Best Cold Reading demo?

[T'ai Chi]

What is the best cold reading demo? That is, among people not claiming to be mediums.

Can anyone point me towards a video of it? Transcripts?

[CFLarsen]

Sure, why not?

Why not focus on something we know is fake, instead of seeking out that best demo of mediumship that seems so impossible to find...

Read Ian Rowland's book, he has two excellent long (cold)readings. Section 3.

[Cynical]

What do you "KNOW" is fake, CF? Before you get on a soap box about things you KNOW to be fake, just be ready to provide EVIDENCE that they are fake.

After all, you demand this of others. EVIDENCE.

[Garrette]

Ummm........Cynical?

You might want to re-read the postings before yours.

Claus is referring to what T'ai Chi requested. TC asked for demos of cold readings which are, by definition, fake.

Claus responded by chiding TC for moving onto the subject of fakes (the cold reading demos) while--at least to Claus--TC has not finished one of the discussions about those who claim to be legitimate.

--

Besides that, I suppose I should dust off this old canard and trot out that little thing about "burden of proof" which still lies in the court of those who claim that mediumship is real.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Garrette
Ummm........Cynical?

You might want to re-read the postings before yours.

First, Cynical might want to learn how to read, period.

Originally posted by Garrette
Claus responded by chiding TC for moving onto the subject of fakes (the cold reading demos) while--at least to Claus--TC has not finished one of the discussions about those who claim to be legitimate.

Hey, I am just waiting for that good demo of mediumship. If TC thinks the discussion is over, and we haven't seen one, does he admit that no such demo exist? Only then would it be fair for TC to leave that discussion.

If his admission does not emerge, one might suspect TC was running away from the discussion....

Originally posted by Garrette
Besides that, I suppose I should dust off this old canard and trot out that little thing about "burden of proof" which still lies in the court of those who claim that mediumship is real.

Yup.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No statistical analysis of transcripts is ever going to convince me, unless it includes a reasonable calculation of the probability of each hit occurring by chance. I doubt very much that's ever going to happen.

So, those psychics should take another tack. How about finding the next ten missing kids?

~~ Paul

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

Hey, I am just waiting for that good demo of mediumship. If TC thinks the discussion is over, and we haven't seen one, does he admit that no such demo exist? Only then would it be fair for TC to leave that discussion.


I suppose I'm guilty of fence-sitting. I do have an opinion on this subject, but didn't think it appropriate or necessary to bring it up in my response to Cynical, and I was trying to avoid giving ammunition for a derail which purpose you have now completely defeated. Sheesh.

Ah, well. I wasn't trying to give the impression that I think you're wrong. I don't.

P.S. I had a brief comment to pm you, but apparently you don't allow that, so I was going to e-mail it, but you don't allow that, either. How in the ever-lovin'-blue-eyed-world are you going to learn that you've won the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes?

[Suezoled]

I did a cold reading once in college. I had 10 students and gave them each a private reading with tarot cards. They each said I was very accurate about their past loves, lifes, difficulties, ambitions, beliefs... it was later revealed I had given everyone the exact same reading. Oh, but the cards were different. I'm not good enough to manipulate cards.

[Garrette]

Poor, poor SueZ.

Now you've lost all credibility. Don't you realize that you can, like Randi, be labeled as one who intentionally deceives and who undermines experiments.

Gary Schwartz will never trust you now.

You may as well turn in your skeptic t-shirt and coffee mug. And teddy bear--yes, you have to turn in your skeptic teddy bear, too.
And pen (but you're allowed to keep the homeopathic gold).

It's a sad, sad, day, folks.

[Suezoled]

I'm not giving up the bear unless you pry it from my cold dead fingers! My bear! MINE!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Garrette
P.S. I had a brief comment to pm you, but apparently you don't allow that, so I was going to e-mail it, but you don't allow that, either. How in the ever-lovin'-blue-eyed-world are you going to learn that you've won the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes?

webmaster@skepticreport.com

I simply got tired of cleaning out the PM box. :)

(How much did I win...??)

[Garrette]

It will do no good, Sue. The entire Forum has you on ignore now.

Me especially. Yep. Especially me.

You'll notice I how very coldly and ruthlessly ignored you. I am now continuing to do so. So there. Look at me ignore you. See?

Still ignoring you.

Ha ha.

Ignore ignore ignore.

[Garrette]

E-mailed, Claus.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Garrette
It will do no good, Sue. The entire Forum has you on ignore now.

Me especially. Yep. Especially me.

You'll notice I how very coldly and ruthlessly ignored you. I am now continuing to do so. So there. Look at me ignore you. See?

Still ignoring you.

Ha ha.

Ignore ignore ignore.

You still need to put Suezoled in your sig line, specifically stating that you ignore her, as well as refer to her posts from time to time.

Otherwise, it doesn't count. Nyah!

[Suezoled]

hm...now that I think about it, I lent out my tarot cards around Halloween and never got them back. Hm...

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
No statistical analysis of transcripts is ever going to convince me, unless it includes a reasonable calculation of the probability of each hit occurring by chance. I doubt very much that's ever going to happen.

So, those psychics should take another tack. How about finding the next ten missing kids?

~~ Paul
Setting the bar a bit high, aren't you? Do any self proclaimed "psychics" say that they could do this? I know that many claim to work with police, and that they get "impressions" or whatever, but I am not aware of any that would be so bold (or stupid) to say that they could find the next ten missing kids, and that demand is kind of silly.

How about I say that no amount of stats are going to convince me that a man can hit a 100 mph fastball out of a baseball park. Am I wrong? Just have someone hit the next 10 consecutive pitches out of the park.

[Clancie]

Posted by T'ai Chi

What is the best cold reading demo? That is, among people not claiming to be mediums.

Can anyone point me towards a video of it? Transcripts?
Yes, thanks for bringing this up again! It seems skeptics don't want to give specifics (except ersby), and yet how many times have we heard or read, "Any good cold reader could do what that "medium" does?" Or, "That's obviously just cold reading."

I think that since these statements are made, that people who feel this way should have some knowledge that cold readers have -actually- done this, gotten mediumistic-types of validations by cold reading, and been convincing.

Its fine to criticize mediumship and its explainable as cold reading. But people who believe that mediumship is "just what a cold reader could do" should have some reason for believing that, shouldn't they?

Why can't anyone here answer your question, T'ai? :confused:

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, thanks for bringing this up again! It seems skeptics don't want to give specifics (except ersby), and yet how many times have we heard or read, "Any good cold reader could do what that "medium" does?" Or, "That's obviously just cold reading."

I think that since these statements are made, that people who feel this way should have some knowledge that cold readers have -actually- done this, gotten mediumistic-types of validations by cold reading, and been convincing.

Its fine to criticize mediumship and its explainable as cold reading. But people who believe that mediumship is "just what a cold reader could do" should have some reason for believing that, shouldn't they?

Why can't anyone here answer your question, T'ai? :confused:

Er the very first post after Tai'Chi's was a response that seems to answer his question.

[T'ai Chi]

Claus, you said there are transcripts, ok, are you putting these forth as the best example of cold reading? And is there a video anywhere?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Read Ian Rowland's book, he has two excellent long (cold)readings. Section 3.

You demand people to post mediums' transcripts here and nothing less, so why would you expect me to buy a book to see the best examples of cold reading?

Why can't you post some here?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Hey, I am just waiting for that good demo of mediumship. If TC thinks the discussion is over, and we haven't seen one, does he admit that no such demo exist? Only then would it be fair for TC to leave that discussion.

If his admission does not emerge, one might suspect TC was running away from the discussion....


Stay focused here, please.

I simply asked for the best example(s) of cold reading demos, and videos or transcripts of this.

Simple..

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
No statistical analysis of transcripts is ever going to convince me, unless it includes a reasonable calculation of the probability of each hit occurring by chance. I doubt very much that's ever going to happen.

So, those psychics should take another tack. How about finding the next ten missing kids?

~~ Paul

How about answering my original query and providing transcripts or videos of what you consider the best cold reading demo(s) from someone who doesn't claim to be a medium? :)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat


Er the very first post after Tai'Chi's was a response that seems to answer his question.

Darat, I've been told that mere pointers to books don't cut it around here. I think I'll need to see the actual transcripts posted, a link to a video of it, actual evidence.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Clancie

Why can't anyone here answer your question, T'ai? :confused:

I think some of them possibly could, hopefully.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, thanks for bringing this up again! It seems skeptics don't want to give specifics (except ersby), and yet how many times have we heard or read, "Any good cold reader could do what that "medium" does?" Or, "That's obviously just cold reading."

I think that since these statements are made, that people who feel this way should have some knowledge that cold readers have -actually- done this, gotten mediumistic-types of validations by cold reading, and been convincing.

Its fine to criticize mediumship and its explainable as cold reading. But people who believe that mediumship is "just what a cold reader could do" should have some reason for believing that, shouldn't they?

Why can't anyone here answer your question, T'ai? :confused:
This is just the vice versa of the problem we have with you at times. We don't find the examples of phsychic mediums as convincing as you do. The threads discussing the transcripts should make that fairly clear. While you get the impression there "might be something to it" we get the impression that it looks close enough to cold reading that it might as well be...cold reading. While I disagree with those that make the statement you complain against, I also disagree that you've not been shown examples of cold reading that exhibits many of the attributes of JE or any other phsychic medium. That we consider it a difference of style and amount of practice, and you consider it that JE is still more consistent, detailed, and might possibly be real, is merely our individual opinions. But I think we've at least attempted to show with examples how we think JE and others like him are merely well practiced cold readers. We haven't pulled the opinion out of our arse as you seem to imply at the end of your post.

[Clancie]

T'ai Chi,

I read your quote about the Ian Rowland book, but I thought we were all interested in cold reading mediumistic demos (at least I am).

Seriously, Darat, is this the best cold reading demo you can recommend--a transcript of Ian's tarot reading and another one he with astrology? One thing I've always valued about mediumship is that,imo, the bar is set higher because the goal is for someone to come up with -specifics- about particular deceased people the sitter values.

Astrology and tarot readings (which we've seen can be satisfying just by telling people a lot of feel-good generalities about themselves) really don't seem at all comparable to a cold reading mediumship demo to me.

Are these examples from IR really what skeptics mean when they say, "Good cold readers can do just as well as (fill in the name of your medium of choice)"?

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

I also disagree that you've not been shown examples of cold reading that exhibits many of the attributes of JE or any other psychic medium
Okay, voidx.....Who?

As for mediums I've recommended, Mrs. Piper did thousands of readings that have been documented and widely praised for their overall consistency and quality. If people are seriously interested in a medium who was extensively studied (for 27 years) with no evidence of fraud, she's one I'd recommend.

I hardly think its my fault that I recommend the work of someone and the research about her is too extensive to put in a 250 word post for everyone's convenience. If people are truly interested to look at someone who is often cited as one of the best examples of mediumship, they should (and can) check her work out--even books -about- her are better than nothing.

I have read and seen everything I could about cold reading (probably more than most people here, as a matter of fact). I'm looking for good examples and so far haven't found them, but I'm open to it. Its frustrating to be told, "Cold readers can do that," but not get any name or work samples of who these great cold readers are!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You demand people to post mediums' transcripts here and nothing less, so why would you expect me to buy a book to see the best examples of cold reading?

Why can't you post some here?

Because the transcript is very long and it would violate not only forum rules, but also international copyright laws. Surely, you don't want me to show you a partial transcript?

Buy the book, T'ai Chi. You asked for evidence, I gave it. If you refuse to even look at it, that is your problem.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Stay focused here, please.

I simply asked for the best example(s) of cold reading demos, and videos or transcripts of this.

Simple..

I am very focused. And I am not fooled by you opening a thread that raises a question already beaten to death here either.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
How about answering my original query and providing transcripts or videos of what you consider the best cold reading demo(s) from someone who doesn't claim to be a medium? :)

What would be the purpose?

Originally posted by Clancie
I read your quote about the Ian Rowland book, but I thought we were all interested in cold reading mediumistic demos (at least I am).

No, you are not. Whenever you are presented with one, you simply dismiss it.

Originally posted by Clancie
Seriously, Darat. Is that a good enough comparison--Ian's claim that these are (only lightly edited) transcripts of his tarot reading and another one he did for astrology? One thing I've always valued about mediumship readings is that,imo, the bar is set higher because the goal is for someone to come up with -specifics- about particular deceased people the sitter values.

What, in Rowland's book, does not apply to cold reading as a way of emulating mediumship?

Originally posted by Clancie
Astrology and tarot readings that tell people a lot of feel-good generalities about themselves really don't seem at all comparable to a cold reading mediumship demo to me.

Why not? Don't just say "Nah, not good enough!" Be specific!

Originally posted by Clancie
Are these examples from IR really what skeptics mean when they say, "Good cold readers can do just as well as (fill in the name of your medium of choice)"?

You forget - or, leave out - the very embarrassing fact that the sitters judged the readings to be "99,9% accurate". Far, far, far better than any psychic.

[Darat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Darat, I've been told that mere pointers to books don't cut it around here. I think I'll need to see the actual transcripts posted, a link to a video of it, actual evidence.

You've pointed me in the past to books to support your claims...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
T'ai Chi,

I read your quote about the Ian Rowland book, but I thought we were all interested in cold reading mediumistic demos (at least I am).

Seriously, Darat, is this the best cold reading demo you can recommend--a transcript of Ian's tarot reading and another one he with astrology? One thing I've always valued about mediumship is that,imo, the bar is set higher because the goal is for someone to come up with -specifics- about particular deceased people the sitter values.

Astrology and tarot readings (which we've seen can be satisfying just by telling people a lot of feel-good generalities about themselves) really don't seem at all comparable to a cold reading mediumship demo to me.

Are these examples from IR really what skeptics mean when they say, "Good cold readers can do just as well as (fill in the name of your medium of choice)"?

But of course the bar is higher when you are trying to prove something. After all you can show me a million black crows and not prove anything whilst I only need to show you one white crow to prove you are wrong.

Edited to add. (And a spelling correction)

And I would say if you want to see the best examples of cold readings you need to look at people like JE, SB, Doris and so on. "Admitted cold readers" is rather more difficult as what is the motivation for someone to film or undergo 100s of hours of cold reading when they only need to show the one white crow?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Okay, voidx.....Who?

We brought up several examples in the threads involving NoZed, and Ersby's poll I believe of spotting who was a real medium and who was an admitted cold reader. I believe one of those readings was Rolands, one was Ersby's, one was NoZed's. We pointed out why we thought those posts exhibited the same tactics as JE used, although admitting the style was different, and that JE's schtick was better and more consistent. And this is not the first time I've recounted this either.


As for mediums I've recommended, Mrs. Piper did thousands of readings that have been documented and widely praised for their overall consistency and quality. If people are seriously interested in a medium who was extensively studied (for 27 years) with no evidence of fraud, she's one I'd recommend.

Well hold on. One issue at a time. No one has claimed a cold reader or skeptic can emulate a trance medium now have they? So Piper is a seperate issue. I'm pretty sure we're talking about JE type mediums here.


I hardly think its my fault that I recommend the work of someone and the research about her is too extensive to put in a 250 word post for everyone's convenience. If people are truly interested to look at someone who is often cited as one of the best examples of mediumship, they should (and can) check her work out--even books -about- her are better than nothing.

All fine and good. Has nothing to do with the cold reading demo though. We're not discussing trance mediums in here so far as I know so lets stick to one type of mediumship for the time being please.


I have read and seen everything I could about cold reading (probably more than most people here, as a matter of fact). I'm looking for good examples and so far haven't found them, but I'm open to it. Its frustrating to be told, "Cold readers can do that," but not get any name or work samples of who these great cold readers are!

Yet only you seems to put more merit in the validations seen in mediumship transcripts of the JE style where we see them as not that impressive, and far from conclusive. Which is why when we see hints of tactics JE uses in the transcripts of cold readers such as NoZed, Ersby, Roland, that we say their similiar enough that its possible JE is just a very well practiced and accomplished cold reader. If you remember I agree that I have not seen a cold reading demo on the exact same level as JE. Doesn't stop me from seeing the multiple similiarities between his transcripts and those of the cold readers we reviewed in those past threads.

Again, we do have a pretty decent basis for assuming what psychic mediums like JE and JVP do is quite possibly cold reading. Its obvious there are a lot of simularities. You were making it sound like (intentional or not) we had nothing solid on which we were basing our opinion and on that I completely disagree with you.

[Clancie]

Darat,

So....are you saying that a tarot and an astrology cold reading are good comparisons with a mediumship demo?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
You've pointed me in the past to books to support your claims...

We will see something very interesting here. T'ai Chi will not retract the evidence - the books in question, which he himself has referred to. He may harp about books apparently not being good enough as evidence, but he will not retract his own.

Just watch.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Clancie
Darat,

So....are you saying that a tarot and an astrology cold reading are good comparisons with a mediumship demo?
I haven't got Mr. Rowland's book, so I haven't actually read these readings, but my initial reaction is that they would be fine comparisons. If you ask me, I think that the difference between mediums, palm readers, tarot card readers, crystal ball gazers, etc. is just the schtick that they employ. Each needs a prop that they connect to the messages that they get, whether it be the cards, the crystal ball or the spirit world, or any combination thereof.

I don't see why the specific prop (mediumship) is so important to you in the examination of the techniques. Please explain why you think it is more than just style, as you seem to.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
Darat,

So....are you saying that a tarot and an astrology cold reading are good comparisons with a mediumship demo?

Clancie - please note my comment:

"'Admitted cold readers' is rather more difficult as what is the motivation for someone to film or undergo 100s of hours of cold reading when they only need to show the one white crow?"

I think it would be very hard to satisfy what I think your requirement for a cold reading demo would be. Since to attempt to duplicate a JE or SB act to a similar scale would require enormous resources and there is no reason or motivation to do that to demonstrate that at least one crow isn't quite as black as the others.* And as many people do keep mentioning the burden of evidence isn't on the doubters.

I pretty much agree with how voidx puts it when he says:

"Yet only you seems to put more merit in the validations seen in mediumship transcripts of the JE style where we see them as not that impressive, and far from conclusive. Which is why when we see hints of tactics JE uses in the transcripts of cold readers such as NoZed, Ersby, Roland, that we say their similiar enough that its possible JE is just a very well practiced and accomplished cold reader. If you remember I agree that I have not seen a cold reading demo on the exact same level as JE. Doesn't stop me from seeing the multiple similiarities between his transcripts and those of the cold readers we reviewed in those past threads.

Again, we do have a pretty decent basis for assuming what psychic mediums like JE and JVP do is quite possibly cold reading. Its obvious there are a lot of simularities. You were making it sound like (intentional or not) we had nothing solid on which we were basing our opinion and on that I completely disagree with you."


(*NB: Perhaps the Carlos hoax is a very strong indicator that it could be done.)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat

But of course the bar is higher when you are trying to prove something.


Scientists talk about providing evidence for, not proving.

Do you agree or disagree those who say mediums are simply cold readers are immune from providing evidence?


And I would say if you want to see the best examples of cold readings you need to look at people like JE, SB, Doris and so on.


And I've already said, I'm talking about people who don't claim to be mediums or people who are admitted cold readers.


"Admitted cold readers" is rather more difficult as what is the motivation for someone to film or undergo 100s of hours of cold reading when they only need to show the one white crow?

The people who do this for their livelihood are likely to have more than enough material.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat

You've pointed me in the past to books to support your claims...

I know, and I was called on it for doing so.

Now people who called me on it do the exact same thing.

Go figure...

Oh, and still no video.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Because the transcript is very long and it would violate not only forum rules, but also international copyright laws. Surely, you don't want me to show you a partial transcript?


Show me anything you feel provides evidence using your best judgement.


Buy the book, T'ai Chi. You asked for evidence, I gave it. If you refuse to even look at it, that is your problem.


You didn't seem to accept that kind of explanation from me when I said for you to go get the Conscious Universe. Interesting.

Maybe I am mistaken and you did accept the Conscious Universe as evidence??


I am very focused.


Please provide actual evidence of that and post some transcripts or links to a video of what you consider to be the best cold reading demo(s).


You forget - or, leave out - the very embarrassing fact that the sitters judged the readings to be "99,9% accurate". Far, far, far better than any psychic.

Only embarassing for you since you haven't provided actual evidence.

While you're at it, please provide evidence that videotapes increase the hit rate in the ganzfeld experiments.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Clancie
T'ai Chi,

I read your quote about the Ian Rowland book, but I thought we were all interested in cold reading mediumistic demos (at least I am).


I am, and I will check it out eventually. I do find it quite interesting that my proposal of the Conscious Universe as logging some evidence for psi was heavily criticized though, and now the same criticizer is recommending I go get a book.

Also, I'm still waiting on:

a) a concensus from the skeptics on what the best cold reading demo(s) is(are), and

b) videos of the demo(s)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Show me anything you feel provides evidence using your best judgement.

No, I am asking you if you feel a partial transcript would be sufficient. Please answer the question.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You didn't seem to accept that kind of explanation from me when I said for you to go get the Conscious Universe. Interesting.

Maybe I am mistaken and you did accept the Conscious Universe as evidence??

No, I did not. I have read the CU, the reference you gave. I find that there is nothing there that even constitutes evidence.

Now, have you read my reference? Yes or no?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Please provide actual evidence of that and post some transcripts or links to a video of what you consider to be the best cold reading demo(s).

I have referred you to a cold reader that can prove that the sitters gave him 99.9% accuracy readings. What more do you want? Do you deny that this is far, far better than any psychic claims?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Only embarassing for you since you haven't provided actual evidence.

Yes, I have, T'ai Chi. You have just refused to even look at it.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
While you're at it, please provide evidence that videotapes increase the hit rate in the ganzfeld experiments.

With this statement, you have made it clear that you are not interested in seeking evidence. You want to play games. Not with me, T'ai Chi.

Not with me.

[Clancie]

Posted by Thanz

I think that the difference between mediums, palm readers, tarot card readers, crystal ball gazers, etc. is just the schtick that they employ.
"Their schtick." Yes, I think you've zeroed in on a fundamental difference between what I look at in mediumistic readings and what many here see when they look. In fact, I found skeptics' focus on "style" in discussing ersby's cold reading thread very puzzling for the same reason. Yes, we all need to recognize the style. But the important thing is to look at the content, the evidential information. That is the only important thing.
Each needs a prop that they connect to the messages that they get, whether it be the cards, the crystal ball or the spirit world, or any combination thereof.
Again, I admit I find this point of view baffling.

Tarot readers...astrologers...can satisfy the customer by telling them things about their lives that are generally true for most people, by building on hits, by building on sitters' comments, by being observant, by telling people what they want to hear.

In a mediumship reading we can also look at statements and, perhaps, classify them as one of the above, no different. But, imo, there is a fundamental difference between the tarot reader and astrologer and a medium....the medium has 30 minutes to an hour to fill with detailed information about specific deceased people the sitter is hoping to hear from (it's a short list, too...and sitters want to hear unusual and specific incidents and details, specific names and relationships, and information that directly links and identifies a particular deceased.

Yes, the "message" part might seem like generalities if the medium says, "she sends her love", but that's not what most people go to mediums for I think (or at least its not what has interested me the most in exploring the idea of survival). As Cleopatra said (in her award-winning post on this :) ), we already know those things anyway. But is there evidence of survival (not laboratory evidence, but evidence-as-a-judgment-call by the sitter)? Is there evidence (same meaning as above) of communication between the medium and the deceased?

These cannot be answered, cannot be demonstrated, imo, as easily as the tarot reader and astrologer can reassure you by offering generalities and cold reader-style guesses about your job...your love life...your family.

Please explain why you think it is more than just style, as you seem to.
You're right, Thanz. I do think its more than style. I think you have to understand and ignore the style and just concentrate on evaluating the content, and see if it is specific to the deceased. I hope I have explained why that kind of information is so narrowly focused (when its correct) that it isn't comparable to me to tarot or astrology readings--at all.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, I am asking you if you feel a partial transcript would be sufficient. Please answer the question.


As I can't say what is or is not on the transcripts, it is best for you to just provide whatever you think is the best example of cold reading.

Again, since you might be slow, I asked: "What is the best cold reading demo?", and you provided a reference to some transcripts. I'm asking you if you consider those transcripts to be the best. If they are not the best, I don't want to waste my time. Therefore, I am asking you the questions here.


Yes, I have, T'ai Chi. You have just refused to even look at it.


I already mentioned my thoughts on evaluating it. You must have missed it.

So thanks for the reference to a transcript or whatever. I'm still looking for:

a) a concensus from the skeptics on what the best cold reading demo(s) is(are), and

b) videos of the demo(s)


With this statement, you have made it clear that you are not interested in seeking evidence. You want to play games. Not with me, T'ai Chi.

Not with me.

Please cease being dramatic, troll. No one is buying it.

Again, a) and b), please.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie

"Their schtick." I think you've zeroed in on a fundamental difference between what I look for (and sometimes see) in mediumistic readings and what many hear look at. I found the constant focus on "style" on ersby's cold reading thread puzzling for the same reason.

I find style irrelevant, except in that you have to be aware of it, from medium to medium, in order to discount it or ignore it.

Again, I admit I find this point of view baffling.

Tarot readers...astrologers...can satisfy the customer by telling them things about their lives that are generally true for most people, by building on hits, by building on sitters' comments, by being observant, by telling people what they want to hear.

In a mediumship reading we can also look at statements and, perhaps, classify them as one of the above, no different. But, imo, there is a fundamental difference between the tarot reader and astrologer and a medium....the medium has 30 minutes to an hour to fill with detailed information about specific deceased people the sitter is hoping to hear from (it's a short list, too...and sitters want to hear unusual and specific incidents and details, specific names and relationships, and information that directly links and identifies a particular deceased.

Yes, the "message" part might seem like generalities if the medium says, "she sends her love", but that's not what most people go to mediums for I think (or at least its not what has interested me the most in exploring the idea of survival). As Cleopatra said (in her award-winning post to me :) ), we already know those things anyway. But is there evidence of survival (not laboratory evidence, but a judgment call by the sitter)? Is there evidence (same meaning as above) of communication between the medium and the deceased?

These cannot be answered, cannot be demonstrated, imo, as easily as the tarot reader and astrologer can reassure you by offering generalities and cold reader-style guesses about your job...your love life...your family.
[/b]
You're right, Thanz. I do think its more than style. I think you have to look through the style to see the content that is specific to the deceased. I hope I have explained why it isn't comparable to me to tarot or astrology readings--at all. [/B]

........huh??

[voidx]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I am, and I will check it out eventually. I do find it quite interesting that my proposal of the Conscious Universe as logging some evidence for psi was heavily criticized though, and now the same criticizer is recommending I go get a book.

Also, I'm still waiting on:

a) a concensus from the skeptics on what the best cold reading demo(s) is(are), and

b) videos of the demo(s) [/B]
What good does concentrating on the best do? One good cold reading would do no more to convince you that said cold reader could perform as good as JE, as one good JE reading would convince us he's talking to dead people. In cold readings of all kinds we find simularities with what JE and JVP do. If you truly want to find out what most of our opinions are here regarding cold reading, read both these threads:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29974&highlight=twins+AND+cold+reading (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29974&highlight=twins+AND+cold+reading) http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23922&highlight=twins+AND+cold+reading

If your interest is merely a debating war of sorts with Larsen, then I'll gladly lock the door to the little debating room so you two can duke it out.

[Clancie]

Posted by T'ai Chi

....a) a consensus from the skeptics on what the best cold reading demo(s) is(are)....
Yes. I'm curious from the comments in this thread (or absent of comment).

Is that the consensus here? That Ian Rowland's tarot and astrology transcripts in "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" are the best cold reading demos?

Maybe it would be a good topic for a poll. (I'd make one myself, if anyone can tell me where the feature is. I don't see it)


edited to add....

voidx,

People talk very confidently here about how impressive cold reading is. Don't you think that people who say that should at least have in mind some specific examples of cold reading that lead them to be so impressed by it? I think its a perfectly valid question--what cold reading demos are these strong convictions based on?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by voidx

What good does concentrating on the best do?


*sigh*, I don't want to analyze sub-par transcripts.


If your interest is merely a debating war of sorts with Larsen, then I'll gladly lock the door to the little debating room so you two can duke it out.

I didn't mention him in my opening post at all; I could care less. If he has actual evidence and could possibly answer my question, then I would care.

We'll see..

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As I can't say what is or is not on the transcripts, it is best for you to just provide whatever you think is the best example of cold reading.

And, I have already explained to you, that providing the full transcript would be a violation of not just forum rules, but also international law.

Do you accept this, yes or no?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I already mentioned that I will evaluate it. You must have missed it.

Good. I will await your evaluation of the transcripts in the book, then.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So thanks for the reference to a transcript or whatever. I'm still looking for:

a) a concensus from the skeptics on what the best cold reading demo(s) is(are), and

b) videos of the demo(s)

Read the book.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Please cease being dramatic, troll. No one is buying it.

Again, a) and b).

Again, answer the questions put to you first:


Have you read Ian Rowland's book? Yes or no?
Do you admit that no good demo of mediumship exists? Yes or no?
Do you consider a partial transcript sufficient? Yes or no?
Do you accept that providing the full transcript from Rowland's book would be a violation of not just forum rules, but also international law? Yes or no?
What would be the purpose of providing transcripts or videos of what anyone consider the best cold reading demo(s) from someone who doesn't claim to be a medium?
Have you, in the past, referred to books as reference? Yes or no?
Why are books not sufficient anymore?
Do you deny that Rowland's 99.9% accuracy statement is far, far better than any psychic claims? Yes or no?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
"Their schtick." Yes, I think you've zeroed in on a fundamental difference between what I look at in mediumistic readings and what many here see when they look. In fact, I found skeptics' focus on "style" in discussing ersby's cold reading thread very puzzling for the same reason. Yes, we all need to recognize the style. But the important thing is to look at the content, the evidential information. That is the only important thing.

Only important thing? Hardly. In that thread which I've just linked for T'ai above. The point is made that in the case of all those readings, we all thought that content wise they were rather poor. That they were all possible within the realms of cold reading. So the content did nothing itself to tell us if they were done by cold readers, or mediums. That distinction came down to a matter of style. Style is obviously important because it can influence how we perceive that the information was garnered from the sitter, or spirit.


Again, I admit I find this point of view baffling.

Almost as baffling to say style is of no importance at all. If the content produced is of the same level across all styles of mediumship, then the content can only tell us so much because of the subjectivity involved.


Tarot readers...astrologers...can satisfy the customer by telling them things about their lives that are generally true for most people, by building on hits, by building on sitters' comments, by being observant, by telling people what they want to hear.

And in our opinion we've seen psychic mediums like JE, JVP do the same thing. I believe your opinion at the time was rather indifferent to these cases as you thought there were enough special hits to over-shadow the many poor quality performances. We all seemed to disagree with that based on the transcripts we reviewed.


In a mediumship reading we can also look at statements and, perhaps, classify them as one of the above, no different. But, imo, there is a fundamental difference between the tarot reader and astrologer and a medium....the medium has 30 minutes to an hour to fill with detailed information about specific deceased people the sitter is hoping to hear from (it's a short list, too...and sitters want to hear unusual and specific incidents and details, specific names and relationships, and information that directly links and identifies a particular deceased.

Yes, the "message" part might seem like generalities if the medium says, "she sends her love", but that's not what most people go to mediums for I think (or at least its not what has interested me the most in exploring the idea of survival). As Cleopatra said (in her award-winning post on this :) ), we already know those things anyway. But is there evidence of survival (not laboratory evidence, but evidence-as-a-judgment-call by the sitter)? Is there evidence (same meaning as above) of communication between the medium and the deceased?

So then your saying that mediums also toss out generalities like astrologers and tarot readers, but its the special specific hits that make them different. That's not much of a distinction.


These cannot be answered, cannot be demonstrated, imo, as easily as the tarot reader and astrologer can reassure you by offering generalities and cold reader-style guesses about your job...your love life...your family.

Your exactly right, however, in many cases psychic mediums weren't very successful in our opinion at getting to these specific bits of information. They started with generalities and narrowed in for specifics. So they took the tactic of tarot readers and astrologers, and took it a step further. I don't think this makes what they do an over-ridingly unique thing from the others.


You're right, Thanz. I do think its more than style. I think you have to understand and ignore the style and just concentrate on evaluating the content, and see if it is specific to the deceased. I hope I have explained why that kind of information is so narrowly focused (when its correct) that it isn't comparable to me to tarot or astrology readings--at all.
And what about when the content is not specific to the sitter, what about when its not correct? Its even worse than the generalities of tarot and astrology because it was a guess, and its patently wrong, or people try rather weakly to make it fit. So its only incomparible when its focused and correct, when its wrong it would seem it is on some level comparable.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, thanks for bringing this up again! It seems skeptics don't want to give specifics (except ersby), and yet how many times have we heard or read, "Any good cold reader could do what that "medium" does?" Or, "That's obviously just cold reading."

I think that since these statements are made, that people who feel this way should have some knowledge that cold readers have -actually- done this, gotten mediumistic-types of validations by cold reading, and been convincing.

Its fine to criticize mediumship and its explainable as cold reading. But people who believe that mediumship is "just what a cold reader could do" should have some reason for believing that, shouldn't they?

Why can't anyone here answer your question, T'ai? :confused:

Clancie,

A couple of years ago I gave a try on Paltalk to someone or other. Actually I tried it 3 or 4 times. I had a standard line of patter some rather general but dramatic claims of what I saw. I will admit that I had one disaster (I did not to the JE deal of moving on to another dupe) two were good, one was fabulous. I nailed all sorts of stuff and had the person in tears. Denise was there and can verify what I say.

Having done that, as I have said on numerous occasions, I felt dirty, as any reasonably ethical person would. I promised myself that I'd never pull a manipulative trick like that again.

My point is that I, a reasonably glib and aware of nuances kind of guy, could pull this off with absolutely no practice, training or warmup. Imagine is I did practice. Imagine if there was a profit motive. Imagine if I were an unethical vampiric son of a bitch like JE.

I say to all that think there is a scintilla of truth to this particular manifestation of woo: "Try it yourself".

It is easy. Just try it. I'd be happy to offer pointers.

[voidx]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
*sigh*, I don't want to analyze sub-par transcripts.

Even when they demonstrate many common tactics that "Good" mediums like JE use? Even when a cold reading transcript (NoZed's) was deemed of better quality than one done by James Van Praagh, even by Clancie? So you would rule them completely useless and without merit for discussion? If you won't even read that thread to get a basis of what our opinion is, then I have to assume your not really that interesting in finding out why we have the opinion of cold-reading and mediums that we do.

You're just using an argument used by certain posters here to flip our arguements around on ourselves.


I didn't mention him in my opening post at all; I could care less. If he has actual evidence and could possibly answer my question, then I would care.

We'll see..
No, but this thread follows from the thread regarding Mrs. Piper, where Clancie and Larsen were having an exchange similar to your intial post here, except in reverse. Knowing Larsen sticks in your craw as much as you do in his, its rather safe to assume your intent in starting this thread. My opinion of course.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

So the content did nothing itself to tell us if they were done by cold readers, or mediums.

That distinction came down to a matter of style.
They were snippets, but I based my rating of them on the kinds of hits and misses (content), not the style.


So then your saying that mediums also toss out generalities like astrologers and tarot readers, but its the special specific hits that make them different. That's not much of a distinction.
I'm saying you may (may) find things in various mediums transcripts that, to you, would sound like a cold reading patter. (whether you would be right or wrong about that would, btw, be a judgment call. If mediumship is real, there's no reason a medium couldn't be experiencing waves of intense love--as Laurie Campbell said she was when reading for GS's wife and feeling she was communicating with Russek's deceased father. To you that might just confirm it was cold reading. To Linda Russek, looking at --all-- the information that came through and knowing the personality of her father, it might have seemed very convincing. Judgment call.)

Perhaps cold readers imitate mediumship (without the evidential content) rather than the other way around. :eek:

And what about when the content is not specific to the sitter, what about when its not correct? Its even worse than the generalities of tarot and astrology because it was a guess, and its patently wrong, or people try rather weakly to make it fit.
There's always misses and confusing information, always. How much? Why? What does it mean?

There are many explanations bandied around by both believers and skeptics alike. Again, based on what else is in the reading...imo, "misses" don't invalidate a reading, if you assume ADC is not just like picking up a telephone. Does the presence of wrong information in a reading make it implausible that -any- of the good information is coming through from your loved one?

Again, imo, you have to weigh it out and make a judgment call.

[Clancie]

Ed,

I have heard this Paltalk story so many times! lol.

You don't know how ANNOYING it is that you didn't keep a transcript! (I mean, seriously, don't I say the same thing every time you mention it?! :p )

I got a chance to try my hand at giving a reading at a "Mediumship development workshop" once. I had a cooperative "sitter" (classmate) and tried to use everything I knew about cold reading. It was fun to have the freedom to try it without worrying about someone's feelings, and she was kind about the results, but...seriously...they weren't very good.

Be honest now. Do you really think that what you brought through for your sitter was highly evidential...specific names of the deceased...shared experiences...very unique items or images associated with him....Any of that?

We all know people -can- be fooled when they want to be. That doesn't mean that everyone is equally gullible, though, or that you wouldn't have eventually had sitters who would have been dissatisfied and told you why.

And, btw, was it psychic readings or mediumship? Did you actually say you were connecting them with particular deceased people?

(I really wish you'd at least saved the "fabulous" one. All the best cold readers seem to be JREF-ers, lol).

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

......

.....the medium has 30 minutes to an hour to fill with detailed information about specific deceased people the sitter is hoping to hear from (it's a short list, too...and sitters want to hear unusual and specific incidents and details, specific names and relationships, and information that directly links and identifies a particular deceased.

.....



Specific names, specific hits, unusual information- how well do mediums do?


Let's compare these readings for specificity about the deceased. I am not concealing identity of the readers, because these readings have been posted here already.

NoZed's reading

“medium” or “M” = person performing reading
“sitter” or “S”= person claiming reading
“host/hostess” or “H” = people hosting event
“unidentified”or “U” = partygoer; other than the host.

{snip some information about background of the event-r}

M: Okay. Let me start out by saying that I have no real control over the impressions I get. Sometimes I feel things strongly, but sometimes- sometimes not as well. I’m . . I’m getting though a strong impression of an older lady, and I’m seeing a strong picture of roses. The roses are very strong, and I’m getting a definite feel that there is a strong connection to someone here. Is that making sense to anyone?
S: [Raised hand] My grandmother was named Rose.
M: Okay. Okay. Now you’re- ? [question]
S: Jan [changed].
M: Okay. But I am getting a very strong impression that you are connected to this energy – more than just your grandmother.
[pause]
M: Were you named after her, in fact?
S: [laughing] Yes, I was.
M: Middle name?
S: Yes.
M: Okay, because I’m seeing the connection there. I’m also seeing two roses together, two of them . . .and I’m seeing like- I’m seeing a picture of the symbol for Gemini, like there are twins involved. Does that make sense to you?
[unidentified]: Her grandmother was a twin.
S: She had a twin sister.
M: Okay. That makes sense, because I am seeing these two roses together. I am also getting a “6” connection – either a connection to June or the sixth of the month?
S: No. . . No.
M: Are you sure? This would be an anniversary or special occasion, and I want. . . I want to say this is for June.
[pause]
M: This would be a connection to the grandmother, not to you directly. It seems more like something important to her than to you directly, but it is an anniversary or something like that, something every year.
S: I can’t think of anything.
M: Okay. I may be wrong, but I get a definite impression there, and so- And you may want to ask about that, okay?
S: Okay.
M: Now your grandmother, she is on your father’s side?
S: Right.
M: Okay, because I am sensing that the connection is through your father. And I’m seeing a little boy fishing. Is there someone who – is fishing important to anyone?
S: My father.
M: Okay, because I am seeing a little boy fishing, and getting a feeling like almost exasperation. It- It isn’t anger or anything like that. More like “oh, he’s fishing again” kind of thing. Like he was always doing it, or always wanting to do it. And I’m getting a picture of a dark green or dark fishing pole. Either dark, dark green or black with green on it, and I want to say it is connected to the boy. Does that make sense?
S: [laughs]
[pause; nothing audible]
M: Do you have a sister?
S: Yes. Linda. [changed]
M: Younger sister?
S: Yep.
M: Because I am getting a sense that she wants me to acknowledge you and a smaller girl, Linda. And I’m also getting some concern- Mild concern about you- Not about anything really serious, but its connected to your finances or your job. I’m seeing children connected to your work, but not directly. Not like you’re a teacher, but somehow connected to schools or schoolwork. Do you understand that?
[unintelligible sounds] [From memory, I do not know if sitter answered or how]
M: And its like- its like you want to be more creative and do something more creative, like your job is not allowing you that, and you are sometimes frustrated with it, but you are concerned about making it, or being a success. Does that make sense?
S: Some. [laughing]
M: I believe that this is related to your job, that she feels that you have been dissatisfied with some parts of your job, because- I feel there was a big change within the last year or so? There was some kind of change in how you have been looking at your job and the chance to do something else or make a change related to that?
S: Yeah.
M: And I think that your grandmother is picking up your concerns, and she wants you not to worry about success, you know?
S: Mmmm. [I think; non-commital grunt sounds]
M: And success in the future depends on how everyone defines success, you know?
S: Yeah.
M: Success means just having more money to some people, but others would be happy to have things published or- Or just know that they have created something new for themselves, even if no one else saw it. Does that make sense?
S: Yes.
M: Because I get the feeling that she understood success and the real meaning; and I am getting- getting a real feeling that she wants you to know that understanding too.
S: Okay.
M: And let me just say, to end this- I get a very strong impression that you are independent- a very independent thinker, but you sometimes let yourself be talked into listening to other people and go against your instincts, but then you usually regret not just going with your gut. Do you understand that?
S: Yes. [laughing]
M: Okay, and she is telling you to trust yourself more and your own decisions more. Okay.
S: Okay.
[end]


KING: Old Bridge, New Jersey, hello.
CALLER: Hi. This is Peter.
KING: Hi, Peter.
CALLER: I'm looking about -- asking about my brother Michael.
EDWARD: OK, hold on Peter. Again, I get a lot of information through dates. The first thing that's coming through is I'm getting the feeling that April or the fourth of a month holds some type of a meaning. In the family does April have a meaning? Birthday or anniversary?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: On your mom's side of the family, Peter. They're telling me "April."
CALLER: Not that I know of.
EDWARD: Hold that thought. On your mom's side of the family there's an older female who has crossed over. It's either her aunt or your grandmother. There's an M-sounding name that's attached to this, besides your brother, who you said is Michael,
CALLER: Mavis.
EDWARD: And they're telling me that there's something to do with the fourth month or the fourth of a month, and I'm also getting the feeling of being out of state, so I don't know if your brother was away from you or at a distance from you, but I see something as being debilitating and affecting the body. But I think your brother is OK.
CALLER: That's good to know.
EDWARD: All righty. Also, there's a congratulations going out to the family, which is either a happy birthday or some sort of a wedding thing that's coming out.
KING: Now that comes through you how?
EDWARD: I see pictures. Like the pink rose on the video is their way of expressing their love. When I see like a white flower, that means happy birthday or congratulations.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let's go back to the lines. Let's go to Nazareth, Pennsylvania. Go ahead, caller. Nazareth, Pennsylvania? I think we've lost..
CALLER: Hi, this is Denise. I'd like to get in touch with my brother Brian.
EDWARD: Hi Denise, how are you?
CALLER: Good, how are you?
EDWARD: Who's got the M-name like Michael?
CALLER: Which name?
EDWARD: Like Michael?
CALLER: No one that's passed away.
EDWARD: That's OK. Is there a living Michael or Mike?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. Did your brother know Mike or Michael?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, because he's making the reference to Mike or Michael.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Why is he showing me you having his sock? Do you have his socks?
CALLER: My brother's?
EDWARD: Yes.
CALLER: No. He was a baby when he passed.
EDWARD: That doesn't matter. Do you have his socks?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: He's making -- booties? He's making me feel like there's something that would be connected to the feet -- there's something that they want me to acknowledge for you. So that, to me, would be socks, or booties, or -- it's not shoes; it's got a soft feeling to it. That's what comes through in relationship to this.
I'm glad you called, because this is something I want to say, if you're -- if this was a baby brother that might have been 1 years old, 3 years old, 3 months old, I have no idea -- the energy is not that age on the other side. We age here in the body physically, and we age on the other side through experience and energy. However if they do come through, they might come through -- if a child was 5 years old when they passed on Earth, and it's five years later, and they go -- the parents might go for a reading, the child might come through to the medium as a 10-year-old, or might choose to come through as the 5- year-old that it was. So it's just an example



Ersby's reading
ME: Okay, well first I’m getting a father figure. A father, step father, father in law, grandfather, someone like a father to you.
HIM: That’ll be my grandfather. But he wasn’t like a father to me.
ME: And they’re telling me a name. I don’t know if it’s their name or they’re telling me about someone, but who is… Steven?
HIM: I don’t know.
ME: A Stefan or Stan? An S-t name.
HIM: I do have a friend called Stefan.
ME: Why would you grandfather be talking about him? (laughter) Anyway, there’s someone else coming through. A mother figure, like a father, step mother, grandmother.
HIM: Ooh, could be my grandmother.
ME: There's someone on the other side who says they had pneumonia (note: I made a mistake here. Mediums are not usually so specific. I should’ve just said “Who had pneumonia?” and got a big hit with the response concerning the mother)
HIM: My grandfather did have pneumonia, but funnily enough my mother had pneumonia two weeks ago and nearly died.
ME: Oh, well they’re probably talking about that then. And now I’m being drawn towards a female energy on the other side. This’d be about your grandmother. I’m getting a name, but I don’t know if it’s hers or someone she’s connected to… it’s something like… a B name, Betty, Becky, Barbara… Who is this?
HIM: There is a Betty, but I don’t know who she is. Betty was the person my grandmother would talk to in her later stages of senile dementia.
ME: Okay, well, she’s with Betty now. (laughter) Anyway, this woman on the other side was very loving. She was a safe haven in a storm. Very trusting. Very honest.
HIM: (laughing) No, not really.
ME: Never mind. Now I’m being shown a place. A house. I don’t know where this is, or the connection. Let me describe it to you. Go through the front door and almost the first thing you see is some fruit and there’s a door to the left. This leads to the living room and the dominant feature of this room on the left is there’s a lot of earth tones, browns, beiges
HIM: That sounds a bit like my grandmother’s house.
ME: In what way?
HIM: Well, when you entered it, you’d go straight into the kitchen, where there was always fruit. The door on the left lead to a large hall which lead to the living room. As for the living room, well, yes, it had a kind of musty, brown décor.
ME: Okay, fair enough. I’m being drawn away from the house. Because now there’s a strong presence on the other side. Very strong, and determined. This person must have been quite a person to know! I’m sensing an aunt.
HIM: No. No aunts.
ME: The spirits are communicating two more names to me. There are two people with names like John, Joan, a J-o name.
HIM: Two people?
ME: Yes.
HIM: (after much umming and ahhing) No, I don’t think so.
ME: One person?
HIM: Actually, no.
ME: Not to worry. Is there a joke or story about going to the supermarket and always coming back with a lot more stuff than you needed?
HIM: No. My dad always made lists.
ME: Oh, well. Now I’m getting an eight, so is there a birthday or anniversary in August or on the eighth of a month?
HIM: August…
ME: Or the eighth of a month.
HIM: The ninth?
ME: Never mind, now they’re –
HIM: August was the time we’d go and see my grandmother.
ME: That’ll do. Now, they’re telling me that you’re concerned about a dependant. I don’t know if it’s a child or a pet, but there’s someone that depends on you for support and right now they’re causing you some worry.
HIM: Yes. My girlfriend. (some laughter, as the girlfriend was there)
ME: Now, they’re showing me a money sign. Somebody works in banking or finance.
HIM: That’ll be me.
ME: Now they’re talking about somebody, I don’t know if this person is still with us or has passed to the other side, but this image is coming through quite strongly. Who knew a lot?
HIM: Ah, my brother. (note: this may seem like a weak hit, but later on I discover that my friend’s brother is something of a genius.)
ME: Well, they’re very proud of you both. Now I’m getting something a little peculiar, Not the run-of-the mill type of communication. They’re trying to tell me something quite specific. Who saw the bad leg?
HIM: Who SAW the bad leg? My grandfather had a bad leg and had trouble walking.
ME: That’s fine. So now lastly they’re showing me a younger energy. Again, I don’t know if this person is alive or has passed. Who is the girl that was in a play or film?
HIM: Well, she’s not a younger energy, but Auntie Eunace was in a film. She was a Bond girl.
ME: I’ll take that. Thank you very much.
HIM: No, thank you.


KING: Easton, Pennsylvania, hello.
CALLER: Hi, this is Cindy. I would like to talk with my grandfather and ask him a question.
KING: Can she ask him a question?
EDWARD: She can if he comes through.
KING: What's the question?
CALLER: I just want to know if he can see if we're going to have any kids in the future.
EDWARD: The first thing that I'm seeing is they're talking about -- and don't get alarmed, I think this has already happened -- they're talking about something burning. I don't know if there was a burning thing or if somebody had a fire in their house, or this is going back a few years. But they're telling me to talk about something that I would see as being like a fire or a barn fire or some type of a fire- type thing. Is there anything that used to happen in the backyard or something that he used to do?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Some type of outside fire or a fire thing?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK. This is what t they're talking about something burning hey're showing me, so remember what the symbol is to me, I'm interpreting this as being some type of fire, or like fire-thing, but that's what's coming through. As soon as you -- as soon as I listened to your voice, and I'm tuning into your vibration, this is what's coming through. And I know you're asking me about kids, but I'm seeing boxes, and when they show me boxes it's their way of telling me that you're moving. Or that there's a move that's coming up.
CALLER: Uh-huh, yes, we just moved.
EDWARD: c OK, so that's a confirmation of what they're telling me.
KING: But his -- her late grandfather couldn't tell her if she's going to have children or not.
EDWARD: I'm not getting...
KING: Or could he?
EDWARD: He could. He could.
KING: The spirits would know that.
EDWARD: They could come through and say stuff like that.


JE readings taken from this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032) This thread also gave the following results- when I roughly analyzes 5 LKL appearances

Total guesses 476
48 hits, 10.1%
118 weak hits 24.8%
171 misses 35.9%
102 not validated 21.4%
35 not scored 7.4%
2 strong hits .4%



Ersby's and NoZed's reading from
here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29974)
To me it seems that their readings were rather better and more specific than some JE readings- like the 3 I quoted above. I think NoZed's reading is acutally on par with some of the best JE LKL readings.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
They were snippets, but I based my rating of them on the kinds of hits and misses (content), not the style.

Damn snippets. As did everyone, but when it came time to decide which of the 5 anonymous readings were done by mediums, and which by cold readers, are you saying you based this on content alone? I find this hard to swallow. Read that thread again, none of the snippets were impressive enough content wise to be an arguement for mediumship, this was done on style. On patterns.


I'm saying you may (may) find things in various mediums transcripts that, to you, would sound like a cold reading patter. (whether you would be right or wrong about that would, btw, be a judgment call. If mediumship is real, there's no reason a medium couldn't be experiencing waves of intense love--as Laurie Campbell said she was when reading for GS's wife and feeling she was communicating with Russek's deceased father. To you that might just confirm it was cold reading. To Linda Russek, looking at --all-- the information that came through and knowing the personality of her father, it might have seemed very convincing. Judgment call.)

I'm saying we do find those things in mediums. No matter what your judgement call is, they are in there. That was my point. They use them the simular to how astrologers and tarot readers might use them. They use them differently, and one might argue successfully, but they use them all the same. Obviously its a judgement call based on your own bias' but you were making it out that only astrologers and tarot readers used these kind of generalities and platitudes. Saying someone had a problem with their heart, when its entirely likely someone who died could have had heart problems, is as much a generality as telling me I'll have success at work if I'm more aggressive with my supervisor.


Perhaps cold readers imitate mediumship (without the evidential content) rather than the other way around. :eek:

Which came first? The chicken or the egg. What's evidential is very subjective. Because psychic mediums are so reluctant to come out with completely specific bits of information right out of the blue with no fishing, its open to interpretation. I'd have to reread the whole thread again, but NoZed could have been said to get some slightly evidential information in his reading, althought it would be of poor quality. Where's the cut off at which something becomes clearly evidential content?


There's always misses and confusing information, always. How much? Why? What does it mean?

There are many explanations bandied around by both believers and skeptics alike. Again, based on what else is in the reading...imo, "misses" don't invalidate a reading, if you assume ADC is not just like picking up a telephone. Does the presence of wrong information in a reading make it implausible that -any- of the good information is coming through from your loved one?

Again, imo, you have to weigh it out and make a judgment call.
Bolding is mine. I still find this a completely baseless assumption. No one has given a thorough reasoning as to why mediumship as a process must be difficult. Anyway, moving on. Misses don't invalidate a reading persay, however, they do put it in context as to how it might apply to cold reading and/or chance. If you only look at the evidential content of the hits, your at risk of seeing it out of context in my opinion. It doesn't make it implausible that good info is coming from a loved one, just as a good hit does not mean it is coming from a loved one either.

[Ian Rowland]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And, I have already explained to you, that providing the full transcript would be a violation of not just forum rules, but also international law.
My thanks to CF Larsen for wanting to respect the copyright laws and not reproduce any of the material in my book here.

I have no idea whether I am the best, worst or least impressive cold reader in the world, nor do I think cold reading is a competitive event, like ice-dancing or log-rolling. I really have no idea how the questioner in the OP is defining 'best'.

Just for the record, it is, to the very best of my knowledge, a fact that I am the only person in the world who has given 'test conditions' demonstrations for the media using all four of the main cold reading disciplines - tarot, astrology, clairvoyance and spirit mediumship. If you want to know what I mean by 'test conditions' in this context, I explain more on my website where I also provide further details of almost all the demonstrations and the results. I have not yet added the 'ABC Primetime' demo of spirit mediumship to the website, but I hope too at some point.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Cold reading is the only explanation with mediumship!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie
Ed,

I have heard this Paltalk story so many times! lol.

You don't know how ANNOYING it is that you didn't keep a transcript! (I mean, seriously, don't I say the same thing every time you mention it?! :p )

I got a chance to try my hand at giving a reading at a "Mediumship development workshop" once. I had a cooperative "sitter" (classmate) and tried to use everything I knew about cold reading. It was fun to have the freedom to try it without worrying about someone's feelings, and she was kind about the results, but...seriously...they weren't very good.

Try it with a person whom you do not know. Try to be "on". If you did it enough I gaurentee that I could edit a 1/2 hour show that would make you look fabulous, dahling

Be honest now. Do you really think that what you brought through for your sitter was highly evidential...specific names of the deceased...shared experiences...very unique items or images associated with him....Any of that?

I will pay you if you can find a case where ome phony came up with "Byron Robert Posilthwaite" a "B" name perhaps. Also nothing ethnic... ever hear of a "Balthezzar Aristotle Thucydidies"? No. never will. I did describe in rather bloody detail the death of a loved one. Pretty simple if you nail a symptom, jut make it sound as bad as they "recall". Recall also, the words of Master Topcliffe to the unfortunate Antony Babington:

"Death is always quick, it is the road to death that can be tedious long"

So, if you say "he passed quickly" and you get an affirmative, you know accident (if young) stroke or heart attack if old. Saying you "see blood" you are right in all of these cases. Elaborate as needed. Recall also that there are often symptoms before someone croaks. aches, abscent mindedness, vision problems are good. Never give the symptom, talk about how those symptoms are manifested ... "he wants you to know that he is more comfortable now about the car ...do you understand?" Sure, cuz the poor dead bastard was very uneasy about driving cuz of vision, dizzyness and so on. You can not have shame.

if, on the other hand, you get a no, or better, hesitation (cuz if they hesitate, they tell themselves that they never gave you info) you quote Topcliffe and elaborate. The bonding thing is a useful manipulative tool.

We all know people -can- be fooled when they want to be. That doesn't mean that everyone is equally gullible, though, or that you wouldn't have eventually had sitters who would have been dissatisfied and told you why.

Sure. I did 4 (or so). If I did 4000 I have no doubt that 1000 would have been killer and 100 or so would have had groupies soiling themselves. The beauty of being a fraud here is that YOU have the bully pulpit, not the occasional disaffected mark. Someone dosen't like it? F 'em.

And, btw, was it psychic readings or mediumship? Did you actually say you were connecting them with particular deceased people?

My dear, I don't pretend to understand my gift (and often it is a burden to be borne, not a gift ...alas) images come, thoughts intrude, often I am not aware it is happening. I, like you, must simply accept until the time of our own passing and enlightenment


(I really wish you'd at least saved the "fabulous" one. All the best cold readers seem to be JREF-ers, lol).

:)

Read some basic demo info (statistical abstract of the US), read up on what kills people and when and what it's like. Know your birthstones. Know your teams. Know your hobbies. Loose any sense of propriety. Shoot for an audience, not the sitter. Practice not laughing at yourself.

[magicflute]

Let me tell you a funny story.
Halloween was aproaching and my daughter wanted to go her office party as a fortune teller/Psychic so she came over to see me to see if I had a crystal ball (I used to be a magician) I did not but I gave her a 99 cent round fishbowl to use. I gave her a few pointers on cold reading. Armed with this and dressed as a gypsy, she headed for the party. The next day she called me. She said "Dad, you wont believe this! But alot of people there believed that I was for real!! They told me how good and acurate my reading were! All I was doing was repeating stuff I had heard them talk about and a little bit of what you taught me to do and that did the trick!"
That is not the end of the story. At the next gathring, they asked her to repeat the performance, and she repeated her success. For quite some time after that day, people would come up to her on lunch hours and breaks to ask her for "quickie reading" She was having a hard time getting some time for herself. She asked me what to do. I said (as an experiment on my part) "Tell them whatever comes to mind regardless of whether it makes sense to you or not" Well, as expected by me, and not by her, according to the responce of her coworkers, she was still very successful!. So to stop them from bugging her she started to explain to them how she did her psychic tricks and she told me and I quote "Dad, they refused to believe me!" They kept telling her that she must have a 'real' gift because she was "so acurate"
Needless to say she told everyone that she was 'hanging up her crystal ball' and believe it or not she said some people were annoyed because 'she would not share her gifts!'
People hear what they need to hear and will interpret just about anything you say as positive if you don't get too specific.
My daughter is not a practicing skeptic and at the time this occured she even thought that there was something to JE, but after this experience she has listened to JE again and can clearly see process. I don't need to repeat what her opinion of psychic in general is now.
:D :D :biggrin: :D :D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

And, I have already explained to you, that providing the full transcript would be a violation of not just forum rules, but also international law.

Do you accept this, yes or no?


As I already said, provide whatever evidence you want, your idea of the best cold reading examples, using your best judgement. Using your best judgement means hopefully you chose not to be stupid and post copyrighted material, obviously.

Can you find the best cold reading transcripts that are not copyrighted?


Read the book.


That's your evidence? That's it??


Again, answer the questions put to you first:


Have you read Ian Rowland's book? Yes or no?
Do you admit that no good demo of mediumship exists? Yes or no?
Do you consider a partial transcript sufficient? Yes or no?
Do you accept that providing the full transcript from Rowland's book would be a violation of not just forum rules, but also international law? Yes or no?
What would be the purpose of providing transcripts or videos of what anyone consider the best cold reading demo(s) from someone who doesn't claim to be a medium?
Have you, in the past, referred to books as reference? Yes or no?
Why are books not sufficient anymore?
Do you deny that Rowland's 99.9% accuracy statement is far, far better than any psychic claims? Yes or no?


I'm only interested in what skeptics (this might apply to you) consider the best examples of cold reading, and the actual transcripts and videos of it. I'm interested in the actual evidence, not your questions.

Got any?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by voidx

Even when a cold reading transcript (NoZed's) was deemed of better quality than one done by James Van Praagh, even by Clancie? So you would rule them completely useless and without merit for discussion? If you won't even read that thread to get a basis of what our opinion is, then I have to assume your not really that interesting in finding out why we have the opinion of cold-reading and mediums that we do.


Who said I'd rule them completely useless and without merit?

Anyone can post some transcript that was supposedly actually recorded from a real live event when it actuality we don't know if it was or not. There has to be stronger evidence than some chatroom reading that may have really occured. Also, is there a video? With current mediums we get videos, with cold readers this doesn't seem too common.


You're just using an argument used by certain posters here to flip our arguements around on ourselves.


Providing evidence is hard, ain't it?


Knowing Larsen sticks in your craw as much as you do in his, its rather safe to assume your intent in starting this thread. My opinion of course.

I'm sure I'm on his mind more than he is on mine. Anyway, your opinions aside, you have any evidence in the form of the best cold reading transcripts or videos?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed

I will pay you if you can find a case where ome phony came up with "Byron Robert Posilthwaite" a "B" name perhaps. Also nothing ethnic... ever hear of a "Balthezzar Aristotle Thucydidies"? No. never will. I did describe in rather bloody detail the death of a loved one. Pretty simple if you nail a symptom, jut make it sound as bad as they "recall". Recall also, the words of Master Topcliffe to the unfortunate Antony Babington:


Your name strawman aside, will you pay me if I find an 'ethnic' name?

:)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
In fact, I found skeptics' focus on "style" in discussing ersby's cold reading thread very puzzling for the same reason. Yes, we all need to recognize the style. But the important thing is to look at the content, the evidential information. That is the only important thing.

It is interesting to see, however, that you dismissed Sylvia Browne as a cold reader, simply because you didn't like her style. Oh, well...just making the argument fit the circumstances again, I guess.

I am a little surprised, though, that you can dismiss style as something not that important. Rowland's book very much deals with the "setup" of a reading. Pages 24-29. I know you read the book, but check it again. Style is very important.


Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As I already said, provide whatever evidence you want, your idea of the best cold reading examples, using your best judgement. Using your best judgement means hopefully you chose not to be stupid and post copyrighted material, obviously.

You have not answered the question.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Can you find the best cold reading transcripts that are not copyrighted?

renata posted some very good ones here.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That's your evidence? That's it??

You asked for evidence. If you don't want to look at it, that is your problem.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm only interested in what skeptics (this might apply to you) consider the best examples of cold reading, and the actual transcripts and videos of it. I'm interested in the actual evidence, not your questions.

You have refused to answer any of my questions.

You are not interested in the actual evidence, because you refuse to look at it.

Have a nice day.


magicflute,

Can you email me at webmaster@skepticreport.com?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You have not answered the question.

You asked for evidence. If you don't want to look at it, that is your problem.

You have refused to answer any of my questions.

You are not interested in the actual evidence, because you refuse to look at it.



Claus please quit focusing on me. The word "you" occurs much too often above.

I'm asking for what skeptics consider the best example of cold reading. Some people posted what they consider the best example of mediumship. The difference is that that was something that was written about, not some chatroom reading that may or may not have happened. Rowland's book is fine, and again, I ask if that is considered that the best example of cold reading? Also, again, does anybody have videos of the best example of cold reading?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Claus please quit focusing on me. The word "you" occurs much too often above.

I am not focusing on you. I am pointing out that you have not answered the questions.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm asking for what skeptics consider the best example of cold reading. Some people posted what they consider the best example of mediumship. The difference is that that was something that was written about, not some chatroom reading that may or may not have happened. Rowland's book is fine, and again, I ask if that is considered that the best example of cold reading? Also, again, does anybody have videos of the best example of cold reading?

It will always be subjective which is "the best", but I consider the Rowland transcripts very impressive examples of cold reading.

Which is what you asked for, and I told you. But you are clearly not interested.

You ask for evidence, but cannot be bothered to look at it. You ask questions, but don't answer questions put to you.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am not focusing on you. I am pointing out that you have not answered the questions.

It will always be subjective which is "the best", but I consider the Rowland transcripts very impressive examples of cold reading.

Which is what you asked for, and I told you. But you are clearly not interested.

You ask for evidence, but cannot be bothered to look at it. You ask questions, but don't answer questions put to you.

Ok, I'll chalk that up as saying the Rowland transcripts are candidates for impressive examples.

Does anyone have video examples of cold reading which they consider impressive?

By the way, best will be objective, not subjective, after transcripts of readings are analyzed.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
By the way, best will be objective, not subjective, after transcripts of readings are analyzed.

How will you judge them objectively? What criteria?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

How will you judge them objectively? What criteria?

No judging required, just descriptive statistics.

I started a thread where I proposed a project to undertake this if there is enough interest.

Everyone is invited.

[Ed]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Your name strawman aside, will you pay me if I find an 'ethnic' name?

:)

Try it yourself. It is hard to be a believer when you see that the emperor has no clothes.

[voidx]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Who said I'd rule them completely useless and without merit?

Seeing as how you labelled them sub-par without even reading them, or looking at our analysis of them, I figured it was a pretty safe assumption.


Anyone can post some transcript that was supposedly actually recorded from a real live event when it actuality we don't know if it was or not. There has to be stronger evidence than some chatroom reading that may have really occured. Also, is there a video? With current mediums we get videos, with cold readers this doesn't seem too common.

Not too common now because there's less of an audience for it, but there are videos. I believe there are a few UK mentalists with websites and videos, Derren Brown is one I can think of. As others have mentioned and if you'd been reading there is TV footage of others doing short cold reading sessions. Video's are out there, whether their the "best" is open to debate. It just seems to me you're narrowing your search here to force us into a video format, something that is well known to not have very much content cold reader wise. You want the best example, but you want it in video. And if we don't have it you'll say hah! Just like you complain about certain skeptics doing.


Providing evidence is hard, ain't it?

Obviously since you've just turned the gun around and asked us for it. Piper is often singled out as the big cheese in mediumship, yet all we have our text transcripts, we'd prefer video, but hey, we work with what we've got, however we take it with a grain of salt. I've seen enough short appearances by mentalists doing cold reading on TV shows to know that they resemble JE and JVP and others close enough that its entirely a possibility their cold reading. And also to see it as likely that say NoZed was able to do as well as he did in his transcript. No there's no video so I cannot verify it that way, but I don't see that as a problem as I take that factor with a grain of salt just like I do anyone else. You want to run around looking for the best video clip of cold reading, that's fine. I'll discuss it with others wiling to discuss it, knowing we have to work with the material and content we actually have.


I'm sure I'm on his mind more than he is on mine. Anyway, your opinions aside, you have any evidence in the form of the best cold reading transcripts or videos?
I've never claimed to have seen a cold reader that is on the same level or style as JE. I suggest you go ask for that from someone that has claimed it.

[voidx]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


No judging required, just descriptive statistics.

I started a thread where I proposed a project to undertake this if there is enough interest.

Everyone is invited.
Hmmm but what are we describing here? What data are your stats based on? Hits? Well what constitutes a hit, or the quality of a hit is highly subjective. If you'd read the threads I linked you'd see how we had disagreements with Clancie on the quality of a "hit". So what will you be counting that will be 100% objective? I'm confused.

[Ed]

Originally posted by voidx

Hmmm but what are we describing here? What data are your stats based on? Hits? Well what constitutes a hit, or the quality of a hit is highly subjective. If you'd read the threads I linked you'd see how we had disagreements with Clancie on the quality of a "hit". So what will you be counting that will be 100% objective? I'm confused.

Look for signs of wiggle.

[Suezoled]

My reading for the 10 college kids (from memory, mind you)

-you've had a rough childhood growing up; you have several challenges to overcome. But you wanted to be more than an ordinary child, and you wanted the stregth to overcome those challenges.

-Failure isn't a comfortable feeling, but you're a worldly enough person to realize failure isn't a permanent set back. In fact, it's a point of pride when you can grow and become stronger

-your psycho X is still psycho. Don't ever get back together with him/her. They still have lots of issues and want to use you to cover up their wounds. This can include reigniting the old relationship, or causing you grief about the old relationship

-you're sensitive but not stupid. You want to help your friends, but not at the expense of your sanity. That's perfectly understandable. Sometimes you commit a bit too much, and it's important to remember to take a step back and rebalance YOURSELF. You can't help others if you're in flux.

-You value happiness and contentment over material wealth. This makes you a stronger person spiritually. If you're not blinded by material desire, it doesn't weaken you.

-That knee injury from the person you know... it'll get better. It might need physical therapy

-you've had contact with a pedophile or there's someone you know whos' had contact with a pedophile, maybe in your childhood. It could be you're not aware of it yet, but keep an eye out for signs of abuse among your close circle.

End reading.

[magicflute]

LOL Suezoed!!
I can honestly say that I can select 9 out of the 10 as describing me in some manner.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed


Try it yourself. It is hard to be a believer when you see that the emperor has no clothes.

Ed, will you (YES) or will you not (NO) pay me if I find a reading where an enthic name was guessed/divined/offered?

Please, let me know. I need the lunch money.

Yes or no? OR would you like me to call the soccer team over to help you with those posts?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by voidx

Seeing as how you labelled them sub-par without even reading them, or looking at our analysis of them, I figured it was a pretty safe assumption.


IF they are not the best, they are sub-par by definition. My question specifically asked what people consider the best examples.

Also not that not being the best doesn't equate with being worthless as you imply that I implied.


You want the best example, but you want it in video. And if we don't have it you'll say hah! Just like you complain about certain skeptics doing.


If you don't have it I'll just say 'OK, you don't have it or it doesn't exist.'


doing cold reading on TV shows to know that they resemble JE and JVP and others close enough that its entirely a possibility their cold reading.


It is one thing to say you "know". It is quite another to actually analyze the data.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by voidx

Hmmm but what are we describing here? What data are your stats based on? Hits? Well what constitutes a hit, or the quality of a hit is highly subjective. If you'd read the threads I linked you'd see how we had disagreements with Clancie on the quality of a "hit". So what will you be counting that will be 100% objective? I'm confused.

The thead would decide and discuss what to look for in a given transcript. Hits might be out of the question given their subjective component as you've brought up. Things like letter/name counts, year of reading, if reader was a cold reader or a medium, if the transcript is from a TV session or not, and if the person being read is a celebrity or not are just some possibilities.

[Clancie]

re: access to cr videos. Does anyone have any pull with Randi? If Penn would let us have the unedited video of Mark Edward's cold reading demo on "Bullsh*t", I'd be willing to transcribe it.

The one I'd like to see even more than that is Ian Rowland's 30 minute cold reading for "Prime Time Thursday" that was edited down to 5 minutes. I have -heard- (unconfirmed) that some of the better hits were left out of the broadcast snippet of readings. But...no way to get that. :(

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It is one thing to say you "know". It is quite another to actually analyze the data.

Absolutely. So, how are you going to do that? Analyze data that you know is flawed?

Please be precise.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Absolutely. So, how are you going to do that? Analyze data that you know is flawed?

Please be precise.

I already mentioned ideas several times. Your trolling is saved for posterity.

Your responses will be ignored.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I already mentioned ideas several times. Your trolling is saved for posterity.

Your responses will be ignored.

But your article on SkepticReport will not. Will you write it, yes or no?

[magicflute]

Before you can do any type of counts you need to stablish a strict criteria for any item you're going to measure otherwise we'll have a repeat of the infamous "Florida Chad Counts" :D

[Ian Rowland]

Originally posted by Clancie
The one I'd like to see even more than that is Ian Rowland's 30 minute cold reading for "Prime Time Thursday" that was edited down to 5 minutes. I have -heard- (unconfirmed) that some of the better hits were left out of the broadcast snippet of readings. But...no way to get that. :(
Me too. I'd love to have a complete tape of my Prime Time session, or even a transcript. Alas, this is very unlikely to ever be available. It might be useful to explain why.

That particular Prime Time segment was taped on location using five cameras and, I think, five microphones (one on me, four hand-held mics passed around the small audience). It was not mixed 'as live' - the crew went back to the edit suite with five reels of video tape and five audio sources, only some of the audio sources being synched with any of the video sources. So it was a big editing job to get even five minutes of the session cut together in a viewable form. And they absolutely only edited together as much as they needed for the broadcast.

For the record, Clancie, the session lasted a little under half an hour (it was stopped by the producer, not me or the subjects). In that time I think I started about 8 threads, one of which was a complete dud and went nowhere. The other 7 were all successful to some extent, although of course some went better than others. One or two produced very strong hits indeed. The bits that were broadcast were neither the best nor the worst in terms of 'strong hits', they were just the bits that the producers felt were easiest to use for explanatory and illustrative purposes.

[Clancie]

Posted by Ian Rowland

For the record, Clancie, the session lasted a little under half an hour (it was stopped by the producer, not me or the subjects). In that time I think I started about 8 threads, one of which was a complete dud and went nowhere. The other 7 were all successful to some extent, although of course some went better than others. One or two produced very strong hits indeed. The bits that were broadcast were neither the best nor the worst in terms of 'strong hits', they were just the bits that the producers felt were easiest to use for explanatory and illustrative purposes.
Thanks for the added detail. As I say, your cold reading demo was the one I really looked forward to seeing, particularly after having read your book. I just seem unable to understand why ABC went to such an elaborate extent to set up the demo and then used such a tiny bit of it. I guess their purpose in doing it was just so differerent from what I hoped for.
It was not mixed 'as live' - the crew went back to the edit suite with five reels of video tape and five audio sources, only some of the audio sources being synched with any of the video sources. So it was a big editing job to get even five minutes of the session cut together in a viewable form.
I know you've said this before, and I suppose it's true, but can I say that it doesn't really make sense to me? I mean, I find it really -strange- if they didn't make a master shot, with complete audio. I hope you don't mind me asking, but I have to.....Is this the way the PT people told you it was being recorded and mixed, or is this what you yourself surmised from being there?
And they absolutely only edited together as much as they needed for the broadcast.
If so, what a waste.

But, is there any chance of you doing something similar for someone else? You know, a video demo and commentary about cold reading to sell (....schools, lecturers, mediumship fanatics like me....)? Especially with all the outrage people feel about JE (or Sylvia), I don't know why no one has bothered to make and sell a tape showing "the other side". Have you ever thought of doing it...or maybe JREF getting a grant for you to do it? (How expensive is making a video like that anyway--not very!)

Anyway, thanks for the information and polite responses. I don't expect a reply to this, just throwing it out there (as the whole PT thing still bothers me greatly! lol, I guess it still comes through....).

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Clancie:But, is there any chance of you doing something similar for someone else? You know, a video demo and commentary about cold reading to sell (....schools, lecturers, mediumship fanatics like me....)? Especially with all the outrage people feel about JE (or Sylvia), I don't know why no one has bothered to make and sell a tape showing "the other side". Have you ever thought of doing it...or maybe JREF getting a grant for you to do it? (How expensive is making a video like that anyway--not very!

I think it would be more expensive than you expect. It's not just a matter of a digital camera set up in a room. You have to get people there. More specifically, you have to get believers there.

Which leads to my conjecture (yes, conjecture) on what I think are the most salient reasons it has not been done:

1. You would need releases from the sitters. Remember that these are believers whom you would need to fool, then disabuse of their belief that you are a geniune medium, and then convince to be allowed to be shown having been fooled.

2. The moral repugnancy felt at fooling people like this. This has been mentioned and discussed several times. You have comments from NoZed and Ed about how their on-line readings made them feel, but you seem to simply ignore this aspect. It is not trivial, except for people like John Edward and Sylvia Browne.

[magicflute]

For everyones information, when you are editing from several taped sources, you normaly do what is called an AB or ABC roll. This means you put your 2 or more tapes each in its own player (the players are called A, B, C etc) you then using a video mixer (e.g. Video Toaster) proceed to copy only those portions from the source tapes that you want to keep to your recorder. You 'roll' a little from A then 'roll' the B tape, back to A etc. You never make a master tape of the entire contents of ALL the tapes. Once the all the clips are combined this becomes the MASTER. The other tapes are often erased and reused.
(I did special effects and editing for the Omnilink Corp back in the early 90s)

[Ian Rowland]

Originally posted by Clancie
I know you've said this before, and I suppose it's true, but can I say that it doesn't really make sense to me? I mean, I find it really -strange- if they didn't make a master shot, with complete audio. I hope you don't mind me asking, but I have to.....Is this the way the PT people told you it was being recorded and mixed, or is this what you yourself surmised from being there?
Clancie, of course you can say it doesn't really make sense to you. Nonetheless, I'm just doing what I always do, and telling the truth.

As to what the PT people told me and what I myself deduced, there's no distinction. Both apply. I myself was for many years a professional writer, producer and occasionally director of video shoots, so I know a little more than the average layman about the technicalities of taping and editing. I also had conversations with the exec producer, producer and director about how everything was going to be done.

The only way to have had a 'master shot' with all the audio would be to have done an as-live mix which would select as required from 5 camera inputs (one locked off, static, high wide shot and four with operators) and fade in and out as required from 5 audio sources (described in my previous post). They did not elect to do this. The 'master' shot was of camera 1 which framed me from head to waist, and which also took the feed from my lapel radio mic. In the edit suite, not while on location, they edited in as required from other vid and audio sources. This meant that they could, if they wanted, have manipulated the Ian / respondent interactions to make them look better or worse than they were. They didn't do this. The segments they did braodcast were an accurate depiction of the actual interactions that took place.

Compiling a complete record of the half hour session would be made slightly easier by the fact that I'm pretty sure all the video sources shared timecode, but even so it would be a lot of work. And no-one at ABC is interested in doing that work.

[Ed]

As an aside, really all you need is audio. Regardless of what is being captured on video, I am pretty sure that only one mic would be open at a time. Would not have been that hard to get an audio stream.

Ian R.- You might consider asking for the audio next time.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland
Compiling a complete record of the half hour session would be made slightly easier by the fact that I'm pretty sure all the video sources shared timecode, but even so it would be a lot of work. And no-one at ABC is interested in doing that work.

They didn't have to. It was very clear that you - as a cold reader - could - in shorter time than JE, actually - get people to fervently believe that you were the real thing. Tears, emotions, hits, and the nail in the coffin(!): The person who, despite being told the truth, insisted that you were for real anyway.

It makes no difference if we can analyze what you and others are doing, and come to the conclusion that you are all cold readers. If the sitter validates, then the medium is real. I've been discussing mediumship with quite a lot of people now, and I often hear that argument about psychic mediums like Sylvia, John Edward, James van Praagh etc.: If the sitter validates, then the medium is real.

Ergo: You are a real medium, Ian. :)

[Clancie]

Posted by magicflute

For everyones information, when you are editing from several taped sources, you normaly do what is called an AB or ABC roll. This means you put your 2 or more tapes each in its own player (the players are called A, B, C etc) you then using a video mixer (e.g. Video Toaster) proceed to copy only those portions from the source tapes that you want to keep to your recorder. You 'roll' a little from A then 'roll' the B tape, back to A etc. You never make a master tape of the entire contents of ALL the tapes. Once the all the clips are combined this becomes the MASTER. The other tapes are often erased and reused.
(I did special effects and editing for the Omnilink Corp back in the early 90s)
So, let me ask you then, magicflute. Let's say that you're a producer for a major tv newsmagazine that is using 5 cameras to film a cold reader doing a small group reading in a room where the people are sitting facing him (he stands looking at them). In such a situation, there is no complete recording (either made at the time, or edited together afterwards) of the entire event? Why?

Also, as Ed mentioned, wouldn't there be a complete audio of it? I'm not questioning anyone's facts, I just can't understand the rationale behind doing it this way.
Posted by Garrette

I think it would be more expensive than you expect. It's not just a matter of a digital camera set up in a room. You have to get people there. More specifically, you have to get believers there.

Which leads to my conjecture (yes, conjecture) on what I think are the most salient reasons it has not been done:

1. You would need releases from the sitters. Remember that these are believers whom you would need to fool, then disabuse of their belief that you are a geniune medium, and then convince to be allowed to be shown having been fooled.

2. The moral repugnancy felt at fooling people like this. This has been mentioned and discussed several times. You have comments from NoZed and Ed about how their on-line readings made them feel, but you seem to simply ignore this aspect. It is not trivial, except for people like John Edward and Sylvia Browne.
That's exactly the point, Garrette. All these conditions were met during the PT demo, including editing things out of the broadcast version because they were too emotional and might cause embarrassment.. PT had nearly 30 minutes of -exactly- the kind of demonstration you describe--but, apparently, it's lost forever. :(

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie

So, let me ask you then, magicflute. Let's say that you're a producer for a major tv newsmagazine that is using 5 cameras to film a cold reader doing a small group reading in a room where the people are sitting facing him (he stands looking at them). In such a situation, there is no complete recording (either made at the time, or edited together afterwards) of the entire event? Why?

Also, as Ed mentioned, wouldn't there be a complete audio of it? I'm not questioning anyone's facts, I just can't understand the rationale behind doing it this way.


...snip...[/B]


Clancie - why are you sounding so suspicious that the recording was done in this manner?

Just sounds like any normal TV recording session to me. Variety of cameras and microphones that are capturing the event. Then it's all squirted over to the editing suit and the few minutes they need are edited together and that's it. If they’d needed 30 minutes they’d have spent the time to edit more of it together but they didn’t so they just edited together what they needed.

It's done all the time.

What do you think happens with a live show? A director is in effect making live edits all the time from a variety of sources, you don't get to see all the other camera shots and hear all the other audio sources he discarded to make the one programme you do see.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by renata
To me it seems that their readings were rather better and more specific than some JE readings- like the 3 I quoted above. I think NoZed's reading is acutally on par with some of the best JE LKL readings.

Btw, I just spoke with the couple that threw that party -- this thread reminded be about the job question.

The sitter works for a state agency overseeing schools.

The relevant portion of the reading:

I’m seeing children connected to your work, but not directly. Not like you’re a teacher, but somehow connected to schools or schoolwork. Do you understand that?

Dun dun DUN!!!!!!!

/begin x-files music


N/A

I am offering readings at $200 per hour as soon as I can overcome my moral scruples.

Oh, wait, I am an attorney. Ok: slots available immediately.

[T'ai Chi]

So..where are all of these cold reading transcripts?

People have pointed to books, but are there any online anywhere like medium transcripts are online?

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

Plenty here. (http://tvtalkshows.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=15)

Plenty here. (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html)

Why don't you get your head out of your rectum and try to do some work yourself?

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

Clancie - why are you sounding so suspicious that the recording was done in this manner?
Not suspicious, Darat. Not at all.

Just curious. And disappointed. And, as IRL, I don't really like to take "No" for an answer unless there's just no possible way around it.

PT did the -exact- demo I've wanted someone to do and, at some point, had a great half hour cold reading example.

There's not another one like that out there anywhere. I just keep hoping that, yes, maybe there -is- a copy of the whole thing (even the whole audio) that could still be made available, sold, whatever.

I guess the answer is just "No", but it's too...darn...bad!!!!

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I don't understand why you don't express the same curiosity and disappointment when it comes to John Edward's "Crossing Over" show.

Why not? The whole "Crossing Over" has not been made available either (not even the audio), but I don't see you complain about that.

Why is that not "too...darn...bad"?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,

Plenty here. (http://tvtalkshows.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=15)

Plenty here. (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html)

Why don't you get your head out of your rectum and try to do some work yourself?

Claus, once again your criticism is unfounded.

Your first link is to a bulletin board with thousands of posts. You call that showing transcripts of cold readers?

Your second link is to transcripts from Larry King Live- this is useful if I asked for transcripts of mediums, but I didn't. I asked for transcripts of cold readers, that is, people who are professional self proclaimed cold readers.

Please try again, with relevant links this time.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Claus, once again your criticism is unfounded.

Your first link is to a bulletin board with thousands of posts. You call that showing transcripts of cold readers?

Your second link is to transcripts from Larry King Live- this is useful if I asked for transcripts of mediums, but I didn't. I asked for transcripts of cold readers, that is, people who are professional self proclaimed cold readers.

Please try again, with relevant links this time.

I'm sorry, but I get confused by your numerous threads about the same subject. I haven't yet understood why you need to open several threads, but I suppose you have your reasons.

You can find transcripts of proclaimed mediums there. As for cold reading transcripts, try contacting Ersby, as well as Ian Rowland's book.

How many transcripts of both mediums and cold readers have you collated so far?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You can find transcripts of proclaimed mediums there. As for cold reading transcripts, try contacting Ersby, as well as Ian Rowland's book.


Yes, I am sure I could possibly find transcripts of proclaimed mediums there, but that is not what I asked. My question was if there are links to specific self proclaimed cold reader transcripts out there. I am aware of the books, but am also interested where cold reading transcripts are online, if there are any, that is.

Perhaps you could post specific links to these if you are aware of any. Thanks. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes, I am sure I could possibly find transcripts of proclaimed mediums there, but that is not what I asked. My question was if there are links to specific self proclaimed cold reader transcripts out there. I am aware of the books, but am also interested where cold reading transcripts are online, if there are any, that is.

Perhaps you could post specific links to these if you are aware of any. Thanks. :)

Excuse me? Are you going to ignore transcripts, just because they are not online?

Have you asked Ersby?

[lynne]

There is a very good reason transcripts of cold reading sessions aren't readily available - and that is because a trasncsript can rarely convey what happens in a session. I could write one up, but you would lose a lot of what happens. Let me attempt an explanation and give an example.

I do cold readings on a regular basis using the techniques as described in Ian's book, and have done so for a few years now. I have created my own divination system, called Tauromancy, because when I did the readings with Tarot or Astrology, people said that even though I was telling them I was a fraud, the system was still working. So I constructed my own system based on small gold masks and various patterned chop sticks, into which I built the cold reading elements. Let me describe a session which happened a few weeks ago at a Psychology teachers' conference when I was doing readings on teachers so they could feel what it was like to have the experience. The word 'feel' is very important.

A mid-twenties woman sat down. She laid out the masks and I did all the preliminaries as described in the set-up section of Ian's book. I take that section VERY seriously. But you can't see the laying out of the masks and the way I twist my wording to match them - so a transcript immediately loses the way I work. OK, I said that she was hoping to have children one day. Pretty standard. She said: "Yes, we do." There's the transcript. Here's the key: she said it with a reserve and a sadness in her face. Something there. The 'we' told me she was in a steady relationship. I sidetracked and a minute or so later came to a mask which represents health. I said there was a health issue concerning her. That is the start which can almost always get me a hit with further effort, depending on how she reacts. She reacted very fast so I knew it was close to her. She said nothing. Hence - not a word in the transcript. Had she reacted slower, I would have headed for older people in her family.

At this stage I went straight for the big hit. I said, with warmth and compassion: endometriosis and nodded knowingly. (For the guys - this is a very common female condition which is a major cause of fertility worries. Mid-twenties women are usually pretty healthy otherwise.) She said, with the required shock and loud enough for all those watching to hear: "But no-one knew that except my husband and doctor!" and the classic line which is my measure of success with a reading "There is NO way you could have known that!"

There were two other possibilities: she had been tested for endometriosis - which would give me a hit anyway. Almost a certainty if he had fertility concerns. Note - I did not actually say she had endometriosis. I merely named it. She heard it as if I had said it and in my reply I went on as if I had. Had she said 'no' I would have suggested, quietly, she talk to her doctor about it. I would have nodded and she would have nodded and the audience, unable to hear quite what I said, would have seen all the nodding and I still had a firm hit - the believers would have been convinced I knew something.

The readng went on for ten minutes but by this stage I had her so much convinced and had so much key information, I had complete control and could have gone 'in for the kill' which is what I consider the TV psychics do as soon as they sense the tears. A transcript of the actual wording would tell very little of what happened and someone reading a transcript could not get the full effect.

Unlike those who exploit in order to entertain and make a personal profit and reputation, I could not go on when she was clearly emotional affected by what I had done. So I stopped the reading and debriefed on exactly what I had done. I always do that. I guess it is all about how ethically you use cold reading skills.

cheers,

Lynne

[Clancie]

Yes, that's a good example of cold reading, Lynne. There are many cold readers out there, of course. It just seems, from my perspective, hard to find an admitted cold=reader-as-medium. (My particular area of interest...what can I say? :confused: )

I've had good --and bad--mediumship readings over the phone. So I'm just curious. I know your technique is very visual and you pick up a lot of cues from facial expressions, tone of voice and body language....you could probably work out a way (like tarot readers do) to read over the phone. So...I'm just curious if you think it would make it more difficult or not to do it that way.

[magicflute]

Clancie, it is always determined how much time of a shoot will actually be used. You always shoot more than you need to make sure you capture enough to edit down to your time slot. Obviously if the show was 20 minutes, you would shoot the 20 minutes and edit down to the 5 minutes you will actually use. Unless you specifically request ahead of time to get a copy of all that was recorded, it will not be done as a business practice. Even if you request it, you will probably be asked to cover the cost of doing such a thing. Sometimes to do a commecial spot we would shoot as much as 2 hrs of video for a one minute spot! Once the spot is approved for broadcast, the original tapes are erased and only the edited master is kept. That is just the way the business works!

[lynne]

Originally posted by Clancie
I've had good --and bad--mediumship readings over the phone. So I'm just curious. I know your technique is very visual and you pick up a lot of cues from facial expressions, tone of voice and body language....you could probably work out a way (like tarot readers do) to read over the phone. So...I'm just curious if you think it would make it more difficult or not to do it that way.

Good question, Clancie. My instant reply is that the reactions would be more verbal just because of the medium. From the script I have seen for a telephone medium process, you get some of the age type information up front. But I do depend on my paraphenalia (please correc t the spelling if I have it wrong :-( ) so I am not sure how it would work. You now have me intrigued to think it through. Then I will try it and report back. The trouble is I read Ian's book when I had already started developing Tauromancy, so think through each of the elements in terms of my stuff. I will revisit it from a telephone perspective and give it a try. What fun! Thank you for the idea!

cheers,

Lynne

[Garrette]

Clancie:

That's exactly the point, Garrette. All these conditions [releases from believers who are told they were fooled, and overcoming moral repugnancy on the part of the cold reader]were met during the PT demo, including editing things out of the broadcast version because they were too emotional and might cause embarrassment.. PT had nearly 30 minutes of -exactly- the kind of demonstration you describe--but, apparently, it's lost forever

Yes, they were met. The point was to explain why there are so few cold reading transcripts, not that they don't exist at all.

Do you imagine a show called Not Crossing Over in which Ian, every single day, tells the audience clearly and obviously at the end of the show "You were fooled?"

It might last two shows. How many would show up after that? How long do you think Ian could continue that even if they did show up? You've read lynne's description of the endometriosis hit and how she had to cut the reading short. That takes a toll on people.

At least on people who care. It is my opinion that JE cares not a whit for his audience.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Excuse me? Are you going to ignore transcripts, just because they are not online?


Nope, but I'm going to focus on the easily accessible transcripts first for obvious reasons of accessibility.


Have you asked Ersby?

No. I'm asking you. Just admit you don't know of any, sheesh.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No. I'm asking you. Just admit you don't know of any, sheesh.

Ersby has some. Sheesh.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Ersby has some. Sheesh.

So do you or not? Have you seen Ersby's cold reader transcripts? Could you tell me about them?

How do they differ from medium transcripts? What is the number of times they use an 'ethic name'? What is the number of times they guess an A name, a B name, a C name, .... , and a Z name? What percentage of these readings are from television programs? I doubt anyone can answer these questions, without a large numerical study that is...

BTW, Ersby has been PMd regarding cold reader transcripts. I'm still waiting on a response.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So do you or not? Have you seen Ersby's cold reader transcripts?

Yes.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Could you tell me about them?

How do they differ from medium transcripts? What is the number of times they use an 'ethic name'? What is the number of times they guess an A name, a B name, a C name, .... , and a Z name? What percentage of these readings are from television programs? I doubt anyone can answer these questions, without a large numerical study that is...

Again, you want other people to do your work for you. Why don't you do some work yourself?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
BTW, Ersby has been PMd regarding cold reader transcripts. I'm still waiting on a response.

So why do you if I have seen some? Still getting "even"? You sure as heck don't seem the slightest interested in your little project.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Again, you want other people to do your work for you. Why don't you do some work yourself?


You've said you've seen them; I have not seen them. I guess you can't answer the questions of:

How do they differ from medium transcripts? What is the number of times they use an 'ethic name'? What is the number of times they guess an A name, a B name, a C name, .... , and a Z name? What percentage of these readings are from television programs? What percentage of people being read were female? Celebrities? As the year of the reading changes, do other counts tend to change? How many times did the cold reader say "chest area" as the disease vs. the number of times the medium said "chest area" as the disease? What are most frequent types of diseases offered?

You might need to do a large numerical study to answer these interesting questions..., for example. You see, when my study is done, I will be able to answer these types of questions, and more, simply by summing cells of a spreadsheet.


So why do you if I have seen some? Still getting "even"? You sure as heck don't seem the slightest interested in your little project.

I'm very interested on a large scale descriptive study of medium and cold reader transcripts, hence my working on the study and asking about cold reader transcripts.

You have failed to answer any questions, yet again. Better call in Bill for reinfarcements.

[CFLarsen]

Hand-waving.

[Ersby]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

BTW, Ersby has been PMd regarding cold reader transcripts. I'm still waiting on a response.

Yes, you'd PMed me a full four minutes before this post! A little patience wouldn't go amiss.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ersby
Yes, you'd PMed me a full four minutes before this post! A little patience wouldn't go amiss.

Interesting. So T'ai Chi wants to give the false impression that he "has" PMd you and are "still waiting" for your response - as if he had done it a long time ago.

I can see why T'ai Chi so desperately wants to keep this hidden from view. Step by step, already on the road from foolishness to fraud.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ersby

Yes, you'd PMed me a full four minutes before this post! A little patience wouldn't go amiss.

Yeah, you should really tell Claus that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah, you should really tell Claus that.

Stop evading, T'ai Chi: You tried to give the false impression that you had PMd Ersby long before your post, and was "still waiting".

You are rapidly heading towards fraud. Not just dishonesty (by trying to shift focus away from your attempt here), but outright fraud.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Interesting. So T'ai Chi wants to give the false impression that he "has" PMd you and are "still waiting" for your response - as if he had done it a long time ago.

I can see why T'ai Chi so desperately wants to keep this hidden from view. Step by step, already on the road from foolishness to fraud.

Everything I said was factual and without exxageration.

Anyway, Ersby can only offer his own transcripts. My only question is, Erbsy, are you a professional cold reader like JE or JVP is a professional medium? This isn't a personal dig at your skills, but I am rather only interested in analyzing the transcripts of professionals for the purposes of this study. (else we'd have to analyze all the transcripts of people who call themselves mediums, which is quite a lot, and I'd rather concentrate on JVP, JE, SB, etc.)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Everything I said was factual and without exxageration.

You created the false impression that you had asked Ersby some time ago, and that he had not replied. All of four minutes!

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Anyway, Ersby can only offer his own transcripts. My only question is, Erbsy, are you a professional cold reader like JE or JVP is a professional medium? This isn't a personal dig at your skills, but I am rather only interested in analyzing the transcripts of professionals for the purposes of this study. (else we'd have to analyze all the transcripts of people who call themselves mediums, which is quite a lot, and I'd rather concentrate on JVP, JE, SB, etc.)

Liar. You said nothing about the cold reader being "professional". You opened this thread by asking:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
What is the best cold reading demo? That is, among people not claiming to be mediums.

You mention "professional" cold readers way later.

You never mention "professional" in the "Analyzing Medium/Cold ReaderTranscripts" thread at all.

Liar.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You created the false impression that you had asked Ersby some time ago, and that he had not replied. All of four minutes!


Again, I simply stated the facts. If that created a false impression to you that I emailed Ersby long ago, you are entitled to the way you feel.


Liar. You said nothing about the cold reader being "professional". You opened this thread by asking:


To get reliable 'certified' transcripts, ones we know where they are from, it is wise to only include professionals.


You never mention "professional" in the "Analyzing Medium/Cold ReaderTranscripts" thread at all.

Liar.

I've simply clarified my position on what I'm seeking to get examined. This shouldn't be an issue if there are professional cold reader transcripts out there. I'm also not saying non-professional cold reader transcripts are worthless, just that if we look at those, we'd have to look at amateur medium transcripts (it wouldn't make any sense to compare amateur cold reader transcripts with professional medium transcripts), which could be everything from IRC chat logs to peoples' AIM messages, to emails. These things are too numerous to undertake in my estimation. Moreover, why study the amateur cold readers and amateur mediums when the professionals data is out there and probably of a much higher quality? Therefore, your accusation of liar falls flat.

You've said analyzing transcripts is wrong and worthless because of the flawed data, yet you have analyzed transcripts and posted articles on SkepticReport that people have analyzed transcripts in. You also failed to specifically point out these "long, fancy terms that you re-invent the meaning of" that you believe I use. Bill said it is only called skew, and when called on it, he hasn't withdrawn his incorrect statement. Seems its unfair to suggest I am being evasive..

Please Claus, stay focused. No one is impressed, especially me, by your misreadings and avoidance of questions and issues.

[Ersby]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

My only question is, Erbsy, are you a professional cold reader like JE or JVP is a professional medium? This isn't a personal dig at your skills, but I am rather only interested in analyzing the transcripts of professionals for the purposes of this study. (else we'd have to analyze all the transcripts of people who call themselves mediums, which is quite a lot, and I'd rather concentrate on JVP, JE, SB, etc.)

No, I'm not a professional. I suggest you try to contact professional cold readers and ask if they have any transcripts.

No, I don't know any. You could always search the internet.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Again, I simply stated the facts. If that created a false impression to you that I emailed Ersby long ago, you are entitled to the way you feel.



I have never commented on the private feud that seems to go on between you and Claus &/or Bill H. on any of the threads where you all argue back and forth.

But I must say that I find it hard to believe that you did not consciously try to create such a "false impression" by a deliberate and willful choice of misleading terms:

"Ersby has been PMd regarding cold reader transcripts. I'm still waiting on a response."

Stating the facts this way was an intentional effort to create a false impression, namely, that you had sent the email some time before it was suggested. Your current "defense" of that practice is strong evidence that you are still doing nothing but playing games. Frankly, your comments above remind me of grade-school rhetorical devices and the word games used by children about what is "literally true" when cornered.

To get reliable 'certified' transcripts, ones we know where they are from, it is wise to only include professionals.

A convenient limitation, since it far easier to make a living as a "professional" psychic than a "professional" confessed cold reader.

N/A

[Clancie]

T'ai,

I'd understand if someone didn't want to participate in your project or personally didn't expect it to yield results. But I don't understand all the belligerence and hostility of a few people toward your desire to look into the specifics of cold reading in more depth.

Participate or not (as they wish) but why resort to all the repetiitive badgering and name calling ("liar", etc.) that you've quoted in your posts?

I don't get it.

[Clancie]

Posted by MLynne

I will revisit it from a telephone perspective and give it a try.
Great, Lynne. I'll be interested in how you feel the two methods compare.
Posted by Garrette

The point was to explain why there are so few cold reading transcripts, not that they don't exist at all.
Well, that's not my point. My point is to try to -find- good cold reading demonstrations. And I think that people who seem pretty well convinced that "mediumship=cold reading" should be making an effort to make many cold reading demonstrations available, for educational purposes.

Do you imagine a show called Not Crossing Over in which Ian, every single day, tells the audience clearly and obviously at the end of the show "You were fooled?"
No one suggested having a show, obviously. But a videotape (DVD) or two, for educational sale, would be helpful. The lack of such educational cold reading demonstrations (and apparently no interest in making them--I don't think raising the money through grants would be so hard) is, imo, puzzling.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Btw, I just spoke with the couple that threw that party -- this thread reminded be about the job question.

The sitter works for a state agency overseeing schools.

The relevant portion of the reading:



Dun dun DUN!!!!!!!

/begin x-files music


N/A

I am offering readings at $200 per hour as soon as I can overcome my moral scruples.

Oh, wait, I am an attorney. Ok: slots available immediately.

I'd like to apply, on the condition that I'm cold reading for complete morons who have no scruples themselves.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Please Claus, stay focused. No one is impressed, especially me, by your misreadings and avoidance of questions and issues.

No one?

Originally posted by Clancie
I'd understand if someone didn't want to participate in your project or personally didn't expect it to yield results. But I don't understand all the belligerence and hostility of a few people toward your desire to look into the specifics of cold reading in more depth.

Participate or not (as they wish) but why resort to all the repetiitive badgering and name calling ("liar", etc.) that you've quoted in your posts?

I don't get it.

Oh, yes, you do! Don't play the Bambi-eyed innocent bystander again. T'ai Chi has been caught lying twice the past day. He wants to do secret research. He refuses to say why it has to be secret. He wants to do research that is worthless. He ignores the points that are made.

It is not "badgering" or "name calling". People are pointing out the serious flaws in T'ai Chi's experimental setup, and he has also been caught flat-out lying. Twice.

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, that's not my point. My point is to try to -find- good cold reading demonstrations. And I think that people who seem pretty well convinced that "mediumship=cold reading" should be making an effort to make many cold reading demonstrations available, for educational purposes.

How soon you "forget", Clancie. You were unable to tell the difference between the cold reading transcript and JE's reading on TVTalkshows. You know they exist, you just don't want to admit it.

Originally posted by Clancie
No one suggested having a show, obviously. But a videotape (DVD) or two, for educational sale, would be helpful. The lack of such educational cold reading demonstrations (and apparently no interest in making them--I don't think raising the money through grants would be so hard) is, imo, puzzling.

You have been made aware of why people don't scam grieving people like that, and yet you persist. Puzzling.

[magicflute]

Lynne is quite right. Just a transcript can skew the scoring because you might miss a clue of how the hit was obtained.
To give you an example. I have an old tape of a TV show from which a transcript would make it seem like Van rague had some very strong hits, even guessing at a WHOLE name! Right off the bat he told the woman that her son had passed away, and then he guessed his name as "Ken or Kevin" This would seem to be a super hit, but if you examine the video and step thru it you will clearly see Van Prague interviewing the couple BEFORE the reading (something he claims he did not do) and you can see him staring at a man's ring with the initial 'K' on it that the mother was wearing on a chain around her neck! Once you see that it does not take much deduction to figure out how he got the hits. If you had only transcripts, we would have been hard pressed to explain them.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Oh, yes, you do!


No, I don't, but thanks. :)


T'ai Chi has been caught lying twice the past day. He wants to do secret research. He refuses to say why it has to be secret. He wants to do research that is worthless. He ignores the points that are made.


Please show me where I've supposedly been lying as you claim.

As far as so-called secret research, I suppose that Claus gets updates from all researchers all over the world whenever they change even the most minor thing in their study. Your email and mail box must be flooded...

Worthless research? Skeptics have studied transcripts ad nauseum. Heck, you have on TV Talkshows, on SkepticReport, and have posted articles by people doing the same. I guess all of that is worthless too, eh? Feel free to comment on your hypocrisy.


It is not "badgering" or "name calling". People are pointing out the serious flaws in T'ai Chi's experimental setup, and he has also been caught flat-out lying. Twice.


You're welcome to back up your claims any day now.

While you're at it, please provide evidence that videos increase hit rates in the ganzfeld as you claimed a while ago. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No, I don't, but thanks. :)

I was talking to Clancie. You seem to be under the false impression that everything I do is about you.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Please show me where I've supposedly been lying as you claim.

You lied about the cold reader having to be "professional".

You clearly gave the false impression about PM'ing Ersby a long time ago, so you would "still" be "waiting".

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As far as so-called secret research, I suppose that Claus gets updates from all researchers all over the world whenever they change even the most minor thing in their study. Your email and mail box must be flooded...

Why keep it secret, T'ai Chi? All of a sudden, you slam the doors, and won't let everyone see it. Why?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You're welcome to back up your claims any day now.

I have. Your call, liar.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
While you're at it, please provide evidence that videos increase hit rates in the ganzfeld as you claimed a while ago. :)

(groan) You really aren't interested in doing research, are you? All you want to to play games and get "even".

[Clancie]

Posted by T'ai Chi

As far as so-called secret research, I suppose that Claus gets updates from all researchers all over the world whenever they change even the most minor thing in their study.
But of course, T'ai!

Claus must see it all! This is an important part of every single protocol done by anyone! Anywhere!

Otherwise all research is clearly worthless and must be....

"DISMISSED!!!"

[CFLarsen]

A lot of handwaving. But still no explanation why it has to be kept secret.

[magicflute]

If anyone is interested on books dealing with Cold-Reading and Mediums, here is a quick list.

13 Steps to Mentalism by Corinda
Larry Becker' World of Super Mentalism, Books 1 & 2
Practical Mental Magic by Theodore Annemann
The Art of Cold Reading by Robert A. Nelson
A Sequel to The Art of Cold Reading by Robert A. Nelson
Encyclopedia of Mentalism by Rodert A. Nelson
Psycho Babble By Herb Dewey
Mind Magic by Ormond McGill
Houdini on Magic by Harry Houdini
The Original Houdini Scrapbook by Walter B. Gibson

Of course these are just a few of the books I have handy (most of my books are packed away while I remodel) there have been many others mentioned that I also recommned like Mr. Rowlands book, as well as many of Randi's books, "FLIM-FLAM" in particular.
The book "Mind Magic" was intended for teens, but the funny part is that the effects it descrives are the very ones used by the likes of Kresin and others. They may appear to be simple, but they are reputation builders if you present them well. I highly recommend it!

[magicflute]

Any research that does not expose ALL its data for peer review should be DISMISSED!!!

[Clancie]

Posted by magicflute

Any research that does not expose ALL its data for peer review should be DISMISSED!!!
So, magicflute, do you agree with the criticism of T'ai (and apparently any other researcher in the world) that all their research should be shared at this forum or else it is happening "in secret" and is therefore "worthless"?

I honestly think that's just the most ridiculous statement. It takes badgering someone for no reason to a new low, imo (and I thought I'd seen it all).

[magicflute]

You are misrepresenting my comment It stands as stated. If ANYONE wished to have their research validated then ALL data upon which the research is based must be supplied. Otherwise any conclusions reached can not be substantiated. I did not at any time mention TaiChi or Claus or anyone so please do not twist my words. What I stated is the protocol for any research paper to be taken seriously.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
But I must say that I find it hard to believe that you did not consciously try to create such a "false impression" by a deliberate and willful choice of misleading terms:

"Ersby has been PMd regarding cold reader transcripts. I'm still waiting on a response."

Stating the facts this way was an intentional effort to create a false impression, namely, that you had sent the email some time before it was suggested. Your current "defense" of that practice is strong evidence that you are still doing nothing but playing games. Frankly, your comments above remind me of grade-school rhetorical devices and the word games used by children about what is "literally true" when cornered.



A convenient limitation, since it far easier to make a living as a "professional" psychic than a "professional" confessed cold reader.

N/A
N/A,

But now you do understand... He was the same (I won't characterize it) poster when he was Sherlock Holmes and when he was Whodini. This is why I've finally given up and put him on ignore. He's mistaken this board for GameBoy.

[Clancie]

Posted by magicflute

do not twist my words
Reread the post. It was a question. Your comment is all well and good, magicflute, but it's irrelevant to the criticism of T'ai Chi that's being made in this thread.

He is not being criticized for not having peer reviewed data or making all of it available. He is being criticized for "conducting his research in secrecy" (i.e. away from this forum).

That is just ludicrous.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie

But of course, T'ai!

Claus must see it all! This is an important part of every single protocol done by anyone! Anywhere!

Otherwise all research is clearly worthless and must be....

"DISMISSED!!!"

No Clanice, we should just take people on their word like you do. That's how good science is done, huh?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Clancie

must see it all! This is an important part of every single protocol done by anyone! Anywhere!

Otherwise all research is clearly worthless and must be....

"DISMISSED!!!"

Well, that mode of thinking certainly makes it easier to maintain a belief.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by magicflute

If ANYONE wished to have their research validated then ALL data upon which the research is based must be supplied.


Yes, but at all times during the study? The researchers must respond to all demands to see the data at anytime, for any thing, for any reason?

Can you give any study where such a protocol was followed?

[Garrette]

Clancie:

Well, that's not my point. My point is to try to -find- good cold reading demonstrations. And I think that people who seem pretty well convinced that "mediumship=cold reading" should be making an effort to make many cold reading demonstrations available, for educational purposes.

I will take this opportunity to state, once again, for your benefit and for the benefit of the skeptics around, that we are mis-using the term cold-reader.

Cold reading is one method to appear to obtain information via paranormal means. It is not the only method. When skeptics limit themselves to this term, then they weaken their argument when the possibility of cold-reading is lessened.

Cheating is, imo, the proper term to use. It includes cold reading but is not limited to it.

So, Clancie, I will clarify my personal position: mediumship = cheating.

My attempts to demonstrate fake mediumship (all of it, I think) will be attempt to demonstrate cheating, not just cold reading.

And, if you'll recall from long ago on tvtalkshows, I have tried to make them available. I'm one of the first to admit that they are difficult to find. I was surprised by this at the time, but not surprised in retrospect for reasons that have been repeatedly discussed here and repeatedly ignored, it seems, by you.

There are demonstrations. You've seen them. There are not many because of those reasons we've given.



Clancie:

No one suggested having a show, obviously. But a videotape (DVD) or two, for educational sale, would be helpful. The lack of such educational cold reading demonstrations (and apparently no interest in making them--I don't think raising the money through grants would be so hard) is, imo, puzzling.

No, it's not puzzling, it's rationally explainable which has been done. And there is not a "lack" of them; there is a paucity of them. They are not as numerous as demonstrations purporting to be of actual mediumship; repeat the repeated reasons.

That being said, I agree it is worth pursuing. I have given thought to how to do it myself when I am once again in a position where I might conceivably do so.

Question: Assume that I or someone else puts on a demonstration (admittedly by cheating) which is, in all the relevant particulars, at least equal in quality to the average JE reading. But it's only one. Would you accept it as sufficiently demonstrable, or would you then revert, as you have done here, to the defense that it is "not a pattern" of success?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

N/A,

But now you do understand... He was the same (I won't characterize it) poster when he was Sherlock Holmes and when he was Whodini. This is why I've finally given up and put him on ignore. He's mistaken this board for GameBoy.

Good, less posts for me to read. :D

I hope you don't lie and actually do end up ignoring me for good (doubtful). You have little constructive things to say when decent questions are raised, you avoid questions, and you have been known to make the silliest of mistakes like saying skewness is only called skew, for example, and then not admitting your error, all the time badgering me about my knowledge, and giving pseudo-lectures on what should be done with the board.

According to you, my type are kaffe klatch tse tse woo woo balloon flies. I won't lose any sleep over your ignoring me (again, doubtful), I guarantee it.

[T'ai Chi]

I can't wait until the spreadsheet grows really large. :)

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
No statistical analysis of transcripts is ever going to convince me, unless it includes a reasonable calculation of the probability of each hit occurring by chance. I doubt very much that's ever going to happen.

So, those psychics should take another tack. How about finding the next ten missing kids?

~~ Paul I totally agree, Paul.

If a self-proclaimed psychic does find any missing child or person, purely through supernatural means, then -- and only then -- will I take any type of psychic seriously.

Otherwise, all the psychics I've seen, on TV and otherwise, are pretty much practicing cold reading, IMO.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos


No statistical analysis of transcripts is ever going to convince me, unless it includes a reasonable calculation of the probability of each hit occurring by chance. I doubt very much that's ever going to happen.


So you would follow the conclusions from statistics and probabiltiy here but don't want to in PEAR? Confusing.

[Garrette]

Forgive me for jumping in, but I don't see how your conclusion follows, T'ai.

Paul has stated why he won't follow the statistics here and what it would take for him to follow them. Don't gloss over that; it is not trivial.

Second, as I have seen pointed out to you on more than one occasion, the PEAR experiments are flawed, and the experimenters themselves state that no conclusion regarding the existence of psi can be drawn from them.

[UnTrickaBLe]

Originally posted by lynne
There is a very good reason transcripts of cold reading sessions aren't readily available - and that is because a trasncsript can rarely convey what happens in a session. I could write one up, but you would lose a lot of what happens. Let me attempt an explanation and give an example.

I do cold readings on a regular basis using the techniques as described in Ian's book, and have done so for a few years now. I have created my own divination system, called Tauromancy, because when I did the readings with Tarot or Astrology, people said that even though I was telling them I was a fraud, the system was still working. So I constructed my own system based on small gold masks and various patterned chop sticks, into which I built the cold reading elements. Let me describe a session which happened a few weeks ago at a Psychology teachers' conference when I was doing readings on teachers so they could feel what it was like to have the experience. The word 'feel' is very important.

A mid-twenties woman sat down. She laid out the masks and I did all the preliminaries as described in the set-up section of Ian's book. I take that section VERY seriously. But you can't see the laying out of the masks and the way I twist my wording to match them - so a transcript immediately loses the way I work. OK, I said that she was hoping to have children one day. Pretty standard. She said: "Yes, we do." There's the transcript. Here's the key: she said it with a reserve and a sadness in her face. Something there. The 'we' told me she was in a steady relationship. I sidetracked and a minute or so later came to a mask which represents health. I said there was a health issue concerning her. That is the start which can almost always get me a hit with further effort, depending on how she reacts. She reacted very fast so I knew it was close to her. She said nothing. Hence - not a word in the transcript. Had she reacted slower, I would have headed for older people in her family.

At this stage I went straight for the big hit. I said, with warmth and compassion: endometriosis and nodded knowingly. (For the guys - this is a very common female condition which is a major cause of fertility worries. Mid-twenties women are usually pretty healthy otherwise.) She said, with the required shock and loud enough for all those watching to hear: "But no-one knew that except my husband and doctor!" and the classic line which is my measure of success with a reading "There is NO way you could have known that!"

There were two other possibilities: she had been tested for endometriosis - which would give me a hit anyway. Almost a certainty if he had fertility concerns. Note - I did not actually say she had endometriosis. I merely named it. She heard it as if I had said it and in my reply I went on as if I had. Had she said 'no' I would have suggested, quietly, she talk to her doctor about it. I would have nodded and she would have nodded and the audience, unable to hear quite what I said, would have seen all the nodding and I still had a firm hit - the believers would have been convinced I knew something.

The reading went on for ten minutes but by this stage I had her so much convinced and had so much key information, I had complete control and could have gone 'in for the kill' which is what I consider the TV psychics do as soon as they sense the tears. A transcript of the actual wording would tell very little of what happened and someone reading a transcript could not get the full effect.

Unlike those who exploit in order to entertain and make a personal profit and reputation, I could not go on when she was clearly emotional affected by what I had done. So I stopped the reading and debriefed on exactly what I had done. I always do that. I guess it is all about how ethically you use cold reading skills.

cheers,

Lynne

What was this woman's reaction, Lynne, when you fessed up to the hoax and essentially yanked the rug out from under her?

[lynne]

Hi UnTrickaBLe,

I didn't need to fess up. I almost always operate having explained I am cold reading before I start as I did in this case. I was sitting under a sign which read 'Australian Skeptics' which was a bit of a give away. She was a psychology teacher at a psychology teachers' conference where I was invited to demonstrate Barnum Statements which are part of our year 11 Psychology course.

I did stop the reading and explain exactly how I had got there. It is pretty amazing how well the readings work even when you are quite honest about what you are doing. Mind you, by the time I have done the thorough Set-up - my version of that section in Ian Rowland's book - the sitter is then a little confused by what is real and what is not and I don't break character again until the end of the reading. None is real - the whole system is my own creation so I could be sure I was being totally scientific and had eliminated anything which may have a validity - which is why I don't use tarot / astrology / numerology or dead people.

At no stage do I consider such readings as a joke or a way to make fun of the sitters. It is a joint venture for both of us to learn more about what is really happening - which worked particularly well in this case because she was so well informed already and so honest about how she had felt completely drawn in. The discussion afterwards is always a really warm event. That's why I gained so much from doing a reading on a professional tarot reader and then discussing it honestly afterwards. I think I've mentioned it before, but in case: we concluded we were doing the same thing except she was giving the credit to the cards and I was taking all the credit myself.

So some 'psychic readers' are not really so different from us cold readers. Some seem to use the word 'psychic' to mean intuitive and then you are very close to what I think I am doing. The line is not clear.

Let me know if I still haven't answered your question.

cheers,

Lynne

[UnTrickaBLe]

Thanks, Lynne, I understand. Keep up the good work.