting nothing but lies, and more than likely leave with the belief in what psychics can do.

If the guy did exist, they do the same and follow him, get lies and leave with the belief in what psychics can do. Eventually, they find out that the man was a fraud.

Either way, these people are going to a fraud (as we know). I'd much rather that slight variation in the second situation occur, than in the first.

This thread was initially going to be called "A Moral Issue", but I changed it to gain attention to the thread.

Alex.

[Jonquill]

Wouldn't you be kind of ripping them off twice though? First you tell them that someone who has passed with a J name loves and forgives them and is happy in heaven and then 10 years later you snatch away that warm comforting belief they held by telling them the whole thing was BS?

[Sideroxylon]

Wouldn't you be kind of ripping them off twice though? First you tell them that someone who has passed with a J name loves and forgives them and is happy in heaven and then 10 years later you snatch away that warm comforting belief they held by telling them the whole thing was BS?

I agree. It wouldn’t help me sleep at night or maintain the facade before grieving people. Professional “psychics” perhaps justify their deception by the idea they are fulfilling some form of emotional need in their clients - an idea with many problems but it seems better than the proposed motive.

[Mojo]

No it wouldn't make any difference to most Believers, people already know that some psychics are fakes but that doesn't stop them believing that there are other ones that are real. They want to believe, they don't want to have that taken away from them.


We had someone on the forum a while back claiming that Shirley Ghostman was a genuine psychic.

[Jonquill]

I wonder how a movie on this topic would go instead? People don't take kindly to being tricked but some of the ideas in movies really get into people's heads.

Apparently no one thought the ouija board opened a 'portal to hell' until the movie The Exorcist, now every Wooist on the web swears that it is so.

[quarky]

Was it Marjoe that 'came out'?

Lots of frauds have been exposed, especially amongst the tv evangilist type.
People find an uncorrupt scam artist to feed, after one goes bad.

But the game needs to be refined as it goes along.
The Jimmy Swaggart look won't get it anymore.

[Sideroxylon]

Was it Marjoe that 'came out'?

Lots of frauds have been exposed, especially amongst the tv evangilist type.
People find an uncorrupt scam artist to feed, after one goes bad.

But the game needs to be refined as it goes along.
The Jimmy Swaggart look won't get it anymore.

The wonderful thing about this world (if you are a charlatan) is that no matter how badly you have seemingly been exposed the show can go on if you deny the problem, make excuses and play the victim. Browne, Geller and Popov come to mind here. Time also can often be your friend but, as you point out, changing fashions can go against you. There has long been a market for such deception and there are plenty of providers to fill the gaps of any that disappear. Damn my scruples.

[Legend]

Wouldn't you be kind of ripping them off twice though? First you tell them that someone who has passed with a J name loves and forgives them and is happy in heaven and then 10 years later you snatch away that warm comforting belief they held by telling them the whole thing was BS?

That's a fair call. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. Perhaps our "man" could try and avoid that type of "connection with the dead", or at least minimilise it.

I agree. It wouldn’t help me sleep at night or maintain the facade before grieving people. Professional “psychics” perhaps justify their deception by the idea they are fulfilling some form of emotional need in their clients - an idea with many problems but it seems better than the proposed motive.

Again, fair call. I couldn't do it. Like I said, maybe avoiding this type of thing would be best.

We had someone on the forum a while back claiming that Shirley Ghostman was a genuine psychic.

There will be some people like this. Despite clearly stating that he has no magical ability and that it doesn't exist, some crazed Criss Angel fans still believe what he does is real.

We simply must remember that these type are, luckily, a minority.

I wonder how a movie on this topic would go instead? People don't take kindly to being tricked but some of the ideas in movies really get into people's heads.

Apparently no one thought the ouija board opened a 'portal to hell' until the movie The Exorcist, now every Wooist on the web swears that it is so.

That was something I was wondering after I posted it. It seems very dramatic and could possibly trick the audience, furthermore pushing the point of easy deception of the masses. It is a potentially very cinematic idea.

Was it Marjoe that 'came out'?

Lots of frauds have been exposed, especially amongst the tv evangilist type.

People find an uncorrupt scam artist to feed, after one goes bad.

But we're talking about not hiding anything. Is anyone who has been exposed or come out seriously had craploads of fans and a lot of fame. The "coming out" would be a huge thing, made massive, a welcomed and pushedcontroversy.

The wonderful thing about this world (if you are a charlatan) is that no matter how badly you have seemingly been exposed the show can go on if you deny the problem, make excuses and play the victim. Browne, Geller and Popov come to mind here. Time also can often be your friend but, as you point out, changing fashions can go against you. There has long been a market for such deception and there are plenty of providers to fill the gaps of any that disappear. Damn my scruples.

This is very true and unfortunate.

I wish such a thing would yeild big results, unsure whether it actually would.

Thanks so far, keep the opinions running.

Alex.

[wombatwal]

The Carlos episode happened in the 80s in Australia. Conceived by some Aussie sceptics and Randi. They got a young Mexican actor to play the channeler with Randi's tuition plus others in the media in Australia. Hooked a lot of people including the media. Made no difference after they spilled the beans. This sort of thing would have limited benefit I would think.
I think the way, is to converse with the believers and the fencesitters. Keep rattling away about rational thinking, chipping very slowly at their veneer and never giving up. The true believers are probably lost "souls", but the mass of fencesitters is the ones we should be aiming at. As long as we argue in a reasoned and respectful way. Try very hard not to loose it, many believers and Psychics will lose it but don't retaliate. Keep plugging away and maybe we may have some success.
I am doing that on the New Zealand Sensing Murder forum with I think very small wins with a couple of people. I am not sure how us sceptics are impressing the lurking fencesitters though. They don't participate in the debate. I am sure there are quite a few there.
This is where I think the sceptics belong in the trenches on the believer sites.

[jhunter1163]

I think there'd be a different reaction if you exposed the fraud yourself rather than having the mask ripped away from you. If you tell your victims that you've been defrauding them all along, the "victim" option doesn't exist for you like it does for someone like Popoff. There'd be a few true believers who would think that "they" got to you and made you make the confession, but the overwhelming majority would be angry. People don't like to have their credulity exposed.

Plus, I for one would have the same ethical qualms that have been expressed above.

[Legend]

I think we should completely forget altogether about adults, in my opinion, and educate the young.

Even without the moral issue that we've talked about earlier, I'd be keen to see what a large scale fake "psychic" could actually do. Obviously, anything that's done well will have results, I just question the amount of effect this would actually have.

I personally find these hypothetical discussions a great way to understand what we as everyday kind of guys can actually do to fight in this war, if you will.

Alex.

[Legend]

I think there'd be a different reaction if you exposed the fraud yourself rather than having the mask ripped away from you. If you tell your victims that you've been defrauding them all along, the "victim" option doesn't exist for you like it does for someone like Popoff. There'd be a few true believers who would think that "they" got to you and made you make the confession, but the overwhelming majority would be angry. People don't like to have their credulity exposed.

That's what I meant. The person would reveal himself as a fraud all along and Randi among others would simply be there to confirm that he contacted them prior to making it big that he was a skeptic all along.

The moral issue is a tough one, but we know that they'd be going to someone without powers anyway, however, like I've said, ignorance is bliss; what they don't know won't hurt them.

Alex.

[JimBenArm]

I think we should completely forget altogether about adults, in my opinion, and educate the young.

Alex.
>sob<

Why, oh why do you hate us old people so much that you would doom us to a life of ignorance and despair? I didn't mean to hit you with my cane, but you wouldn't get off my lawn!

[Legend]

:D

Quiet fogie! DID YOU HEAR THAT?

In perfect seriousness, if we did spend the effort that we could with ther younger, rather than the adults, not only would we leave these adults to live in their ignorant bliss, but we'd yield 10 times better results. Plus, it would be sort of like a "flushing" procedure. Out with the old and in with the new.

Alex.

[jhunter1163]

There might be some backlash against Randi in a case like this; if he knew someone was deceiving people and did nothing about it, you could argue that he was an accessory to fraud. This could be defused if the deceiver didn't take money for his "readings".

I'm thinking that you could do a TV show with maybe two or three cold readers and a skeptic, have them compare accuracy and so on, and at the end of the series unmask one (or more, maybe even all) as skeptics with no claimed "powers". God knows they've done them on everything else.

There would likely be some hurt feelings, but there's an object lesson in the show; there are plenty of people in the world who are looking to take advantage of emotionally vulnerable people. Don't be a sucker!

[Legend]

There might be some backlash against Randi in a case like this; if he knew someone was deceiving people and did nothing about it, you could argue that he was an accessory to fraud. This could be defused if the deceiver didn't take money for his "readings".

That sounds good actually. Perhaps the guy could ask for donations on his website to go to charity, that might soften the blows of the angry people once they realise they've been scammed.

I'm thinking that you could do a TV show with maybe two or three cold readers and a skeptic, have them compare accuracy and so on, and at the end of the series unmask one (or more, maybe even all) as skeptics with no claimed "powers". God knows they've done them on everything else.

That, I don't think could yield results at all, except for perhaps the rare, sane believers. Something radical, even if it truly was completely morally screwed, I think, could have results. The thing is that it needs to be BIG. Just HUGE; have a catchy name like other famous "scandals" and something that will be remembered in years to come.

That's why it becomes so hypothetical.

I truly do believe that one day psychic services for money, will become illegal. Simply because of advances in the media and availability of information to the general public (look at what the internet did - so imagine what it will be like in, say, 20 more years) and scientific improvements. But that's sorta-kinda off-topic.

Alex.

[Jonquill]

Unless you can get to the young while they are still in nappies, you will have missed your chance - (give me the child and I'll show you the man- Catholic saying I think)- people grow up so steeped in woo that believing in the paranormal is as natural to them as believing that you breath air.

I base this idea on the number of hard core believers you see on the 'net that post things like "My grandma thinks I might be psychic like she is....."

[Legend]

I don't think you're right there.

It's easy to convince children of things. So easy. So long as they're taught correctly and about the right things, it will cushion them from the crazy attacks from wooish folk.

I base this idea on the number of hard core believers you see on the 'net that post things like "My grandma thinks I might be psychic like she is....."

These types of comments have always interested me.

Reason? I always have thought, you're not going to see the "non-hardcores" post anywhere proclaiming how they don't believe in it anywhere near the amount, if at all that you get "hardcores" posting. That's like saying that everyone loves Aussie Rules, because people have posted how much they like it. People never post, "I hate Aussie Rules" (obviously, because it's awesome) at all.

Like I've said, I think these wooish "Old Wives", if you will, should be the last of their kind. Look at us over time. While we've still had these "psychics" for a long time, we see that now, the general public are developing small BS detectors to things people would've believed a long time ago. I think that, over time, the natural progression in intelligence, will prevent further wooism.

Anyway, back on topic, Alex!

Alex.

[Sideroxylon]

I don't think you're right there.

It's easy to convince children of things. So easy. So long as they're taught correctly and about the right things, it will cushion them from the crazy attacks from wooish folk.



These types of comments have always interested me.

Reason? I always have thought, you're not going to see the "non-hardcores" post anywhere proclaiming how they don't believe in it anywhere near the amount, if at all that you get "hardcores" posting. That's like saying that everyone loves Aussie Rules, because people have posted how much they like it. People never post, "I hate Aussie Rules" (obviously, because it's awesome) at all.

Alex.

I usually feel like a bit of a bastard questioning someone’s belief in psychics. No problems at all online but sometimes it’s easier to let claims made in person go by. I think most important is not painting them as a fool for believing such things.

[Legend]

You're right.

Not much else to say to that really...

Alex.

[Jonquill]

Haha, I was tossing up between saying it's as natural as being taught to go for the Dockers or the Eagles - instead of breathing air.

Yeah, I see what you are saying, only people with an interest post this stuff or respond to questions on line.

But have you looked at measuring it in any other way, like the number of New Age books sold for example?

[Legend]

Well, obviously, Eagles are the better team...

That's fine. Often people are very curious about these things, which is unfortunate. However, if we can teach younger people, I think it'd get much better results than anything else. From what I've experienced and know, people ages 10-18 are much less likely to actually believe in psychic ability, then 10-18 year olds of say, 10-20 years ago. Grab them while they're young! Before they've given in to the flood of the supernatural.

So perhaps this now makes the idea presented in the OP even harder gain "results". Usually, adults are much harder to convince of something, than younger people. Unless they're presented with something new and cool to believe in. A "scandal" like this could do the trick, so long as, like I said, it is massive.

Alex.

[Jonquill]

"people ages 10-18 are much less likely to actually believe in psychic ability, then 10-18 year olds of say, 10-20 years ago"

Not saying you are wrong but how did you come to this conclusion?

[Delvo]

If the secret could be kept long enough, it would only encourage conspiracy theorists: "See sometimes it really happens!"

[ExMinister]

My 2 cents for what they're worth as a person with an almost lifelong background of "woo:" To really make a difference, the whole house of cards needs to come down. Meaning one major high-profile psychic/medium after another must be debunked, caught out in deception, and not only that, but we need to go back historically and show how previous high-profile individuals were also caught out (or in some cases confessed, or were shown to be individuals with a history of lying, etc). The reason is because it is just too easy for people with a belief in woo to have one person debunked and fall back on the kind of thinking that says, "Yes but that was only ONE. People have been doing this type of thing for years, including my own grandmother/mother/aunt. They aren't all frauds! They can't be, there are too many followers" and so on. So in your hypothetical example, people again will see only that some one person confessed to no abilities. They will not necessarily translate that into meaning their own personal favorite spiritual teacher/psychic medium is necessarily the same.

IMO, in order to really make a difference, one by one people need to be shown that ALL psychics and mediums, even back through history, are all playing the same game, are sometimes self-deluded even, and that yes they can all be fakes.

[gdnp]

I wonder how a movie on this topic would go instead? People don't take kindly to being tricked but some of the ideas in movies really get into people's heads.

I hoped that The Mentalist would do this: the main character is a former cold reader who gives it up and starts working the other side after his family is murdered. I only saw the first episode--I watch hardly any TV. Still, I have hopes that in additional episodes he exposes other psychics and more importantly reveals their techniques. A show like that, if entertaining enough to maintain interest, could do a lot of good. Of course, there is always the risk that when ratings start to fall the producers will "jump the shark" and put a "real" psychic in an episode.

It's kind of sad that the show out there that has done the most debunking of paranormal phenomena to the widest audience is probably Scooby-doo, and it uses a talking dog. ;)

As to the overall success of any particular psychic "coming out" changing peoples mind about psychic abilities as a whole, I doubt it would have much effect. I do not recall a televangelist directly admitting that he was a fraud, but many have been disgraced, and this does not stop people from flocking to the remaining megachurches. Mother Theresa, somewhat famously (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2321124.ece), privately admitted that she felt abandoned by God, with no direct connection or communication for the last 50 years of her life, and her followers claim that this is further evidence of her saintliness.

Or look at various miracle cures: as each one undergoes scientific tests and is debunked, another rises to take its place.

Or look at Nigerian-type email scams. You would think that people who had fallen for one would have learned from the mistake, but some people are victimized over and over again.

People who want to believe will believe, even after being repeatedly burned, and unfortunately there are a lot of such people out there.

[gdnp]

My 2 cents for what they're worth as a person with an almost lifelong background of "woo:" To really make a difference, the whole house of cards needs to come down. Meaning one major high-profile psychic/medium after another must be debunked, caught out in deception, and not only that, but we need to go back historically and show how previous high-profile individuals were also caught out (or in some cases confessed, or were shown to be individuals with a history of lying, etc). The reason is because it is just too easy for people with a belief in woo to have one person debunked and fall back on the kind of thinking that says, "Yes but that was only ONE. People have been doing this type of thing for years, including my own grandmother/mother/aunt. They aren't all be frauds! They can't be, there are too many followers" and so on. So in your hypothetical example, people again will see only that some one person confessed to no abilities. They will not necessarily translate that into meaning their own personal favorite spiritual teacher/psychic medium is necessarily the same.

IMO, in order to really make a difference, one by one people need to be shown that ALL psychics and mediums, even back through history, are all playing the same game, are sometimes self-deluded even, and that yes they can all be fakes.

Every year psychics come out with predictions, and at the end of the year people look at those predictions and how they fail, and yet the next year people still look at the lists of predictions from the same psychics.

(aside: the internet could provide a useful tool here, cataloging in a systematic way all of the failed predictions year after year in an easily reviewable format. There must be such sites out there.)

The same goes for things like football scores. My local paper has a panel of experts that predict the results of games against the spread, and--surprise surprise--in aggregate they win about 50% of their time. Their "best bets" of the week don't seem to do any better. Somehow people still see these sportswriters as experts whose opinion means something even when their 76-84 record for the year is published next to their opinions.

[Gravy]

...The reason is because it is just too easy for people with a belief in woo to have one person debunked and fall back on the kind of thinking that says, "Yes but that was only ONE. People have been doing this type of thing for years, including my own grandmother/mother/aunt. They aren't all be frauds! They can't be, there are too many followers" and so on.Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think that people who want to believe would say – correctly – that an ability of some people to fake psychic powers convincingly doesn't preclude others from having such powers.

[MG1962]

The '80s Carlos hoax that Randi was involved in didn't seem to have any effect on those who fell for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHLdUxcL-BA

Its funny I remember the Carlos phenomena when it washed over Australia and unless my memory is very fuzzy, there was a lot skeptisim at the time, with him being confronted and lampooned number of times during interviews etc. One reporter for a high profile news show even lost his job over his behaviour with "Carlos"

I am sure 'some' fell for the act, but the vast majority of Australians saw him as a showman trying to make money before the bubble burst.

[quarky]

Crop circle makers had to go as far as announce their next circle, with drawings, before they did it...to dispel the true believers. Still, believers persist. I wonder if their numbers are dwindling?

[Sideroxylon]

Its funny I remember the Carlos phenomena when it washed over Australia and unless my memory is very fuzzy, there was a lot skeptisim at the time, with him being confronted and lampooned number of times during interviews etc. One reporter for a high profile news show even lost his job over his behaviour with "Carlos"

I am sure 'some' fell for the act, but the vast majority of Australians saw him as a showman trying to make money before the bubble burst.

My memory of the time is also far from clear but the video clips I watched today seem to support what you say. I just remember seeing some brief interviews with people who were not fazed by the revelation of a hoax. There is also a Michael Shermer clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Tu-28hyow) where he was showing fake UFO photos to people in the street whose beliefs were also unshaken by a demonstration of how easy the “evidence” can be manufactured.

From a bit more reading it appears one of the biggest names to own up to deceiving audiences has been James Hydrik. Here’s part of an interesting interview that I found here. (http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_167.shtml)

KOREM: You were on "That's Incredible" a few months ago and you
really tricked them.

HYDRICK: I tricked the whole world.

KOREM: Yes. What did it make you feel like?

HYDRICK: I did that to reach. It's like a hand reaching out for
recognition. I don't know...I just wanted to be known. I needed
to be recognized. All my life, I've been...I hate to keep going
back to the past, but I don't know. I wanted to do that because
it was different. I just wanted to see how open minded people
were. I wanted to see if these people who were so-called
intelligent and I was so-called dumb; I mean, surely I'm here for
a reason. My whole idea behind this in the first place was to see
how dumb America was. How dumb the world is.

[UncaYimmy]

I don't think anyone is interested in skeptical questions. I don't think anything involving questions is going to appeal to the masses. The reason they believe in these wooish things is because of their size and "coolness", if you like. How cool would it be if these guys never did actually walk on the moon? Pretty cool. Pretty fun to believe in.

How about the fact that a guy tricked tens of thousands of people over a 10 year period? It's a scandal, a scam, a hoax and a conspiracy. Its very being advertises itself.

If done correctly, it could yield results, I think.

Individuals are smart. Groups are stupid. Remember that.

But as a more direct answer to your question, think about this. Suppose, for example, that I spent 10 years faking a moon landing. I had everyone convinced. Then I revealed my treachery. What would that prove about the NASA moon landings? Zero. Zilch. Nada.

As a critical thinker and skeptic yourself, you should know that one deliberate fraud doesn't prove anything. Why should anyone conclude that Sylvia Browne is a fraud because some other knucklehead is a fraud? In fact I'd bet that most "believers" believe that there are frauds among the real psychics.

The goal is to teach critical thinking so that people can sniff out this stuff on their own. Your method won't do that. My method is slow, but it works.

[Legend]

"people ages 10-18 are much less likely to actually believe in psychic ability, then 10-18 year olds of say, 10-20 years ago"

Not saying you are wrong but how did you come to this conclusion?

My (young) mates all do not believe in psychic ability. They, in fact, persist that "unless someone comes over to me and tells me some crazy information that they could've only known by talking to SPIRITS, then I'll believe". Then we see how many adult "believers" are out there now. I think that one day, perhaps sooner than we expect, believers will be the minority.

Look at, for instance, "Old Wives Tales". Now, people know that you don't really get arthritis from cracking your knuckles. Now, people are realising that, hold on, chewing gum doesn't take X years to pass through the digestive system! Now, people know that...self pleasure...won't give you hairy palms, or turn you Japanese. If you could convince a person of that who lived in today's world, I'd commend your effort.

This is quite a wide view with people my age. I suppose it could be a mix of more information being exposed and open for use by the general public. Science taking its toll.

My 2 cents for what they're worth as a person with an almost lifelong background of "woo:" To really make a difference, the whole house of cards needs to come down. Meaning one major high-profile psychic/medium after another must be debunked, caught out in deception, and not only that, but we need to go back historically and show how previous high-profile individuals were also caught out (or in some cases confessed, or were shown to be individuals with a history of lying, etc). The reason is because it is just too easy for people with a belief in woo to have one person debunked and fall back on the kind of thinking that says, "Yes but that was only ONE. People have been doing this type of thing for years, including my own grandmother/mother/aunt. They aren't all frauds! They can't be, there are too many followers" and so on. So in your hypothetical example, people again will see only that some one person confessed to no abilities. They will not necessarily translate that into meaning their own personal favorite spiritual teacher/psychic medium is necessarily the same.

IMO, in order to really make a difference, one by one people need to be shown that ALL psychics and mediums, even back through history, are all playing the same game, are sometimes self-deluded even, and that yes they can all be fakes.

That, I agree, would work better than my hypothetical idea; which was, I remind you, purely to see your reactions and opinions to this idea. While it could prove very difficult, I do think that this would work.

However, if it isn't coupled with the teaching of skepticism and critical thinking, I don't think it will work fully. I still think there'll be those believers out there. If not, then knowing how to critically think, will hold everyone in good stead for any future wooism.

I hoped that The Mentalist would do this: the main character is a former cold reader who gives it up and starts working the other side after his family is murdered. I only saw the first episode--I watch hardly any TV. Still, I have hopes that in additional episodes he exposes other psychics and more importantly reveals their techniques. A show like that, if entertaining enough to maintain interest, could do a lot of good. Of course, there is always the risk that when ratings start to fall the producers will "jump the shark" and put a "real" psychic in an episode.

It's kind of sad that the show out there that has done the most debunking of paranormal phenomena to the widest audience is probably Scooby-doo, and it uses a talking dog. ;)

As to the overall success of any particular psychic "coming out" changing peoples mind about psychic abilities as a whole, I doubt it would have much effect. I do not recall a televangelist directly admitting that he was a fraud, but many have been disgraced, and this does not stop people from flocking to the remaining megachurches. Mother Theresa, somewhat famously (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2321124.ece), privately admitted that she felt abandoned by God, with no direct connection or communication for the last 50 years of her life, and her followers claim that this is further evidence of her saintliness.

Or look at various miracle cures: as each one undergoes scientific tests and is debunked, another rises to take its place.

Or look at Nigerian-type email scams. You would think that people who had fallen for one would have learned from the mistake, but some people are victimized over and over again.

People who want to believe will believe, even after being repeatedly burned, and unfortunately there are a lot of such people out there.

Human curiosity. I hate it.

I completely understand what you're saying, and it's very interesting and a good way of looking at it all. I think our curiosity is an instinctual thing that will lead us in bad places, and has.

Upon this information, I do think that teaching critical thinking may be the best assistance to ridding the world of a majority of believers. There will always be some. Mostly the attention seeking type, who believe simply to be different.

See my lotto reference below.

Every year psychics come out with predictions, and at the end of the year people look at those predictions and how they fail, and yet the next year people still look at the lists of predictions from the same psychics.

(aside: the internet could provide a useful tool here, cataloging in a systematic way all of the failed predictions year after year in an easily reviewable format. There must be such sites out there.)

The same goes for things like football scores. My local paper has a panel of experts that predict the results of games against the spread, and--surprise surprise--in aggregate they win about 50% of their time. Their "best bets" of the week don't seem to do any better. Somehow people still see these sportswriters as experts whose opinion means something even when their 76-84 record for the year is published next to their opinions.

That's a really good point.

Another good point, from where I stand anyway: buying lotto is a freakin' stupid waste of money. People spend hundreds, if not thousands of money continually buying lotto tickets, and not winning a cent.

Crop circle makers had to go as far as announce their next circle, with drawings, before they did it...to dispel the true believers. Still, believers persist. I wonder if their numbers are dwindling?

I think they most certainly are.

Like I've said a million times before on this thread, people are getting smarter, slowly, because of better information being given to the public, scientific improvements among other things. These improvements, if you will, are having a great impact on the viewing of such wooish claims. People are going into such things with the right type of skepticism. They aren't as easily fooled, as I believe they were a while ago.

Individuals are smart. Groups are stupid. Remember that.

But as a more direct answer to your question, think about this. Suppose, for example, that I spent 10 years faking a moon landing. I had everyone convinced. Then I revealed my treachery. What would that prove about the NASA moon landings? Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I think, in perfect honesty, that this would be something everyone would jump on board with. I think people would look at this and go, "wow, look at how easy that was". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I actually think people's beliefs would be affected by this.

As a critical thinker and skeptic yourself, you should know that one deliberate fraud doesn't prove anything. Why should anyone conclude that Sylvia Browne is a fraud because some other knucklehead is a fraud? In fact I'd bet that most "believers" believe that there are frauds among the real psychics.

The goal is to teach critical thinking so that people can sniff out this stuff on their own. Your method won't do that. My method is slow, but it works.

I do think that spreading the idea and knowledge of critical thinking is absolutely necessary. Even more so after the creation of this thread. Perhaps this will come, over time, as something that's inherently taught in Science classes at schools. That would be marvellous.

Alex.

[arthwollipot]

That was something I was wondering after I posted it. It seems very dramatic and could possibly trick the audience, furthermore pushing the point of easy deception of the masses. It is a potentially very cinematic idea.I think it'd make a great movie. Unfortunately, being a movie, it would be "fiction" and therefore wouldn't convince anyone.

Just because he's a fake doesn't mean all those other psychics are fake.

[Legend]

Just because he's a fake doesn't mean all those other psychics are fake.

This point has been made several times, so let me clear up.

I suppose what I was hoping is that people could use, even a little bit of critical thinking, and actually think, well this guy fooled me into completely believing, so why can't others.

More of an eye opener, if not anything else.

Alex.

[Jonquill]

I think it'd make a great movie. Unfortunately, being a movie, it would be "fiction" and therefore wouldn't convince anyone.


Hey, it could be based on a 'true' story, just like the Amityville one, plenty of people believe that.

[UncaYimmy]

Regarding a "real" moon hoax and its effect on the Apollo missions to the moon...
I think, in perfect honesty, that this would be something everyone would jump on board with. I think people would look at this and go, "wow, look at how easy that was". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I actually think people's beliefs would be affected by this.

Whose beliefs? The critical thinkers or the teeming millions? People are already well aware of the special effects in movies. They know the government has lied and covered up things before. I'm not saying the moon visits were a hoax, but I have no doubt that there were really no technical barriers to it.

Do you see the pattern here? Do you realize how many fraudulent psychics and faith healers have been exposed over the years? Ask even the most devout believers if they believe that there are absolutely no frauds out there. They'll be quick to tell you that they *know* there are frauds, fakes and charlatans out there.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to get these people to ask themselves a very simple question: If I know for a fact that someone can produce the exact same results by normal means, how can I know that someone else is doing it via paranormal means?

Wanna mess with your friends who believe in psychics? Search the web for some examples of known cold readings. By that I mean skeptics doing cold readings, not someone claiming that a "real" reading is actually a cold reading. Then grab some actual psychic readings. Change the names accordingly.

Explain to your friends what cold reading is and how it works. Present four of them. Ask them to pick out which one was the cold reading.

[Legend]

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to get these people to ask themselves a very simple question: If I know for a fact that someone can produce the exact same results by normal means, how can I know that someone else is doing it via paranormal means?

Yep, that's where I was heading. I think I said this when adressing arthwollopot's post.

Whose beliefs? The critical thinkers or the teeming millions?

The teeming millions. The believers that the moon landing was a hoax.

Your idea, is magnificent. I'm currently on a mission to try and get my extended family to think critically, or completely convert them (yeah right). I've been looking for these practical examples, and I'll be using this one. Thanks.

Alex.

[Jonquill]

I think the nature of woo belief changes and evolves but not necessarily lessens.

Sure hardly anyone thinks chewing gum winds round your heart anymore but people are buying homeopatic medicine.
How many American kids are watching those Ghost Hunter programs they have and lapping it all up?

Twenty years ago I can't recall seing any Mystic Crap shops (New Age) now there seems to be one in every shopping center, some one is believing and buying that rubbish.
Check the yellow pages, there are 64 listing in WA under Clairvoyance.

[Legend]

Trust me I know.

I'll tell you some one who's believing that rubbish, my Aunties and Uncles. Some of my extended family go to psychics and clairvoyants, recently my Aunty and Uncle (in-law) went to see Jon Edwards live. They're right into all of that simply because they're caught up in how cool it is, that they fail to think past the awe of it.

To put it simply, they need a wake up call. I think I can do it. Perhaps, at least, let them cut back on any clairvoyant things. They've just moved into their first house together, and financially, they could seriously do better. I see them often, along with my other extended wooish family (great people though). So we'll see what transpires.

Alex.

[Jonquill]

That's the other problem, ghosts, psychics and paranormal stuff is fun, mysterious and exciting.

Where's the fun in not believing in those things?

[Legend]

Yep, I mentioned that earlier.

The human mind is avidly attracted to mystery.

How cool is it to believe that we live past death? How cool is it to believe that there is some huge conspiracy to who shot JFK? How cool is it to believe that this guy can talk to my dead Grandad? Pretty damn cool.

Unfortunately, the truth isn't always as cool as lies.

Alex.

[arthwollipot]

I'd rather have a depressing truth than a happy lie.

[Legend]

As would I.

Some people are living blissfully ignorant lives...without the 'v'.

Alex.

[UncaYimmy]

Here's a little something I made up for you.

1) Get a digital photo of each of your family members (doesn't have to be a new one - any old one will do).

2) Attached is a PDF version of the file you will create. You can download the Word DOC version here (www.azwebpages.com/download/VisionsFromVision.doc).

3) Replace my photo and name with the photo and name of a family member and print/save it.

4) Leave the "reading" alone. It is the generic reading used in the Forer Effect (http://skepdic.com/forer.html). This reading has consistently been rated as very good by everyone who reads it and believes it was written for them.

5) Gather everyone together at once. It won't work if you do it one at a time.

6) Tell your family members that you think this psychic stuff is nonsense. Tell them you found a website called Visions From Vision that claims to be able to give psychic readings from photographs of all things and that they were giving away free ones. Tell them it is endorsed by John Edwards and Sylvia Browne. Tell them that you read the readings and don't agree that they are accurate, but in the interests of fairness they should evaluate the readings themselves.

7) Give them their readings and ask for their gut reactions to their accuracy. Ask for an accuracy rating on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the best.

8) If all goes according to plan, they will say that they are mostly accurate. Furrow your brow. Say, "Okay. Then how about you guys evaluate each other's readings then?"

9) Try not to act smug when they realize what's going on.

Of course, this could all blow up in your face. That's okay. You're young. There will be plenty of time to become the world's best known fraudulent psychic.

[UncaYimmy]

I'd rather have a depressing truth than a happy lie.

I take it you're not married? :D

[arthwollipot]

I take it you're not married? :DNo, I am not married, but yes, there is someone I'm not married to.

I've gone on about my personal life and my family in a number of other threads. Most recently in the yrreg trainwreck Atheists and sexual libertinism - if you're really interested (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4293579#post4293579).

[Legend]

Here's a little something I made up for you.

1) Get a digital photo of each of your family members (doesn't have to be a new one - any old one will do).

2) Attached is a PDF version of the file you will create. You can download the Word DOC version here (www.azwebpages.com/download/VisionsFromVision.doc).

3) Replace my photo and name with the photo and name of a family member and print/save it.

4) Leave the "reading" alone. It is the generic reading used in the Forer Effect (http://skepdic.com/forer.html). This reading has consistently been rated as very good by everyone who reads it and believes it was written for them.

5) Gather everyone together at once. It won't work if you do it one at a time.

6) Tell your family members that you think this psychic stuff is nonsense. Tell them you found a website called Visions From Vision that claims to be able to give psychic readings from photographs of all things and that they were giving away free ones. Tell them it is endorsed by John Edwards and Sylvia Browne. Tell them that you read the readings and don't agree that they are accurate, but in the interests of fairness they should evaluate the readings themselves.

7) Give them their readings and ask for their gut reactions to their accuracy. Ask for an accuracy rating on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the best.

8) If all goes according to plan, they will say that they are mostly accurate. Furrow your brow. Say, "Okay. Then how about you guys evaluate each other's readings then?"

9) Try not to act smug when they realize what's going on.

Of course, this could all blow up in your face. That's okay. You're young. There will be plenty of time to become the world's best known fraudulent psychic.

You're a champion. I will be doing this, among others, next time I meet up with the right people in my family.

In the words of Kim Peek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek): you're a great man.

k2T45r5G3kA

^^ Inspirational and amazing stuff. He can recall any date in the past, in practically any year, and he'll give you the DAY of the week (e.g. ask him March 24th 1983, and he'll say it was a Thursday). And that's among an unbelievable array of other information. Truly unreal.

Alex.

[UncaYimmy]

No, I am not married, but yes, there is someone I'm not married to.

I've gone on about my personal life and my family in a number of other threads. Most recently in the yrreg trainwreck Atheists and sexual libertinism - if you're really interested (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4293579#post4293579).

Interesting stuff. I was just being silly, though.

I understand your point about preferring the truth no matter the consequences. I think that many skeptics forget how difficult this can be at times. How that pertains to this thread is simple:

For example, people who believe that a medium can put them in touch with the dead *want* to believe that. What they don't want to hear is that someone who is dead is, well, dead. Accepting the "logic" showing that the medium is a fake is not the real issue. Accepting death is.

So even if you convince someone that a particular medium is a fake, that person still has to accept that dead means dead. If they don't, then it's just one fake medium. As long as someone believes that the dead are not really dead, then the "logical" conclusion is that there must be a way to contact them.

The accepting death issue is two-fold. Not only is it hard to accept that we can't ever contact those who have died, it also means that when we die, we'll never see or contact the living again. This is why it is so easy for people to convince themselves of so many things supernatural.

As Mark Twain is alleged to have said, "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

[Magic 8 Ball]

Let's just take this with an open mind. Let's say, that a young man was a devoted critical thinker and skeptic. He has been around these "scenes" for a fair while now and hates to see the mentally blind sheep follow a corrupt shepherd.

He's disappointed that those with a critical and logical mind are a minority, among a sea of wayward thinkers.

In fact, so much so, that he is willing to use his life to try and make a difference. He tries something fairly radical, in an attempt to push things forward and doubly fool the fooled.

Warning: Now you have to realise how hypothetical this is...

Somehow, he uses his knowledge of Cold Reading, which is developed and impressive, to gain a fair amount of fame, claiming that he is a psychic; appearing regularly on TV shows and trying, as much as he can, to get his name out there.

Prior to his first major appearance, he contacts a few skeptic "Top Dogs", such as Randi, telling them that he is in fact a skeptic, with, self-admittedly, no 'powers'. He tells Mr. Randi a plan. Mr. Randi holds true to this and agrees to help him out, through getting his name out there by scrutinising everything he does.

After the 10 year period of fame has finished, his name is out there, his work is known and money made by merely fooling the stupid, his plan is completed.

Over a series of press conferences, he comes out as a skeptic, with no powers whatsoever. To back up his point, he has previously contacted James Randi, among other skeptics to hold true his story. Throughout his time making a lot of money, he too, has spent a lot of money. Donating profusely to charities and skeptic societies.

He goes to jail, for fraud, and perhaps his entire life is royally screwed.

My point and question to you:

But after all of this would this make a difference? Would this "secret skeptic" convince believers, or would their ignorance still prove too strong? He would, like all 'psychics', have a legion of loyal fans. Would they too turn to skepticism? What effect would this have, overall to skepticism or the world of critical thinking?



Some of you who know me a littler better may see autobiographical undertones, this is merely hypothetical.

Alex.

It sounds like you are describing James Randi and Project Alpha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1S5CRcqJQo

My answer to your question:
Some people will become enlightened skeptics and others will make excuses to continue to believe in psychics. The impact would be minor in respect to making new skeptics. Most believers of psychics chose to believe in them because they complete some empty void. Think of all the times religion has been exposed as fraud and yet religion is still common place around the world. For now, in this era, I don't think any one event will change many minds. It's wishful thinking, but thanks for asking.

[Legend]

Close, but again, I'm thinking on a larger scale. A huge event.

Alex.

[Magic 8 Ball]

Close, but again, I'm thinking on a larger scale. A huge event.

Alex.

How big of an event?
An event as big as Martin Luther posting the 95 theses? This did not stop the Catholic church from keeping most of its followers. And those who did leave the Catholic church just went on to Lutheran and Protestant churches. Psychics work on the same general principal as religion, fulfilling some void. I don't think it matters how large the event would be. I don't think skepticism will fill the void that religion, psychics, magic, or fantasy fill. It is wishful thinking, but the most people seem to be attracted to woo because it is easier for them to accept than the rigors of acquiring knowledge.

[Autolite]

But after all of this would this make a difference? Would this "secret skeptic" convince believers, or would their ignorance still prove too strong? He would, like all 'psychics', have a legion of loyal fans. Would they too turn to skepticism? What effect would this have, overall to skepticism or the world of critical thinking?

No, it wouldn't make a difference. People will still believe. Look at it in general terms. Science, knowledge and our understanding of the physical world has long ago advanced to the point where rational thought would dispel all belief in every type of woo. Whether it's psychics, religion or the paranormal, people will always believe. The problem is not a lack of convincing evidence but the inability, or refusal, of so many people to engage in rational thought...

[Legend]

How big of an event?

An event as big as Martin Luther posting the 95 theses? This did not stop the Catholic church from keeping most of its followers. And those who did leave the Catholic church just went on to Lutheran and Protestant churches. Psychics work on the same general principal as religion, fulfilling some void. I don't think it matters how large the event would be. I don't think skepticism will fill the void that religion, psychics, magic, or fantasy fill. It is wishful thinking, but the most people seem to be attracted to woo because it is easier for them to accept than the rigors of acquiring knowledge.

I've not heard of the 95 Theses.

I can't really tell you how "big", but...big. An event that will be all over the news. This person needs to have had a greater impact that any psychic we've seen in history. He/she needs to be a very renowned and very good cold reader; their fame should be at a very high level.

To suggest that "it doesn't matter how large the event is", I think, isn't correct at all.

No, it wouldn't make a difference. People will still believe. Look at it in general terms. Science, knowledge and our understanding of the physical world has long ago advanced to the point where rational thought would dispel all belief in every type of woo. Whether it's psychics, religion or the paranormal, people will always believe. The problem is not a lack of convincing evidence but the inability, or refusal, of so many people to engage in rational thought...

In your opinion, will this demeanour change?

Alex.

[Ladewig]

I suspect that the return on the investment into this scheme will be rather small. It seems to me to be a way to produce angry people rather than enlightened people.


Like I've said a million times before on this thread, people are getting smarter, slowly, because of better information being given to the public, scientific improvements among other things. These improvements, if you will, are having a great impact on the viewing of such wooish claims. People are going into such things with the right type of skepticism. They aren't as easily fooled, as I believe they were a while ago.

I'm going to need to see some evidence before I can agree with your claim.
Here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/4483/Americans-Belief-Psychic-Paranormal-Phenomena-Over-Last-Decade.aspx) is a gallup poll showing belief in a wide range of paranormal topics increased or stayed the same between 1990 and 2001. I'll keep looking for more up-to-date figures.

[Autolite]

In your opinion, will this demeanour change?




No. As I've already stated, there is already more than enough evidence to convince a rational mind that there is no such thing as psychic ability. People will continue to believe because they have an emotional need to believe. Emotion quite often overrides logic...

[quarky]

There is something 'unbelievable' about the truth...like a state of awe, induced by sheer observation and study of reality. Hopefully, this could come to the rescue of those intent on woo.

For me, it all becomes more astounding; more awe-inspiring, as I cut through the guff.
The moon landing, for instance, is more incredible than the faking of it would be.

Incredible is an interesting word. An ant colony is incredible to me, though I also find it credible.

[Autolite]

This thread brings to mind an old Tyrone Power movie called "Nightmare Alley" (1947). In the movie, Tyrone Power's character is a carny who develops the ability of cold reading (and they actually use the term "cold reading" in the film). His character goes on to become a famous "mentalist" but he is portrayed as being nothing more than a slimy con artist behind the facade of his act.

I found it interesting that Hollywood felt that film audiences in 1947 would understand that cold reading was just a simple deception. If this was the case over 60 years ago, how is it that so many people today continue to believe that it's real???

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039661/

[blutoski]

I don't see much benefit, based on the complete lack of impact from past similar hoaxes and exposures.

Exposure of a celebrity paranormalist will reduce that particular brand's currency, but very few believers will consider it a discredit to the profession as a whole. My guess is that it's a net wash, as for every person who is turned away, others are galvinized to increase their support.

Given the doubtful benefits and certainty of harm, I'm not sure if another Carlos would be a good idea.

[blutoski]

This thread brings to mind an old Tyrone Power movie called "Nightmare Alley" (1947). In the movie, Tyrone Power's character is a carny who develops the ability of cold reading (and they actually use the term "cold reading" in the film). His character goes on to become a famous "mentalist" but he is portrayed as being nothing more than a slimy con artist behind the facade of his act.

I think there's a natural connection between skepticism and film noir.




I found it interesting that Hollywood felt that film audiences in 1947 would understand that cold reading was just a simple deception. If this was the case over 60 years ago, how is it that so many people today continue to believe that it's real???

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039661/

Pretty much without exception, marks are well aware that it can be faked, but hold some unshakeable belief that there are some real ones out there anyway. That's what makes them perpetual victims.

We have a similar problem with psi research. There was a fellow on an unrelated thread who held very firmly that just because a psi subject was caught cheating doesn't indicate that earlier positive results by the same subject should be discarded or even considered suspect.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Alex, there's another point you should take into account.

The majority of people who believe in something that's a fraud need more than one example to convince them it's not real. They need more than one to even plant doubt in their mind.

Take Sylvia Browne. One wrong reading or one wrong prediction is not evidence to make a fan instantly disbelieve her where they previously believed her 100%. It takes several wrong readings, wrong predictions, wrong missing persons/murder cases. It takes time. It takes answering alot of questions they have and educating them (even if very briefly) on certain subjects, such as cold reading, hot reading, false memories, confirmation bias, etc.

It's a whole process to prove anything to someone else and get someone to feel that so-and-so is a fraud. It's not "take away one brick and the whole house falls".

Maybe there's a "final straw" story but even that final straw demanded alot of straws being piled on. To return to the house analogy, one brick made the house finally crumble but that was only after you took off the roof and one pillar.

Psychics have the advantage here because all they need is one largely successful reading to convince someone. Maybe followed by largely successful predictions. Even when they get it wrong quite a lot, their victim still only has mixed feelings.

[Legend]

I'm so sick of when I quote someone's post, and it doesn't take the quotation that they have in their post. Bah!

I'm going to need to see some evidence before I can agree with your claim.
Here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/4483/Americans-Belief-Psychic-Paranormal-Phenomena-Over-Last-Decade.aspx) is a gallup poll showing belief in a wide range of paranormal topics increased or stayed the same between 1990 and 2001. I'll keep looking for more up-to-date figures.

I like the idea that someone put forward before, that beliefs may change, but not lessen. Perhaps what I mean, is that what they're changing to is not actually as wayward as what it was prior to change.

No. As I've already stated, there is already more than enough evidence to convince a rational mind that there is no such thing as psychic ability. People will continue to believe because they have an emotional need to believe. Emotion quite often overrides logic...

Dayum.

Nicely put.

For me, it all becomes more astounding; more awe-inspiring, as I cut through the guff.
The moon landing, for instance, is more incredible than the faking of it would be.

For me too, perhaps for those who believe it was fake. I think 'incredible' is different to my outwardly juvenile word "cool".

It's fun and cool to believe in a conspiracy, not necessarily more amazing or incredible.

Incredible is an interesting word. An ant colony is incredible to me, though I also find it credible.

The English language. 'Nice' once meant 'foolish'. We change the real meaning of words. Look at how 'bad' is changing before our eyes...

Alex, there's another point you should take into account.

The majority of people who believe in something that's a fraud need more than one example to convince them it's not real. They need more than one to even plant doubt in their mind.

Take Sylvia Browne. One wrong reading or one wrong prediction is not evidence to make a fan instantly disbelieve her where they previously believed her 100%. It takes several wrong readings, wrong predictions, wrong missing persons/murder cases. It takes time. It takes answering alot of questions they have and educating them (even if very briefly) on certain subjects, such as cold reading, hot reading, false memories, confirmation bias, etc.

It's a whole process to prove anything to someone else and get someone to feel that so-and-so is a fraud. It's not "take away one brick and the whole house falls".

Maybe there's a "final straw" story but even that final straw demanded alot of straws being piled on. To return to the house analogy, one brick made the house finally crumble but that was only after you took off the roof and one pillar.

Psychics have the advantage here because all they need is one largely successful reading to convince someone. Maybe followed by largely successful predictions. Even when they get it wrong quite a lot, their victim still only has mixed feelings.

Fair call. It sickens me to think that the human race will still be plagued by people making money of BS and other people's pain. Good luck to us.

Again, I didn't necessarily think it would work and gave this hypothetical idea little though and was intended to merely gain your opinions. I thought it would be an interesting discussion, which, for me, it is turning out to be.

Alex.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I really wouldn't be so sickened by it. Belief in the paranormal is prevalent throughout all human societies. It's universal, even though it takes many different forms depending on the culture and is lesser or bigger at different times and places.

It'll most likely always exist, just as some form of war, some form of bigotry and discrimination and facts of life such as child abuse will probably always exist in every culture and society.

But to get back to the topic, it's actually very often happened that cold-reading is done with the goal of having a big success to an audience who has been told that you are a psychic and then revealing it was a trick in the end. Magician Derren Brown has done this, among many others who have done this stunt.

This usually seems to convince the audience it's a fraud. Wonder why the Carlos hoax didn't but this seems to work well.

[Legend]

I really wouldn't be so sickened by it. Belief in the paranormal is prevalent throughout all human societies. It's universal, even though it takes many different forms depending on the culture and is lesser or bigger at different times and places.

It'll most likely always exist, just as some form of war, some form of bigotry and discrimination and facts of life such as child abuse will probably always exist in every culture and society.

Look at what we've acheived, then look at how such a miniscule thing can fool the most influential and intelligent race to ever walk the Earth.

But to get back to the topic, it's actually very often happened that cold-reading is done with the goal of having a big success to an audience who has been told that you are a psychic and then revealing it was a trick in the end. Magician Derren Brown has done this, among many others who have done this stunt.

This usually seems to convince the audience it's a fraud. Wonder why the Carlos hoax didn't but this seems to work well.

I'm a fan of Derren Brown and that method would work if more people did it. I agree. It's simply the impact effect; the same method that can gain believers, can also lose them.

Alex.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Psychics and mediums are natural and born entertainers- they know that you have to "Wow!" your audience at the very start, before you do anything else. Make a big impact, make a big splash.

That's something they share with magicians and mentalists. Sadly. Also with non-woo con men, car salesmen and carnival barkers, who they make look honest by comparison.

This is a little off-topic but it's actually the intelligent who often fall for tricks like cold-reading. In the Victorian era, several known academics and scientists were fooled by seances. Scientists have fallen for Uri Geller at the height of his fame. Respectable doctors have believed in psychic surgery and faith healing.

There are several reasons for this. Cold-reading often depends on a subject who can think fast, find patterns and put connections together quickly and match the pace of the psychic. Also, an educated person often believes that they cannot be fooled. And it takes someone with intellectual curiosity and with an interest in high-brow things to find the idea of something like astrology or psychic powers fascinating.

Plus, a person with alot of expertise in one area can't be expected to know a single thing about another area that they would be drawn to because of their expertise- very good doctors understandably not being able to spot magic tricks, for instance.

Can you blame a physician for not recognizing a carnival trick/sleight of hand in medical woo? Of course not. It's often because of their knowledge of medicine that they can appreciate how astonishing something seems to be; a very good example of this is a cardiac surgeon being astonished that John of God's surgeries don't carry the risk of infections and don't involve loss of blood, as his surgeries would.

[Legend]

Psychic phenomenon, and its ability to fool people, is miniscule, and not something that will have a serious effect on humans. However, I just think that we, no matter if we are surgeons, journalists, lawyers or a bloody plumber, are better than to get fooled by something so petty.

The fact is, that with any amount of real thought the realisation can come to light that these people are frauds, with no talent at all. People refuse to do this, and simply take what's given to them by anyone, and gobble it up then ask for seconds, without actually looking to see that what they're eating is actually BS.

What's more, is that these people are making MONEY. Some are making more than people who are positively affecting people, rather than negatively; like our surgeon, journalist, lawyer or (bloody) plumber.

How much better we could make this place, if these con-people put their effort into something real, productive and BSless.

Sure, "we'll always get con-people, it's inevitable...etc.", but just think, these people are legally protected. They are allowed, by LAW, to BS their way to money and a house, and they couldn't care less about anyone at all; the fact that what they're doing is wrong doesn't enter the depths of their twisted minds, so long as they get their $/hr amount; and NOTHING is to blame but human ignorance and stupidity.

Alex.

[Jonquill]

The thing is Alex, this psychic medium stuff isn't limited to tricky professionals. there's a lot of people that think that they can read minds or contact the dead themselves, or if not themselves they know for a fact that their Aunt Nelly can.

I don't know if you have checked out the Paranormal section at Yahoo Answers it is a real eye opener, the sort of questions people ask and the bizarre replies.

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/dir/;_ylt=AtOpQyE7_hqVNkBQn0hd0JUAGAx.;_ylv=3?link=lis t&sid=396547171

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I've often thought the same thing. It's sad how much time, money and energy these con artists waste, both their own and ours.

I'm convinced that alot of them would have been much better off if they had learned a real and useful profession that gave back to other human beings, instead of taking from them. They should be pouring their energies into something worthwhile- some of them would make fine mentalists, indeed.

Sylvia Browne should have stuck to being an English teacher (allthough, allegedly, she was terrible at that, too). John Edward should have remained a ballroom dance instructor.

(I'm not making that up. Those actually were their previous professions.)

[Legend]

I followed Jonquill's link and felt I needed to write my own reply. (http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090103004038AAySp5m)

Alex.

[gdnp]

I've often thought the same thing. It's sad how much time, money and energy these con artists waste, both their own and ours.

I'm convinced that alot of them would have been much better off if they had learned a real and useful profession that gave back to other human beings, instead of taking from them. They should be pouring their energies into something worthwhile- some of them would make fine mentalists, indeed.

Sylvia Browne should have stuck to being an English teacher (allthough, allegedly, she was terrible at that, too). John Edward should have remained a ballroom dance instructor.

(I'm not making that up. Those actually were their previous professions.)

I suspect they both make much more money as psychics, which probably has a lot to do with their career choices.

[Ladewig]

I like the idea that someone put forward before, that beliefs may change, but not lessen. Perhaps what I mean, is that what they're changing to is not actually as wayward as what it was prior to change.


I have no idea what you mean.

[Ladewig]

I suspect they both make much more money as psychics, which probably has a lot to do with their career choices.

Exactly. Kevin Trudeau would probably be making less than a twelfth of his current income if he decided to find honest work.

[Jonquill]

Maybe what he is saying is that 50 years ago people had an awful lot of silly beliefs, now people have an equal number of silly beliefs but they are not quite as silly as the idea of the past.

For example people used to think that chewing gum wound round your heart (really silly), now they think ghosts make your lights flicker (only a bit silly).

Of course I don't actually know what he meant, but that is my interpretation.

[gdnp]

Despite the continued belief in many varieties of woo, I think we can definitively say there has been progress over the last several centuries.

Most of us do not believe that a woman who bears a child with birth defects has been cursed

Most of us do not believe that a person with seizures has been possessed by a demon

Most of us believe that a person who claims to hear voices from God needs medication, not beatification.

Most of us do not believe that there are witches who need to be burned.

Most of us do not believe that storms, famine, and epidemics are punishment from God (I hope).

Science has filled in many of the gaps in human knowledge, supplying real explanations for what was previously unknown and frightening. People are becoming more secular and less religious. At least in the west. And science has provided the tools to combat new woo as it develops.

We will never stamp out woo completely. I still think the trends are positive.

[quarky]

spontaneous generation has also gone by the wayside.

(I do sort of miss phlogistan, though)

[Jonquill]

If you lived 500 years or so ago, even if you were the best scholar in the land, there would be no resources available for you to understand genetic defects, epilepsy, epidemics, it would have been quite reasonable to think they were the work of some malevolant force or whatever.

The depressing thing now is everybody has access to books, tv, internet, an unlimited source of knowledge and they still believe in the same old magical codswallop that should have been debunked decades ago.

Not as much progress as you would have expected.

[quarky]

Leeches and maggots have made a slight comeback in medicine.

[Legend]

I have no idea what you mean.

Jonquill is right. This is what I meant:

Maybe what he is saying is that 50 years ago people had an awful lot of silly beliefs, now people have an equal number of silly beliefs but they are not quite as silly as the idea of the past.

For example people used to think that chewing gum wound round your heart (really silly), now they think ghosts make your lights flicker (only a bit silly).

Of course I don't actually know what he meant, but that is my interpretation.

If you lived 500 years or so ago, even if you were the best scholar in the land, there would be no resources available for you to understand genetic defects, epilepsy, epidemics, it would have been quite reasonable to think they were the work of some malevolant force or whatever.

The depressing thing now is everybody has access to books, tv, internet, an unlimited source of knowledge and they still believe in the same old magical codswallop that should have been debunked decades ago.

Not as much progress as you would have expected.

That's most certainly something that I've contemplated. I think it comes down to importance. Really, the paranormal is of no importance to people at all, it's trivial and fun, but nothing else. People have no desire to find out the truth, as they're happy with where they stand on the whole matter.

Alex.

[Ladewig]

That's most certainly something that I've contemplated. I think it comes down to importance. Really, the paranormal is of no importance to people at all, it's trivial and fun, but nothing else.

I really don't see evidence of that. How did you reach the conclusion that "the paranormal is of no importance to people at all"?

[Legend]

Because it isn't!

It's meaningless. Houses, family, taxes, economy, finances, recreation... these things mean something in people's lives. The paranormal is a very small thing for the majority of us. They don't think about it very often at all.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind at all that the paranormal is not important to people. I'm surprised you oppose this view.

Mind you, my statement was a little epic, i.e. "no imporantce...at all".

Alex.

[gdnp]

Because it isn't!

It's meaningless. Houses, family, taxes, economy, finances, recreation... these things mean things in people's lives. The paranormal is a very small thing in the majority of people's lives. They don't think about it very often at all.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind at all that the paranormal is not important to people. I'm surprised you oppose this view.

Mind you, my statement was a little epic, i.e. "no imporantce...at all".

Alex.

I'm not sure you have considered that religion is included in the paranormal. Perhaps you wish to modify your statement?

[Legend]

Well certainly I didn't mean religion. I was hoping that that was sort of a given.

Alex.

[UncaYimmy]

If you lived 500 years or so ago, even if you were the best scholar in the land, there would be no resources available for you to understand genetic defects, epilepsy, epidemics, it would have been quite reasonable to think they were the work of some malevolant force or whatever.

It would have been just as unreasonable then as it is today. We've always been allowed to say, "I don't know, but let's try to find out." Throughout history humans have noodled some quite difficult things when they set their minds to it. Sometimes they had the "correct" conclusions based on incomplete evidence. That's excusable. After all, it took a lot of observations to figure out the earth orbited the sun.

But there's never been any excuse for the scholars to make up stuff or not test their theories. After all, if the masons and smiths could do it, why not the scholars?

[Jonquill]

"But there's never been any excuse for the scholars to make up stuff or not test their theories"

Well they would have been a great deal more difficult to test plus a lot of the knowledge we have now is built up over hundreds of years, if someone now is wondering why we are having an epidemic they don't have to start by designing a microscope.

Anyway if your knowledge is only of wooish things I think you find evidence to support those believes.
Eg Edith has given birth to a deformed baby, of course she was frightened by a bull while pregnant.

I guess when masons had a bad idea it was very quickly apparent when the building fell down.


I still think it is less acceptable to believe in crap now.

[Jonquill]

Maybe there should be a distinction between past ideas that are just wrong and ideas that are magically wrong.

Eg, Viruses haven't been discovered so you think that damp air causes the flu as against thinking that God is punishing you with a disease.

[UncaYimmy]

"But there's never been any excuse for the scholars to make up stuff or not test their theories"

Well they would have been a great deal more difficult to test plus a lot of the knowledge we have now is built up over hundreds of years, if someone now is wondering why we are having an epidemic they don't have to start by designing a microscope.

That's why I pointed out that it is always okay to say, "I don't know."

Eg Edith has given birth to a deformed baby, of course she was frightened by a bull while pregnant.

Same argument today as it was 2,000 years ago: How many pregnant woman are scared by bulls but don't have deformed babies?

I guess when masons had a bad idea it was very quickly apparent when the building fell down.

I'm sure the first zillion attempts at building a arch failed. Had they attributed the failures to demons, we wouldn't have the Big Mac.

I still think it is less acceptable to believe in crap now.

I can see both sides of that coin.

Today we have far more "experts" telling us things than we ever did before. The average Joe has a lot more knowledge than ever before, so when the "experts" throw out stuff like "quantum vibrations" it *sounds* reasonable 'cause only the guys doing rocket surgery really understand that stuff.

We're inundated with stories about psychics, ghosts and other woo via books, magazines, TV shows, and the web. So instead of one lady being scared by a bull, we hear anecdotes about a thousand ladies being scared by bulls and having deformed children on, of all places, The Learning Channel.

On the other side there are skeptical sites and books available if you want to take the time to look for them.

Ever think about the flow of information as being push or pull? A website like this is mostly a pull in that the user has to visit there himself or "pull" the information to his computer. By contrast if a Google search ad is more of a push in that the ad pops up when we're doing something else. Granted, it's still a pull in that we can turn off our computers, but that's beside the point.

Woo information is mostly pushed. We see it advertised a lot. There are lots of TV shows about it. It's present in many genres of fiction. We hear spoken stories about it.

Skeptic information is mostly pull. You gotta go look for it yourself 'cause it rarely just appears on its own.

The deck is stacked against the teeming masses.

[Jonquill]

"I'm sure the first zillion attempts at building a arch failed. Had they attributed the failures to demons, we wouldn't have the Big Mac." haha

I do agree that there seems to be a distressing flood of woo.

I suppose there's alway been the snake oil salesman at the fair, but the crap salesman are increasingly inventive.

[Ladewig]

Because it isn't!

It's meaningless. Houses, family, taxes, economy, finances, recreation... these things mean something in people's lives. The paranormal is a very small thing for the majority of us. They don't think about it very often at all.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind at all that the paranormal is not important to people. I'm surprised you oppose this view.

Mind you, my statement was a little epic, i.e. "no imporantce...at all".

Alex.

Perhaps some of our differing opinions can be attributed to national difference. Here in the United States, believers do take their beliefs seriously. Many followers of homeopathy reduce or eliminate their contacts with conventional doctors. The anti-vaccination folks take their beliefs seriously enough to put their children's health and lives at risk. Believers in after death communication (ADC) are willing to pay upwards of $200 per hour to talk to famous psychics. Many Americans will not buy a haunted house. Psychic phone lines charge between $1 and $3 per minute have have no shortage of customers.

The Wall of Harm is also evidence that many believers take these belief seriously.

ETA: Go find a believer message board and put up a few posts saying that the topic is "not worth taking seriously," then see what kind of responses you generate.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Exactly. Kevin Trudeau would probably be making less than a twelfth of his current income if he decided to find honest work.

Top level con artists are millionaires. People like Kevin Trudeau and John Edward are certainly doing much better than they ever did in honest professions.

Not all con artists are like that, however. Ordinary tarot card-readers offering $5 readings often have to struggle for clients and barely make their rent. Nigerian email scammers that live off $ 500 scams literally live check to check.

Low-level con artists probably would have been better off had they found real work from the very start.

[Legend]

Perhaps some of our differing opinions can be attributed to national difference. Here in the United States, believers do take their beliefs seriously. Many followers of homeopathy reduce or eliminate their contacts with conventional doctors. The anti-vaccination folks take their beliefs seriously enough to put their children's health and lives at risk. Believers in after death communication (ADC) are willing to pay upwards of $200 per hour to talk to famous psychics. Many Americans will not buy a haunted house. Psychic phone lines charge between $1 and $3 per minute have have no shortage of customers.

The Wall of Harm is also evidence that many believers take these belief seriously.

ETA: Go find a believer message board and put up a few posts saying that the topic is "not worth taking seriously," then see what kind of responses you generate.

Fair call.

Perhaps it more has to do with the fact that Australia has around one 14th of the population size American has.

Alex.

[Jonquill]

Maybe because Americans are more religious than Australians, I think if you believe in a god you are at least half way there to believing in ghosts and demons and stuff.

I don't know how much Australians are into woo, I personally don't know any but then you see psychic fairs advertised, and they have psychics on the radio and listed in the phone book.

And we do have Blossom Goodchild. Lol http://www.blossomgoodchild.com/

I would like to know if there are any figures for Australia for those sort of beliefs.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Because it isn't!

It's meaningless. Houses, family, taxes, economy, finances, recreation... these things mean something in people's lives. The paranormal is a very small thing for the majority of us. They don't think about it very often at all.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind at all that the paranormal is not important to people. I'm surprised you oppose this view.

Mind you, my statement was a little epic, i.e. "no imporantce...at all".

Alex.

You are right in that many people who believe in things like homeopathy, herbal teas, astrology, Tarot cards, etc. might believe in it but are not heavily invested in it. It takes up about 1% of their lives and doesn't compare to their other hobbies and concerns.

There are also those who are somewhat interested and invested in it and might have spent some money and time on it (but wouldn't turn to it unless a tragedy befell them) and people for whom this stuff is their life. People for whom the world would shatter if you disabused them of their belief.

Some people don't believe in it. Some people believe in it but don't much care. Some people believe in it but don't depend on it in life or death matters. Some people believe in it very much and take it seriously. Some people believe in it very, very, very much and take it as seriously as they take their home, family, finances, etc.

Edit: The same goes for religion. People of all creeds and traditions might believe in it, absolutely, but act very little on it. Rarely go to church, rarely pray at all, etc. It holds little actual immediate relevance to their lives, as they themselves admit.

[Legend]

Agreed with everything stated above.

Alex.