Mediums: Talking to the Dead

[Dragon]

On BBC 2 tonight 9 p.m. - Mediums: Talking to the Dead (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/everyman/index.shtml) They say they can talk to the dead, prove there is life after death and deliver messages to the grieving from beyond the grave. With extraordinary access, Talking to the Dead lifts the veil on mediumship in Britain and follows four different mediums as they give sittings to the bereaved, investigate hauntings and train aspiring mediums to hone their skills.

The programme comes under the "Everyman" banner and there doesn't seem to be much room for critical thinking if the above link is anything to go by.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Dragon
On BBC 2 tonight 9 p.m. - Mediums: Talking to the Dead (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/everyman/index.shtml) The programme comes under the "Everyman" banner and there doesn't seem to be much room for critical thinking if the above link is anything to go by. I was hopeful from the trailers that this would be a full investigation.

The previews I have read appear to suggest it is one sided view. I note in one review that Graham Smith, the psychic barber was very impressive as he didn’t give out initials but specific names.

Given that he appears regularly at spiritualist churches there is the possibility that he know the person he read for. There is also more chance of a specific name been a hit the more people in a room. However this is without seeing the program or segment.

What does appear clear is that none of these mediums were the five mediums with good track records provided by the Spiritualists' National Union whose recent testing showed no effect. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1310683,00.html)

On the bright side I understand that this is one of three programs so there is hope the other two will redress the balance. Unless they do I am afraid that the lure of Grand designs abroad on Channel 4 will be too strong for me.

[AlienX]

Just had a look at one of the links from the above (one of the Mediums web sites) where a written "impressive"?? reading is provided. The bloke is called Gordon Smith and claims to have passed double blind tests, maybe he should therefor apply to JREF.

Yet looking at his reading I think he should not bother, he claims specifics yet his reading is the standard fare i'm afraid - so much so i'm certain i've seen this reading before or something very very similar, certainly many of the individual sentances have cropped up before in other readings.

(Reading here --> http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/share.html)

For a reading he requests a photo of yourself and your loved one? - withouth a photo the old chestnut of "i'm letting my hair grow long" could be silly, a photo helps with this one does it not :-).

Anyway looks like the show is the usual pro medium stuff, will be interesting to watch and see how many "standard issue" statements are made.

AX

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lothian
[B]I was hopeful from the trailers that this would be a full investigation.

The previews I have read appear to suggest it is one sided view. I note in one review that Graham Smith, the psychic barber was very impressive as he didn’t give out initials but specific names.

Given that he appears regularly at spiritualist churches there is the possibility that he know the person he read for. There is also more chance of a specific name been a hit the more people in a room. However this is without seeing the program or segment.



WOW, looks like you don't need to see it.

[Soapy Sam]

Welcome back from exile, Ian.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lothian

What does appear clear is that none of these mediums were the five mediums with good track records provided by the Spiritualists' National Union whose recent testing showed no effect. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1310683,00.html)

[/B]

But this research was carried out by Wiseman. Can these results (i.e non-positive) be repeated when they are carried out by non-Skeptics?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by AlienX
Just had a look at one of the links from the above (one of the Mediums web sites) where a written "impressive"?? reading is provided. The bloke is called Gordon Smith and claims to have passed double blind tests, maybe he should therefor apply to JREF.
I have seen him before. He did one large event and it was full of the average cold reading demos. You know the stuff. I have an old man who died of a heart stoppage, he wants you to know he loves you. etc.

Then he went into “that man over there with the grey polo neck. I have someone for you. He says he is your son Graeme . He wants to say hi to his sister Esmerelda and cousins Cuthbert and Winifred. He says he is sorry that when he left home for work on the 8th august 1999 on his Yamaha 250, number plate H567TYR he didn’t say a final goodbye because he wasn’t expecting to misjudge the corner between the A89 and b45. He however now says he loves you very much,

The next reading was I am getting a R sound…..

I guess some spirits just get a better connection than others. ;)

Originally posted by Interesting IanWOW, looks like you don't need to see it.How many times do you have to see someone doing the same old, same old ?

[/quote]Originally posted by Interesting IanBut this research was carried out by Wiseman. Can these results (i.e non-positive) be repeated when they are carried out by non-Skeptics?
Yes, easily. That is how science works Ian. You do an experiment and tell everyone how you did it to see if they can repeat the results. If you follow the same proedures, I am sure will get the same results.

However I am sure that if you merely go to one of these Psychic for a reading you will be very impressed.

[JMA]

Originally posted by Lothian Yes, easily. That is how science works Ian. You do an experiment and tell everyone how you did it to see if they can repeat the results. If you follow the same proedures, I am sure will get the same results.

Ian was referring to the experimenter effect.

It means that Richard Wiseman is an antipsi. Even if Psi do exist, Wiseman'll not find anything because of his power: he is able to block any anomalous manifestation around him (my guess is that his antipsi ability works at least around 15 meters around him, maybe more...) ;)

Same thing for James Randi. He blocks anomalous manifestation around him for 30 meters or more...

[Lothian]

Originally posted by JMA
Ian was referring to the experimenter effect.

but no same person takes that seriously....oh I see, yes, you are probably right that is what he was refering to.

[Interesting Ian]

But this research was carried out by Wiseman. Can these results (i.e non-positive) be repeated when they are carried out by non-Skeptics?


Yes, easily.


Substantiate claim please.

Hang on a sec . .no you're wrong. The article states:


"The two scientists wanted to repeat previous research from the University of Arizona that suggested mediums could supply accurate information for people from deceased friends and relatives".





Lothian
That is how science works Ian. You do an experiment and tell everyone how you did it to see if they can repeat the results. If you follow the same proedures, I am sure will get the same results.



Not when dealing with human beings you ain't.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
"The two scientists wanted to repeat previous research from the University of Arizona that suggested mediums could supply accurate information for people from deceased friends and relatives."This wouldn't be referring to the work of Gary Schwarz, would it?

[Ashles]

Welcome back Ian. We missed you buddy.

Regarding the experimenter effect which may or may not exist:

The problem really is that the experimenter effect would be indistinguishable from the following scenario:

No psychic ability exists or has ever existed in the world
Some scientists who want to believe in the ability intentionally or accidentally produce false results and show positive evidence of psychic ability
Skeptical scientists produce accurate results showing no efffect

I'm not saying this is what is happening in the experiments, but it would yield the same pattern as the alleged experimenter effect.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zep
This wouldn't be referring to the work of Gary Schwarz, would it?

I imagine so.

Yeah, he didn't use a double blind protocol did he? Did Wiseman?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles


Regarding the experimenter effect which may or may not exist:

The problem really is that the experimenter effect would be indistinguishable from the following scenario:

No psychic ability exists or has ever existed in the world
Some scientists who want to believe in the ability intentionally or accidentally produce false results and show positive evidence of psychic ability
Skeptical scientists produce accurate results showing no efffect

I'm not saying this is what is happening in the experiments, but it would yield the same pattern as the alleged experimenter effect. [/B]

Regarding the experimenter effect which may or may not exist:

The problem really is that the experimenter effect would be indistinguishable from the following scenario:

Psychic ability exists and has always existed in the world.
Some scientists who don't want to believe in the ability intentionally or accidentally produce false results and show negative evidence of psychic ability
Non-Skeptical scientists produce accurate results showing a statistically significant effect

I'm not saying this is what is happening in the experiments, but it would yield the same pattern as the alleged experimenter effect.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I imagine so.

Yeah, he didn't use a double blind protocol did he? Did Wiseman? Wiseman criticised Schwartz experiments so he would have used different procedures to his own.

I am not sure about double blind. As I understand it. 5 mediums gave a readings for each of 5 sitters (25 in total)

Each recorded reading was jumbled up so it effectively became a series of statements.

For each medium the 5 sitters listened to the 5 readings and had to pick their own out They all failed.

As said I am not sure how you would double blind the above, or is it inherent in the system.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Regarding the experimenter effect which may or may not exist:

The problem really is that the experimenter effect would be indistinguishable from the following scenario:

Psychic ability exists and has always existed in the world.
Some scientists who don't want to believe in the ability intentionally or accidentally produce false results and show negative evidence of psychic ability
Non-Skeptical scientists produce accurate results showing a statistically significant effect

I'm not saying this is what is happening in the experiments, but it would yield the same pattern as the alleged experimenter effect.

That's why scientists publish their findings, so that others can test the findings and procdures to remove any tester bias. Dr. Gary Schwartz has refused to publish his findings which is why his results are considered suspect.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lothian
Wiseman criticised Schwartz experiments so he would have used different procedures to his own.

I am not sure about double blind. As I understand it. 5 mediums gave a readings for each of 5 sitters (25 in total)

Each recorded reading was jumbled up so it effectively became a series of statements.

For each medium the 5 sitters listened to the 5 readings and had to pick their own out They all failed.

As said I am not sure how you would double blind the above, or is it inherent in the system.

Wiseman would have to be in the dark as to which statement matched which sitter.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Wiseman would have to be in the dark as to which statement matched which sitter. I can see how if someone had to give a narrative about hits and misses and give a view on how good a reading was, then experimenter bias in judging the success of the reading could be important. Where the sitter merely says "reading number 3 was the best for me" I personally don't see what difference it makes, but am willing to be persuaded.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lothian
I can see how if someone had to give a narrative about hits and misses and give a view on how good a reading was, then experimenter bias in judging the success of the reading could be important. Where the sitter merely says "reading number 3 was the best for me" I personally don't see what difference it makes, but am willing to be persuaded.

OK, so you're saying that even with alleged supernatural phenomena, double blind protocols may not always be necessary in order to investigate such claims?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK, so you're saying that even with alleged supernatural phenomena, double blind protocols may not always be necessary in order to investigate such claims? Depending on the experiment, No I personally don't think it is always necessary when the results are clear cut. But I may have overlooked something and am willing to be persuaded.

[Azrael 5]

Searching through articles on Gordon Smith, apparently he's got some deal with Disney group,insert your own punchline!

[Temp3st]

Some observations on the show - interesting to see the spooky barbers son claim he doesn't believe in it - is this to give Gordon a greater degree of credibility or is his son just a bad liar?

The blind Irish lady......ah yes - what a splendid demonstration she gave - vauge comments followed by many complete misses and audience members leaving, having being converted to the dark side.
...then she complains she isn't feeling well....funny she didn't mention that BEFORE she went on stage.

Holbrook- well anyone who has seen Peter Kay's Phoenix nights will know that Holbrook is really called John Baptiste.

The bored housewife....well she was exactly that!!!
I think, at the risk of sounding sexist, she should go out and get a job instead of imagining her kids toys going off on their own.

The married psychics - seen the guy on tv before - failed miserably!!!! - wife looks likeBet Lynch!! (http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/amaclean/bet.jpg) well you've got to spend that filthy dosh on something...might as well be makeup.

Can't wait for next weeks episode where we won't see any ghosts

[jambo372]

The blind Irish woman gave vague comments ?
Did you see the private sitting she gave when she connected to that guy's dead son? Didn't look 'vague' to me.
She converted the guy into believing and he'd told her nothing and given her no clues.

Gordon Brown also gave an impressive reading to a couple who'd lost their son. He mentioned his full name - first, middle and surname, revealed what he done for a living and knew the mother had put 2 candles at his grave. It was the first time they met him and he asked no questions.

[Azrael 5]

No comments about the progarmme then? My general feeling was why cant they get a skeptic on the show,sit them down with one while they do a reading,and then see how convinced the couples were(the nearest we came to skepticism was about two questions "Why dont they say its Jim Smith here" and one to Sharon Neill "Why were the messages so vague"Obviously we all know on here its bul**it,but how bad was Sharon Neill?! The crushing silence in the theatre as she floundered around with miss after miss.Some of the hits in the private sittings were good-I suspect information had to have been leaked-especially with the psychic barber (who knew in advance who he was reading,as they had to book!)having a TV crew around is always suspicious!
Then finally to the awfully distraught woman and her husband,seeking solace in numerous visits to Stephen Holbrook(a former hairdresser,what is it with the hair trade tonight?)who Ive seen and -as was shown-is just a cold reader with a mullett hair do.My heart went out to the poor woman(although doing her own voiceover was pushing it),the grief had taken its toll on her face."He(her son)normally comes through with "A head injury here" I know its him then!" Whats the bet the TV cameras there were just too much for Holbrook to chance his act? The only words of sense for an hour came from a grief counsellor at the hospital. Give him an hour with one of the three next week.:(

I see there have been posts now,god I do type a lot,lol

[charva_gj]

I seen it too. Not a lot of scepticism in it and put together in such a way so the casual obverver would probably think "there's something to it".

The blind woman was embarrassing - I was on the verge of changing the channel when she was doing her stage show as it was so cringworthy. However, to be fair she did have a few hits when doing the reading for the pub landlord. She bombed out when doing the reading for his wife, though.

The barber's reading for the other couple who had lost their son was quite impressive. He got the first, middle and last name of the son among other things. Its hard to be objective about an edited show, though. Having said that, it still didn't make a believer out of me.

[Azrael 5]

Jambo,he didnt say anything about candles at the grave,quote"He thanks you for the candles" Those were his words,she embellished the rest.;)

[Loki]

Lothian,

From the link you posted about the testing of the five mediums :
A spokesperson for the Spiritualists' National Union could not be contacted.
Well, perhaps the Guardian should have tried using a medium to make contact???

[Lothian]

Originally posted by jambo372
The blind Irish woman gave vague comments ?
Did you see the private sitting she gave when she connected to that guy's dead son? Didn't look 'vague' to me.
She converted the guy into believing and he'd told her nothing and given her no clues.

Gordon Brown also gave an impressive reading to a couple who'd lost their son. He mentioned his full name - first, middle and surname, revealed what he done for a living and knew the mother had put 2 candles at his grave. It was the first time they met him and he asked no questions. Oh yes she was very specific. Started off with an older lady no one knew. But the older lady knew the woman well enough to know it was typical for here not to switch her phone off. Wow !

She knew that the woman was the boy’s mother and knew the boy died in the back yard.

Those are some big errors off the top of my head. This was cold reading.


The psychic barber, Strange we are told Gordon didn’t know any names. Does he not read his own diary?.
For the names of the couple: who have to explain to the diary keeper how important it is they need to contact whoever so she can make judgements on who he sees. From a name, well we know one newspaper covered the story. This was hot reading

[jambo372]

Azrael 5
He didn't need to - she knew exactly what he meant.

[Loki]

Ian,

Just want to say that I agree with you completely - there's no real difference between these two proposed theories :

1. Psi exists, and anti-psi researchers can produce negative results because they interfere with an experiment's results via "negative vibes, man".

2. Psi doesn't exist, and pro-psi reserachers can produce positive results because they actively, or inadvertantly, make mistakes in protocol or result gathering.

Now, how do you propose to resolve the conflict?

(Edited to Add : I have a process for choosing between the two alternatives, and it doesn't rest on "because I intuitively have always known which one is more likely". Just want to hear if you have anything other than you instincts to guide you here Ian)

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by jambo372
Azrael 5
He didn't need to - she knew exactly what he meant.
Yes.He meant he was making up as he went along.;)

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by jambo372
Azrael 5
He didn't need to - she knew exactly what he meant.

This is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

She knew exactly what she thought he meant.

Notice the medium said nothing about graves. He never mentioned the number of candles. He never mentioned any time frame for candles, or whether they were gifts, or anything else. I can think of several times I have recieved candles as gifts, as can most people. This guess from the medium could also have fit any of the following:

An earlier housewarming gift of decorative candles, or something similar

Her placement of candles on any other grave of a relative that was close to the dead boy

Candles at a funeral service, church service, or placed on a grave

Candles at a wake or viewing

Candles used during an emergency, such as a major blackout

There are other possibilities as well. The medium did not spcify that she placed two candles on her son's grave, he just mentioned candles. The mother made the conenction herself, not the medium. Candles are a fairly common practice, especially during the viewing and funeral..especially among certain religious demoninations. I would hardly count this as impressive, or even noteworthy.

Now, if the medium had said "He thanks you for the two purple candles you put on his grave last Thyrsday night" then we might be on to something.

[Interesting Ian]

Huntsman,

You're a very very sick person. I thought that maybe you had changed your avatar so I clicked the reveal message. Indeed you have; now its worse.

Don't ever expect me to take you off ignore.

[Dragon]

I was only able to watch about half of it. Most of what I did see looked like cold reading.

Jambo, you said - Gordon Brown also gave an impressive reading to a couple who'd lost their son. He mentioned his full name - first, middle and surname, revealed what he done for a living and knew the mother had put 2 candles at his grave. It was the first time they met him and he asked no questions.
I think he got the middle name and a similar surname (perhaps someone who recorded this could confirm). The show is edited -how do you know he asked no questions? How do you know he had no previous knowledge of the couple? Just because he said so?
Azrael and Huntsman have covered the "candle" hit - classic cold reading.

I'll be at work next Wednesday - might bother to set the video but so far I'm not impressed.

Oh - welcome back Ian!

[Azrael 5]

Had no previous knowledge of the couple? Do me a favour.They had to make an appointmwnt with the dizzy old bat who ran the church,who was very selective who she gave appointments to.Plus the fact they had a newspaper cutting with them,and a film crew.Get with it!
As an aside I guessed who the pub landlord had lost and how(in his dads case)I didnt get suicide ,just a tradegy(which would probably do for me)in his sons case.As far as I know Im not a medium...more an XL,lol;)

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
As an aside I guessed who the pub landlord had lost and how(in his dads case)I didnt get suicide ,just a tradegy(which would probably do for me)in his sons case.As far as I know Im not a medium...more an XL,lol;) I thought it was his dad so just like the cold reader whose first guess was his mother I was wrong. I did pick up the woman was not the boys mother. When the cold reader made the fantastic insightful revelation that the boy was saying to her ‘Hello Mum’, she looked embarrassed and explained she was not the mother.

The cold reader then made the standard response. Oh yes, he knows that but he is saying he thinks of you as his mum and is now saying that ‘Hello Mum’

Fortunately the cold reader was blind because the look on the woman’s face was not the happy response that this puff piece should give. I suspect that the couple got together after the boys death and she had never met him.

One of the other cold readers used the same trick. I have your mother here. Zip. I say mother but I mean the characteristics of a mother, grand mother, a motherly nature zip. Ok she is here for someone else. I suppose it was time to call it a day on that guess, but I may have pushed further by saying. This motherly nature is true, deep inside her but she more often than not had difficulty in letting it show, that way you cover all bases and get a hit with any female.

Huntsman mentioned confirmation bias. The one that was cynically exploiting the vulnerable for his own gain. Sorry, I should narrow it down. The one that was cynically exploiting the vulnerable for his own gain with a dodgy hair cut, had a hit with the woman’s son or brother, gave a message that she should look after her family.

At least the cold reader and everyone listening would have thought she had lost a son or brother. As she said later however the connection was a friend of her sons.

[AlienX]

Hats off to the "blind medium" as it must be significantly harder to cold read.. probably why the failure was so bad.

The main problem i've got with Gordon Smith is there are clear examples of readings by him that are cold readings. I just don't get it how we let these people get away with such obvious examples.

Many people point out the fact that on rare occasions the mediums are very accurate and the rest of the time display all the characteristics of cold readers and are very vague. This doesn't make much sense if they do what they claim they do.

If a medium came along that never displayed instances of clear cold reading people would take notice.

I did note that on G Smiths website he heavily emphasises the comfort side of his "work". Also as said earlier GS asks for information prior to a reading (He says so himself on his website)

"How to get in touch If you have a question about a dead loved one or your personal situation, you can write to Gordon. The letter should be in your own handwriting and accompanied by a photograph of yourself and your loved one. We regret we cannot return photos or reply privately to letters. Send your letter to: The Psychic Barber, Daily Record, One Central Quay, Glasgow G3 8DA."(http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/share.html).

AX

[fsol]

The blind Irish woman gave vague comments ?
Did you see the private sitting she gave when she connected to that guy's dead son? Didn't look 'vague' to me.
She converted the guy into believing and he'd told her nothing and given her no clues.

I thought she was shameless. That was probably the most uncomfortable part of the show. She flailed around a bit getting things wrong, before finally settling on the son. It seemed like she assumed she was meant to be doing a reading for the woman, who giben her age would likely have been grieving her mother. Terrible.

I think it is a three part series, so after we don't see any ghosts next week, I hope they tear it all down in part three.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by AlienX
"How to get in touch If you have a question about a dead loved one....... Send your letter to: The Psychic Barber, Daily Record, One Central Quay, Glasgow G3 8DA."[/B] I noted in the show he said he didn't like to be called the Psychic Barber. Any suggestions for what he should be called ? Remember that swearing is not allowed on the board.

[TheBoyPaj]

I was quite annoyed at first, given the total lack of sceptical viewpoint (other than the weary sighs of the grievance counsellor).

But I watched it with my wife, who has far more of a "live and let live" attitude than I do. She was of the opinion that there is no harm in people having these beliefs, whether they are justified or not, and she approached it with few preconceived ideas. However, she was unimpressed with the performances on show and, when she saw the final couple with that poor woman who lives day to day looking forward to hearing another message "from her dead son", she had to admit that this woman is being victimised by mediums.

The show did a good job of showing up how desperate these people are for anything resembling proof, and how they can be convinced by some very uninspiring cold reading. But I would have liked that message made a little clearer.

Maybe in a future episode, but I don't hold out much hope.

[Temp3st]

Originally posted by Lothian
I noted in the show he said he didn't like to be called the Psychic Barber. Any suggestions for what he should be called ? Remember that swearing is not allowed on the board.

How about 'The Barber'?

[Oleron]

I was surprised to see Sharon Neill doing her UK tour on the program. Surprised because a number of years ago my wife and I went for a reading with her.

My wife had been going on for ages about how she'd heard about this amazing blind woman who was super-psychic. She'd heard about this lady from several work colleagues who all raved about her.

She wanted to go for a reading and challenged me to get one at the same time. I think her motive was to prove me wrong about psychics.

After much objection I agreed to do it. Anything for a quiet life!

When we arrived at Sharon's house she greeted us in an informal, friendly manner. We asked to be seen separately and Sharon agreed.

She 'read' my wife first and then myself.

In all my experience I can honestly say that I have never heard or seen a worse reading than I got that day!
She mentioned I was artistic -I'm not at all, in any way.
She said I had children- wrong.
She got in touch with my father and both grandfathers - odd because they were all still alive at that time.
She said I was planning a wedding - no, I was married.
She changed this to 'someone' was planning a wedding- actually no-one I knew was planning a wedding at that stage. She moved on.

On it went like this until I started feeling embarrassed for her and actually tried to GIVE her some information to ease the tension. Even then she managed to misinterpret what I'd offered! In the end she gave me some vague advice about decisions I should make in the near future - all completely irrelevant to my life. I thanked her and left.

In the car on the way home, my wife asked me what I thought. I told her, bluntly. She looked at me and told me that she felt exactly the same way! Her reading was an unmitigated disaster also!

I never went to see a psychic again and my wife never mentioned the subject again.

I see Sharon hasn't improved much....

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Oleron
I was surprised to see Sharon Neill doing her UK tour on the program. Surprised because a number of years ago my wife and I went for a reading with her.

My wife had been going on for ages about how she'd heard about this amazing blind woman who was super-psychic. She'd heard about this lady from several work colleagues who all raved about her.

She wanted to go for a reading and challenged me to get one at the same time. I think her motive was to prove me wrong about psychics.

After much objection I agreed to do it. Anything for a quiet life!

When we arrived at Sharon's house she greeted us in an informal, friendly manner. We asked to be seen separately and Sharon agreed.

She 'read' my wife first and then myself.

In all my experience I can honestly say that I have never heard or seen a worse reading than I got that day!
She mentioned I was artistic -I'm not at all, in any way.
She said I had children- wrong.
She got in touch with my father and both grandfathers - odd because they were all still alive at that time.
She said I was planning a wedding - no, I was married.
She changed this to 'someone' was planning a wedding- actually no-one I knew was planning a wedding at that stage. She moved on.

On it went like this until I started feeling embarrassed for her and actually tried to GIVE her some information to ease the tension. Even then she managed to misinterpret what I'd offered! In the end she gave me some vague advice about decisions I should make in the near future - all completely irrelevant to my life. I thanked her and left.

In the car on the way home, my wife asked me what I thought. I told her, bluntly. She looked at me and told me that she felt exactly the same way! Her reading was an unmitigated disaster also!

I never went to see a psychic again and my wife never mentioned the subject again.

I see Sharon hasn't improved much....

Nice anecdote :D

I was challenged a while back to arrange a reading with Sahron Neil as the other person was so impressed by her. They even had a recording of the session, but due to the highly detailed and personal information in the recording they were not prepared to provide a copy of the recording :rolleyes:

I said I was happy to visit Sharon if she happned to be performing near by to me and it wasn't going to cost me a fortune, and that I could video the reading, as yet the opportunity has not arisen.

Anyway - just wondering if you had recorded your sessions at all??

[Azrael 5]

I felt so sorry for the woman at the end,who was planning her next meeting with Stephen Holbrook-in the hope of a message from her son-that I may just go along to Otley town hall(about 8 miles from me) or whatever the venue was,in December and expose the flouncey git!With some burly mates,just in case! Lol

[Oleron]

Originally posted by Stitch

Anyway - just wondering if you had recorded your sessions at all??

I'm afraid not, it didn't occur to me at the time. :(

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Oleron
I'm afraid not, it didn't occur to me at the time. :(

< HomerSimpson >
Doh!
< / HomerSimpson >

[AlienX]

There have been many "Expose" shows on UK TV recently - from Manchester Airport security to the BNP etc. I'm suprised weve not seen any relating to Mediums yet.

Yet even when they are exposed I doub't it would make much difference (Remember when Uri Geller (not a medium but with geller i suppose he's claimed to be at some point) was caught red handed cheating by hidden cameras.. absolute classic, 100% caught with his hand well and truly in the cookie jar and crumbs all over his face.. yet he's still bumbling along with the same old rubbish).

We can argue all day if they do any good but the main point is they are profiting from what appears to be fraud. Also they are not liable for any damage they do - if they change it so they are liable then let them fire away as far as i'm concerned.

AX

[Azrael 5]

For a moment tonight I thought we were veering towards some skepticism.With some Vice President of Scottish Pyschical research hooking a medium to a blood pressure machine(?).Mediums have blood pressure! Shocking! But then she went on a ghost hunt and it fell by the wayside.Then there was a teenage lad who only read a book about the paranormal,and became possesed.But one argument with blind medium Sharon Neill and her spirit team later,and he was much better!! I expected better of Everyman,really.;) Even a local vicar voiced concerns about mediumship " Not knowing what you are getting into" *Shrugs*:(

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
For a moment tonight I thought we were veering towards some skepticism.With some Vice President of Scottish Pyschical research hooking a medium to a blood pressure machine(?).Mediums have blood pressure! Shocking! But then she went on a ghost hunt and it fell by the wayside.Then there was a teenage lad who only read a book about the paranormal,and became possesed.But one argument with blind medium Sharon Neill and her spirit team later,and he was much better!! I expected better of Everyman,really.;) Even a local vicar voiced concerns about mediumship " Not knowing what you are getting into" *Shrugs*:(

Why don't you read some serious books on the subject rather than watch stupid TV programmes?? :rolleyes: Do you have no interest in discovering the truth??

[Open Mind]

I watched the first 2 programs, Gordon Smith is not 'cold reading', the information is too accurate, he is either cheating ....... or genuinely doing something paranormal. I doubt selective TV editing would completely explain it either.

Either way more interesting than a medium deluding themselves, the rest on the program are awful :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
For a moment tonight I thought we were veering towards some skepticism.With some Vice President of Scottish Pyschical research hooking a medium to a blood pressure machine(?).Mediums have blood pressure! Shocking! But then she went on a ghost hunt and it fell by the wayside.

Did they check her armpit for a rubber ball?

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I watched the first 2 programs, Gordon Smith is not 'cold reading', the information is too accurate, he is either cheating ....... or genuinely doing something paranormal. I doubt selective TV editing would completely explain it either.

Either way more interesting than a medium deluding themselves, the rest on the program are awful :)
Both instances of Gordon Smith have been at the chusrch in London with parents who had to arrange their visit(give names etc.)both sets of parents had lost sons,in situations that had be carried in newspapers(last weeks couple even had the cutting with them)so I would definetly say hot reading.Even so last night he tried some cold reading-"Maggie,Margaret,Margherita?" and "Hes standing by a large rock" No response " I dont know where this is.." Neither did the spirit obviously,even though he was stood there! This is from memory,I have recorded it so will check,but its good enough to show he's still a fake.
;)

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But this research was carried out by Wiseman. Can these results (i.e non-positive) be repeated when they are carried out by non-Skeptics?

:D That is a fair point

Richard Wiseman (CSICOP fellow, sceptic ) - Marilyn Schiltz (open minded sceptic) did the same 'sense of being watched trial', same format, same people. Wiseman got no PSI evidence, Schiltz did. Trial repeated same result.

Back to the recent trial
from Guardian

said this was the best test of the abilities of mediums carried out so far.

That is a very bold claim :o I must check it out.

[andycal]

I watched a bit of this nonsense last night (Wednesdays are a trial on the remote what with History of British Isles and Grand Designs on at the same time!) and if they are leading up to a big reveal in the thrid episode, it'll be very embarrasing for everyone involved.

The program seems to hover between a serious documentary and a spoof - anyone notice if Dom Jolly is on the production team?

I mean, last night they went into an attic and we saw some nutter pull out a thermometer (digital, obviously, good job ghosts aren't analogue) and suddenly the temperature dropped!!

Formula therefore :

Temperature in open, draughty unheated attic = cooler than in this guys pocket therefore ghosts must be abroad!

The same nut case proceeded to take pictures of the timbers, the room, the roof and anything else to make himself look busy whilst some woman talked gibberish to the interviewer.

It's hard to know where it's going...

[Interesting Ian]

If it's so awful (which I agree), why are people watching it then? To bolster their Skepticism?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If it's so awful (which I agree), why are people watching it then? To bolster their Skepticism?

Because believers - such as yourself - need the fix. And they lack the courage to see the world as it really is.

[andycal]

If it's so awful (which I agree), why are people watching it then? To bolster their Skepticism?

You've gotta keep abreast of what's going on. For example, I just know that down the pub on Friday night, someone is going to say "Wow did you see that guy who could talk to the dead and stuff, it waz grate" etc.

Like when ITV had Roger Moore talking about how the KGB used ghosts for spying - one of my friends was convinced it was true - I had to drag him from the dark side.

By the way, as an aside to this, I have had some success in getting one friend in particular to think about what he's told. He's now definately more skeptical than he used to be and questions stuff rather than accepting it just because "the fat bloke down the pub said so".

Chalk one up for the good guys...

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Oleron
In all my experience I can honestly say that I have never heard or seen a worse reading than I got that day!
She mentioned I was artistic -I'm not at all, in any way.
She said I had children- wrong.
She got in touch with my father and both grandfathers - odd because they were all still alive at that time.
She said I was planning a wedding - no, I was married.
She changed this to 'someone' was planning a wedding- actually no-one I knew was planning a wedding at that stage. She moved on.
But you see, this is the famous experimenter effect. Mediums lose their powers around smart people.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If it's so awful (which I agree), why are people watching it then? To bolster their Skepticism?
Because the posters on this thread lack psychic powers, they didn't know in advance how rubbish it was going to be.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why don't you read some serious books on the subject rather than watch stupid TV programmes?? :rolleyes: Do you have no interest in discovering the truth??
Quite so. If I want to discover the truth about mediums, actually watching them strut their stuff is entirely ineffective. Instead, I should refuse to watch them perform, and read a book about the paranormal....

[Azrael 5]

To quote the numptys on Ghosts UK,Dr Adequate "Well said." Which reminds me...it took them a couple of days but this morning someone finally wrote "He(Randi)doesnt have the money" We should open a sweepstake up on length of time before token comments are made.Im going back to annoy them now...

[Ashles]

Some of them are real morons on that site. I have made so far 2 posts, and have been accused of "sinking to sceptic's level".

I haven't been rude or abusive to anyone, I merely defended the actions of someone having severe doubts about the legitimacy of certain mediums.

Obviously I committed some form of thought crime by not confirming or by having a different opinion.

I await my imminent ban.

[Azrael 5]

You mentioned Soham,Ashles thats enough to get you baned over there.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Loki
Ian,

Just want to say that I agree with you completely - there's no real difference between these two proposed theories :

1. Psi exists, and anti-psi researchers can produce negative results because they interfere with an experiment's results via "negative vibes, man".

2. Psi doesn't exist, and pro-psi reserachers can produce positive results because they actively, or inadvertantly, make mistakes in protocol or result gathering.

Now, how do you propose to resolve the conflict?

(Edited to Add : I have a process for choosing between the two alternatives, and it doesn't rest on "because I intuitively have always known which one is more likely". Just want to hear if you have anything other than you instincts to guide you here Ian)

If 'skeptical blocking' exists it ought to be measurable (unless there is no limit to this power, but in that case no psychic phenomina would be possible as long as there was at least one skeptic alive...). The effect should wane as the skeptic is moved further and further from the test, somewhat analagous to a dose/response curve for determining if a new drug is truely responsible for an observed effect. It is surprising, given how often 'skeptical blocking' is touted as an excuse for failures, that no one has attempted these measurements. If it exists, it must be one of the most repeatable and reliable of all psychic phenomina....

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by patnray
If it exists, it must be one of the most repeatable and reliable of all psychic phenomina....
Nice.

It can't apply as an excuse to those tests where the JREF does a baseline test: e.g. letting a water dowser try the first time when s/he knows where the water is, the second when s/he doesn't. The ambient levels of scepticism about water dowsing are equal in both cases: the only difference is that in the second case, the dowser would need to be able to dowse.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If it's so awful (which I agree), why are people watching it then? To bolster their Skepticism?

I watch it to see if the subject it treated seriously or just made a mockery off. Why have useless non psychic training to be psychics? (I don’t want to watch people learn the violin either :) ) Singing on buses? (to make them look idiots ….. even if they are :) ). A Christian who thinks he is possessed goes for help from a psychic who he thinks she is doing something evil? (Doesn’t make sense!) . A psychic dancing to Marilyn Monroe when hoovering the floor? :D And so on. Also the editing of the program is pathetic.

The program would be better 20 minutes long, leave Gordon Smith (remove the other garbage) at least he is doing something interesting, either genuine or hot reading. Instead of just saying Gordon Smith doesn't know the recipient of his psychic demonstrations, actually make sure and show he doesn't on program.

And preferably any test controlled by any open minded scientist (i.e. not a CSICOP psychologist ;)

[Open Mind]

Speaking of CSICOP psychologists, Richard Wise?man has been playing at being a scientist again. His latest trial tested involved 5 psychics with 5 people and he summed up …


"These are probably the most rigorous experiments that have been done in this field , and they show that the mediums could not contact the spirits and give accurate readings under controlled conditions," Richard Wiseman, of the University of Hertfordshire, told the paper


The ‘most rigorous’ appears to have involved using only 5 psychics giving only 5 messages to only 5 people (25 in total?) :rolleyes:

How long did that take? Two hours? I doubt a whole day? :D Rigorous?.

He says the mediums comments were ‘recorded, jumbled up and then played back in random order, none of the sitters recognized their own readings Why did he jumble up the order of the comments? Has he tried that with any psychology book and tested if anyone could understand it? Is this guy a CSICOPmedian? :D

But as he states again in another newspaper ’ In my opinion this was the best controlled test so far’. Has he read the history of psychical research to any degree? Or has he only read other psychologists?

The best? Even the Amateur Scottish Society for Psychical Research (using Gordon Smith and 12 other psychics) conducted a much more in depth, longer trials. Let’s compare this ‘amateur’ test with Richard Wiseman

Wiseman - 5 psychics
Amateurs - 13 psychics
Wiseman - fixed 5 people receiving messages
Amateurs - Choice of 30 people with random seat numbers receiving messages
Wiseman - No visual contact between psychic and recipient
Amateurs - No visual contact between psychic and recipient
Wiseman – Recipient doesn’t respond to psychic .
Amateurs - Recipient doesn’t respond to psychic .
Wiseman -Recipient does not know he is the recipient.
Amateurs - Recipient does not know he is the recipient.
Wiseman – So far unknown how recipient were chosen
Amateurs – Double blind, no one knows actual recipient
Wiseman - trial repeated ? It doesn't appear so
Amateurs - Yes trial repeated.

Wiseman conclusion – No evidence, it doesn't exist.
Amateurs – strong evidence for PSI

Wiseman methodology errors include...
-No repeat of trial, it appears (from his comments) he did the trial only once.
-Could be 5 useless ‘professional’ psychics (because they earn money proves nothing).
-Low number of recipients, causing host of potential errors, (e.g. 5 overly skeptical or even 5 plain idiot gullibles) would produce no evidence too. More importantly PSI is generally a weak ability (even if psychics ego thinks otherwise)
-Wiseman jumbling statements order for what purpose? (other than to make incoherent?)

Somebody out there needs to set up a 'Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of Psychologists' ;)

[Azrael 5]

Could you post a link to the results of the Scottish amateurs please.Expecting unbiased critical analysis of mediums on TV is like getting a medium to admit they're fake:it just doesnt happen.
Lets see Gordon Smith do a impromptu reading,thats suddenly ,without warning thrust upon him.Then we will see how much of the oothers was hot reading(most of it).;)

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Open Mind
He says the mediums comments were ‘recorded, jumbled up and then played back in random order, none of the sitters recognized their own readings Why did he jumble up the order of the comments? Has he tried that with any psychology book and tested if anyone could understand it? Is this guy a CSICOPmedian? :D


I think perhaps you do understand, but pretend not to.

He recorded the mediums' readings for 5 people, then played them back in random order. As in person 4, then person 2, then person 1 etc.

Not as in jumbling up the sentences. :rolleyes:

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I think perhaps you do understand, but pretend not to.

He recorded the mediums' readings for 5 people, then played them back in random order. As in person 4, then person 2, then person 1 etc.

Not as in jumbling up the sentences. :rolleyes:

Yeah I think you are right :) but he did say what I said, at least you cannot accuse me of 'making the message fit' ;)

Cheers :)

Bill

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Could you post a link to the results of the Scottish amateurs please.

I never read it on the internet but I will see if I can track down a internet link.

Also it might have been wrong of me to have said 'amateurs' , seemingly the Scottish Society for Psychical Research is an 'amateur' group however the test was actually done by a Professor Archie Roy and a Tricia Robertson who run it, rather than the members, slight difference.

Later,

Bill

[Azrael 5]

The series hasnt finished yet Stephen Holbrook already has "As seen on BBC2's Everyman" quoted on his tour date ad(seen in my local paper)So a shattering expose in ep3 is obviously off the agenda!;)

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Also it might have been wrong of me to have said 'amateurs' , seemingly the Scottish Society for Psychical Research is an 'amateur' group however the test was actually done by a Professor Archie Roy and a Tricia Robertson who run it, rather than the members, slight difference. Err, not really,

They are amateurs (albeit interested amateurs)

Professor Archie Roy is a Professor of Astronomy and his psychic work is outside his work there.

He is however, 'The founder of the Scottish Society for Psychical Research'- and is I understand still a Vice President.


Tricia Robertson is Vice President of the Scottish Society for Psychical Research

But lets not use that to downplay their experiments because as they say.

I will just say that even in triple (arguably quadruple) blind conditions the intended recipients’ acceptance levels continued to be higher than non- recipients Quadruple blind ! How can anyone argue? And if the procedures don’t convince you the statitstics will

Professor Roy says that highly accurate information was given and that the probability that it was due to chance was one in a hundred million million million

That it for those struggling with the millions. 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.

And for those still questioning

Our results incorporate all of the mediums who were used; if we had only given the results from the “superstars” the odds against chance would have been even greater. No amendments were made to any data sheets after the experimental sessions ended, even if someone “remembered” something as being correct after they had given a NO response – it remained as a NO.

Well that is reassuring. I presume they be splitting the £1,000,000 reward ?

Some reading while 'Open Mind' tracks his links.

http://www.sspr.org.uk/Search.html
http://www.sspr.org.uk/Articles.html
http://www.rnw.nl/special/en/html/030221medium.html
http://www.nsac.org/newsletter/2003/2003-06-jun.htm

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lothian
Quadruple blind ! How can anyone argue?

It means that nobody knows what anyone is doing! :D

.....but I'd still like to know what they think it means...

Originally posted by Lothian
That it for those struggling with the millions. 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Always question nice, even numbers like that. How on Earth did they calculate that?

[CFLarsen]

Two articles about Robertson/Roy:

Testing a Non-Existent Claim (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/robertsonroy1.htm)

A Better Protocol, At Last? (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/robertsonroy2.htm)

[Azrael 5]

Ive posted these few snippets from Seance nonsense (http://www.thepsychictimes.com/articles/seance.htm) as they are so inviting to criticism its unbeliavable
Soon two trumpets were flying around up to about 8ft (2.4m) from the medium who was located behind a curtain in a corner of the room. This type of phenomena does not provide direct evidence of Survival, but does show just how flexible and adaptable ectoplasm is. And I don't know how anyone other than our Spirit friends could so accurately propel trumpets rapidly around the room in the dark without hitting anything

In the dark..and behind a curtain.Amazing!
Although we were sitting in the dark, we could follow the movement of the trumpets by the clearly visible luminous bands around them. Later on our only other visible evidence came when, what we were told was a partly materialised form, produced light and moved around the room. This

Believe everything "they're told" obviously!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Why don't you read some serious books on the subject rather than watch stupid TV programmes?? Do you have no interest in discovering the truth??
Absolutely! I recommend:


The Medium and the Scientist, Trevor Hall
The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading, Ian Rowland
The Psychic Mafia, Lamar Keene
The Psychology of the Psychic, David Marks


~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So if this skeptical interference thing is real, I presume psi researchers are going to amend their protocols to interview everyone in sight after the trials are over: the subjects, researchers, nearby grad students, research staff, janitors, everyone's significant others, etc. Then they will compute up an "interference factor" for each trial and see if it correlates to the results of the trial. We should see some interesting results from this.

Edited to add: And if the skeptical interference can be retroactive, they should also interview everyone in the future who reads their paper.

~~ Paul

[Loki]

Paul,

And if the skeptical interference can be retroactive, they should also interview everyone in the future who reads their paper.
You are closer to the truth here than you realise! In fact, you have the concept right, but the power wrong - it is psychic power that is retroactive. There are no psychics in the 21st century - when we see bursts of psychic 'ability' around us today this is nothing more than a temporal feedback from the great psychic masters of the 24th century. These mental giants use their awesome powers to correct the problems of the 24th century Earth (you know - cleaning up pollution, straightening out all that bent cutlery). A direct side effect of all this psychic exertion is a 'timeslip' of quantamical ectoplasm, which manifests as a high frequency vortex. The net result - sudden, random manifestations in the 21st century that come and go with no apparent reason.

[Azrael 5]

Last episode tonight. Any chance of a Scooby Doo ending?;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Last episode tonight. Any chance of a Scooby Doo ending?;)

Oh yeah {yawn}, I might as well watch it I suppose. It's on now is it? ie 9 pm?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Last episode tonight. Any chance of a Scooby Doo ending?;)
"And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those pesky facts!"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh yeah {yawn}, I might as well watch it I suppose. It's on now is it? ie 9 pm?

Hmmm . .much better than I thought. So much for the cold reading hypothesis.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Hmmm . .much better than I thought. So much for the cold reading hypothesis.
even Stevie Wonder wouldnt have been fooled by the amauteurish display tonight.Still Craig Parker stating "If anyone caught me cheating Id leave mediumship" is asking for trouble.That poor young guy who was left floundering around the audience looking for someone to "take a doormat..someone's moved a doormat" Amazing,Ian I agree.Amazing no-one sat there couldnt see through it! A spirit guide called brown bear! Is that the best he could do? Seems American audiences are more gullible than any other on the planet.Why would that black woman's mother decide to come through to a scottish medium,when she lived in San Fransisco? A bit fussy is she? American mediums not good enough fo rher vague messages?;)

[Ralfy]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
even Stevie Wonder wouldnt have been fooled by the amauteurish display tonight.Still Craig Parker stating "If anyone caught me cheating Id leave mediumship" is asking for trouble.

From what i have seen on the program (I missed most of program 2) Craig Parker is cold reading, so is he actually, in his own mind, cheating, whereas Gordon Smith is either hot reading (cheating) or the most convincing medium/showman I've ever seen (selective editing withstanding).

If Gordon is hot reading, I can see how he would have set it up with the British couples and the American black woman, but in an audience of over 1000, wouldn't this be a lot more difficult?

I had expected this thread to be alive with debate and critiques of each of Gordon's readings. I am interested in hearing some skeptical explanations for his accuracy.

I suppose there would be no chance of getting Gordon to apply for the Challenge. If tonight's program was anything to go by he stands to make far in excess of one million dollars in the U.S.

[Ashles]

The young medium (Danny was it?) was astonishingly bad. I could barely watch the TV in a kind of watching David Brent embarass himself kind of way.
Even the other mediums were starting to look a little embarassed.

It seemed like his mentor (the Doris Day, ahem, lookalike) wasn't entirely convinced by him when she did her little impromptu test beforehand.

Gordon Smith, on the other hand, was almost certainly not cold reading. His first reading with the woman looking to talk to her mother was extremely bad all the way through, but finished with a big hit with the woman's father.
He described a bang and felt like he was holding a gun and, indeed, the woman's father had been shot outside a building oppisite.
Two things:
1) The woman specifically wanted to contact her mother and felt that her mother had arranged all of this to speak to her. This did not happen at all
2) If you knew someone was coming to you for a reading then finding out that their father had been publicly shot would not be particularly hard to do

He was very accurate indeed in the large reading session. This could not realistically have been cold reading.

I know Ian has his 'rolls eyes' icon all ready, but I find it strange that, when mediumship is so hit and miss, Gordon was lucky enough to get such an extremely good reading to start the session with. Similarly it's very convenient that he managed to end the previous reading with such a strong hit. Timing is everything.

The BBC also cunningly managed to get all the mediums to admit their desires to be famous.

So all in all, sceptics, still sceptics, believers still believers. Any other result... now that would have been something.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
That poor young guy who was left floundering around the audience looking for someone to "take a doormat..someone's moved a doormat"


He was left floundering, until he got the right person. Then everything fit. It seemed unlikely to me to be cold reading.

[Ralfy]

Originally posted by Ashles
So all in all, sceptics, still sceptics, believers still believers. Any other result... now that would have been something.

As well as the minority of skeptics and believers watching this program, there will be a large number of viewers who are neither, who, after seeing this very one-sided series of 3 seperate 1 hour programs, will be much more likely to think there is something to this life after death thing after all.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles


Gordon Smith, on the other hand, was almost certainly not cold reading. His first reading with the woman looking to talk to her mother was extremely bad all the way through,



No, just not as convincing as his normal performances. It could have conceivably been cold reading, but it was somewhat unlikely.

[Ralfy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He was left floundering, until he got the right person. Then everything fit. It seemed unlikely to me to be cold reading.

Were you watching the same program???

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ralfy
As well as the minority of skeptics and believers watching this program, there will be a large number of viewers who are neither, who, after seeing this very one-sided series of 3 seperate 1 hour programs, will be much more likely to think there is something to this life after death thing after all.

How was it one sided?

[Ralfy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How was it one sided?

As I have already mentioned I only saw the first and third episodes in full with a bit of episode 2 in passing, but overall I found it very one-sided. For example there was no mention of how the same results could be achieved by either hot or cold reading, no skeptical counter arguments and the readings with Gordon were edited to appear as if he had no prior knowledge of who he was meeting, whereas it is more than likely that he had names of all the sitters hours if not days in advance (remember this was a TV programme with a team of researchers and camera crew (not that I am suggesting that Gordon got any info directly from them)).

[Ashles]

No, just not as convincing as his normal performances. It could have conceivably been cold reading, but it was somewhat unlikely.
Two men are mentioned from different generations and so are the good old fashioned 'chest problems'. Alison nods, looks slightly confused and says "I think so". Do anyone know anyone this reading wouldn't apply to?

He (which he?) passed on close to an anniversary, birthday or special occasion. Again Alison says she thinks so but isn't sure.
He then changes to mother (well he actually says "somebody is shouting mother" which sounds a bit odd) but Alison looks a bit more confident here. It is, after all, why she has come.

Gordon then claims this new woman has barged the other two men aside because they weren't communicating well enough. So, you see, it's actually THEIR fault he isn't getting anything relevant.

He talks about hair being slicked back and then changes it to a photograph of this woman with slicked back hair. Alison just looks confused now.

There follow some vague generalities and luckily the mystery woman says Alison is doing fine and going to be fine. So that's nice. Alison is nodding and looking confused at the same time.

He has a shot at Elizabeth, "maybe even going back a generation". A flat out miss. Alison doesn't know who this might be. He tries again with the name 'Bess' saying, rather oddly "When I was saying Elizabeth I saw the name Bess". So, er, why didn't he say 'Bess' then? Anyway this doesn't matter as Alison has to say it's just not a name she recognises.

Gordon says he is confused because there are "Just so many people coming through". Obviously complete random strangers called Elizabeth by the sounds of it.
Then he goes into his 'bang' story which he is really certain of. This, turns out to be the real hit as I've mentioned above.

Up until that point his reading was pretty much very bad indeed.

How, exactly was cold reading "unlikely" given this performance?

[Interesting Ian]

Had a search for "psychic barber" and "hot reading" on Google web search, google group search, and copernic forum search. A complete blank on all 3. I feel this is going to be a difficult one to establish!

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He was left floundering, until he got the right person. Then everything fit. It seemed unlikely to me to be cold reading.
Darren"Ive got a Jane..sorry a Jennifer or a jessica"
The spirits dont know what their names are? Cant be a "bad phone line" scenario as the names are nothing alike.
"Problems with wine..and a car" A drunk driver,perhaps?
Ian the guy wasnt even cold reading,he was just mumbling any old rubbish-and thats the edited version I fear!
Also I must email Craig Parker and inform him -by his own standards-he must quit the day job!
I noticed with the readings in the spiritualist church in London,we got very little footage-what we did see had the sound dipped,and voiceover added.
With Alison it was all cold reading,I think the thing with the gun was just a bit of luck;he didnt say the father had been shot,or even the father's name come to think of it,but I think he was fidhing for a suicide with his comments " Its like I have a gun here in my hand"
Maybe if it was hot reading he was being sensitive in not giving too many details.The Amkerican woman and daughter in the hall was hot reading;he was almost reading from notes in his head!
My opinion anyway!;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Azrael 5

Maybe if it was hot reading he was being sensitive in not giving too many details.The Amkerican woman and daughter in the hall was hot reading;he was almost reading from notes in his head!
My opinion anyway!;) [/B]

I'm not at all interested in your opinion, or any other "skeptic". Your minds are already all made up. Same goes for uncritical believers.

I sort of watched a little bit last week whilst doing something else, and thought " yeah probably hot reading". Not I'm not so sure . . . but certainly at this stage I would still consider it a good possibility.

That's why I was doing a search on the Net to see if I could dig up some information and also read other peoples' opinions who adopt a more rational approach than Skeptics and uncritical believers.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm not at all interested in your opinion, or any other "skeptic". Your minds are already all made up. Same goes for uncritical believers.

Riiiiiight... that's why you've been posting here for 2.5 years: because you don't care what we think. Makes sense...

Can I get a Lanys award here please?

[Marian]

http://eqscreenshot.homestead.com/files/LanysDontCare.jpg

[Open Mind]

Gordon Smith's one to one was better in previous 2 programs, this time I was unimpressed with his one to one reading with american woman, until the 'bang' and 'gun' comment, that was more interesting. The rest could be obtained by cold reading. His performance in front of american audience was again better than cold reading (or perhaps more edited)

I have seen Gordon Smith perform live twice in the past, on the first occasion in a hall of 200 appoximately he again was significantly beating 'cold reading' to about 6 or 7 who received messages. On the second occasion I saw him, it wasn't as good, not necessrily wrong, just less names and detail for the onlooker to make judgments upon.

I'm completely unimpressed by the other psychics on this TV program :D I do not wish to be unkind but the husband and wife team seem to lack the degree of self analysis to be good at anything. I suspect it's a business, ego trip for them.

I've seen better than Gordon Smith, one called 'Gordon Higgiinson' (now dead, if there is such a thing ;) ) he gave me my surname and street address ('hot reading' would have required a intensive prior research and cunning....... but theoretically possible I suppose)

I've seen approxiamately 100 psychics at work, most were varying degrees of useless :D However, I'd say only about 2 or 3 were doing something very interesting and significantly better than cold reading possiblilities. That is another reason why Richard Wiseman's test of only 5 'professional' psychics is flawed, if the SNU (Spiritualist National Union) chose them frankly their idea of a good psychic is one who gives a nice philosophy chat, lovely prayer, comfort messages, a finishing off with a hymn, tea and a scone ;) Evidence is not the SNU's main priority. It's a religious get together, not psychical research.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
Riiiiiight... that's why you've been posting here for 2.5 years: because you don't care what we think. Makes sense...



What? Do you imagine that I do?? LOL

OK OK . .I used to. I was curious as to why skeptics believed what they did. That's why I first came on here (April 2002). That was a looonnng time ago now. Now I know why they believe what they do. They're just hapless unthinking puppets of the prevailing Zeitgeist.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I was curious as to why skeptics believed what they did. That's why I first came on here (April 2002). That was a looonnng time ago now. Now I know why they believe what they do. They're just hapless unthinking puppets of the prevailing Zeitgeist.

Unthinking puppets? As opposed to the radical free thinker you are whose point of view (life after death, etc.) is held by the overwhelming majority of the world? Did "because God allows it" require a great deal of intellectual effort on your part to construct, or was it handed down to you from thousands of years in the past for you to swallow unquestioningly? I only see one puppet here, and he's pulled by the strings of his culture, ego, and DNA to the same conclusions almost everyone else is. Then he thinks he’s the free thinking intellectual. Amazing.

Ian, the only "hapless unthinking puppet of the prevailing Zeitgeist" here is you.

Look, there are only a few possibilities here. Skeptics demand a burden of evidence in accord with the methods of science. Now, you might be ill equipped to meet that burden because of unfamiliarity with that method, in which case you should probably stop posting and start familiarizing yourself with it right away. You'll have a better chance of reaching your audience in way that will captivate and convince them when you're speaking the same language they are. Another possibility is that you're right! Skeptics are "hapless unthinking puppets of the prevailing Zeitgeist", in which case you can't reach them because they're closed off to the prospects you argue for. In that case it's hopeless and you should probably stop trying.

Either way you can stop posting now.

[CFLarsen]

"God allows it"....yeah, that was a classic... That really showed the intellectual depth of Ian's philosophy.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm not at all interested in your opinion, or any other "skeptic". Your minds are already all made up. Same goes for uncritical believers.

Your quote above was posted at 10-13-2004 08:05 PM.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Then please cease contributing to this thread. There are other people who are interested in communicating with me.
10-13-2004 05:49 PM (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870634159#post1870634159)


So, you are only looking for believers to communicate with who already agree with you?

[Ralfy]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
With Alison it was all cold reading,I think the thing with the gun was just a bit of luck;he didnt say the father had been shot,or even the father's name come to think of it,but I think he was fidhing for a suicide with his comments " Its like I have a gun here in my hand"

Where was Gordon when he read for Alison? - San Francisco.
What did Alison look like? - A black woman in her 20s or 30s.
Who came through first? - 2 men, 1 young, 1 old.
How did one of them die? - BANG!, I see a gun to the head.

Maybe Gordon has been listening to too much West Coast rap music.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK OK . .I used to. I was curious as to why skeptics believed what they did. That's why I first came on here (April 2002). That was a looonnng time ago now. Now I know why they believe what they do. They're just hapless unthinking puppets of the prevailing Zeitgeist.
You had me at "hapless unthinking puppets".
:dl:
Interesting Ian, you've just been watching "the prevailing Zeitgeist". And you're the only one here who was impressed.

[davidsmith73]

I think there are three types of explanation for these mediums

A- they are deliberately and knowingly cheating - eg, cold or hot reading -
B- They are unkowingly cheating, deceiving themselves - eg, cold reading
C- they have a genuine psi ability

I think it should be noted that a particular medium is not necessarily exclusively one of the above categories. I think some mediums may be C but also have a healthy dose of B in there too. This may cloud the issue of whether its possible to tell if any of these mediums are genuine, just by observing the reading sessions. For example, it may be possible to spot that Gordan Smith was using cold reading with the American woman. If we assume he was unwittingly doing so, this doesn't mean that a genuine ability was not also at work underneath this cold reading, for example when he claimed he heard a loud bang in his head.

Also, it irritates me when a medium or psychic, who may be part genuine, insists that they know everything there is to know about their ability. Mediums seem always to think that their ability must be due to some kind of "spirit world". There was a intriguing bit in the program where a young girl approached Gordan Smith and told him that she saw visions of people in her house (or something to that effect). Gordan's confident reply was that they were "spirit guides".

Originally posted by Open Mind

I'm completely unimpressed by the other psychics on this TV program :D I do not wish to be unkind but the husband and wife team seem to lack the degree of self analysis to be good at anything. I suspect it's a business, ego trip for them.


I agree with you there. Its a terrible shame that the whole subject of the "paranormal" is plagued by frauds and poor, self deluded individuals. I think that underneath this thick layer of self promoting, money making clap-trap is a small number of genuine cases worthy of serious and scientific attention.


I've seen approxiamately 100 psychics at work, most were varying degrees of useless :D However, I'd say only about 2 or 3 were doing something very interesting and significantly better than cold reading possiblilities. That is another reason why Richard Wiseman's test of only 5 'professional' psychics is flawed, if the SNU (Spiritualist National Union) chose them frankly their idea of a good psychic is one who gives a nice philosophy chat, lovely prayer, comfort messages, a finishing off with a hymn, tea and a scone ;) Evidence is not the SNU's main priority. It's a religious get together, not psychical research.

Good point. I wonder how long and careful the selection was for Wiseman's experiment. You have to search through the frauds and self deluded unfortunately.

[Azrael 5]

I've seen better than Gordon Smith, one called 'Gordon Higgiinson' (now dead, if there is such a thing ) he gave me my surname and street address ('hot reading' would have required a intensive prior research and cunning....... but theoretically possible I suppose)
Are these "facts" on tape Open MInd or simply anecdotal? also condider this in the case of any medium who does shows-they have 'fans' people will write to them asking them to help contact such and such,telling the medium they are coming to see them at the show in London(example).Or see him beforehand and mention things they are hoping to hear.Therefore he can mix hot reading with cold.He doesnt posess any paranormal abilities that I have seen-but edited TV doesnt help.;)
As previously mention in my earlier post,he didnt get Alison's parents names-despite plumping for Elizabeth/Bess.;)

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I've seen approxiamately 100 psychics at work, most were varying degrees of useless :D However, I'd say only about 2 or 3 were doing something very interesting and significantly better than cold reading possiblilities.

But how many readings would you have to hear before something significant came up merely by chance alone? You're suggesting that 1 in 33 are any good. I'd suggest that by guesswork alone, 1 in 10 would give you something "significant".

[TheBoyPaj]

The numbers would seem to point in that direction, yes.

Even if I took a way out guess, like "I see a man who has lost a limb in a farming accident", I wonder how many theatre audiences I would have to try before someone jumped up and whooped?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
The numbers would seem to point in that direction, yes.

Even if I took a way out guess, like "I see a man who has lost a limb in a farming accident", I wonder how many theatre audiences I would have to try before someone jumped up and whooped?

That depends on whether the limb was a leg or not. :p

[Azrael 5]

I thought the spirit paintings were rather interesting.No brushes or paint! Or canvas! But we were happy!
Sorry.There are a couple of links on google about the bang sisters(apparent pioneers of this)and spirit painting.anyone know of any modern instances of this.Rolf Harris on whiskey doesnt count,lol!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
Unthinking puppets? As opposed to the radical free thinker you are whose point of view (life after death, etc.) is held by the overwhelming majority of the world?



I do not allow that to effect me. On the vast majority of issues I am in a distinct minority. Capital punishment, taxation, drugs, education, ethical behaviour etc etc. Moreover, it seems most people that I encounter definitely do not believe in "life after death". The ones that do appear to believe in a very shallow sense, so far as I can establish.


Did "because God allows it" require a great deal of intellectual effort on your part to construct, or was it handed down to you from thousands of years in the past for you to swallow unquestioningly? I only see one puppet here, and he's pulled by the strings of his culture, ego, and DNA to the same conclusions almost everyone else is. Then he thinks he’s the free thinking intellectual. Amazing.


{shakes head sadly}



Ian, the only "hapless unthinking puppet of the prevailing Zeitgeist" here is you.

Look, there are only a few possibilities here. Skeptics demand a burden of evidence in accord with the methods of science.



Let's skip the nonsense shall we. Skeptics already "know" what the world is like. Nothing will convince them. Not science, not anything. They are immune to evidence and reason.



Now, you might be ill equipped to meet that burden because of unfamiliarity with that method, in which case you should probably stop posting and start familiarizing yourself with it right away. You'll have a better chance of reaching your audience in way that will captivate and convince them when you're speaking the same language they are. Another possibility is that you're right! Skeptics are "hapless unthinking puppets of the prevailing Zeitgeist", in which case you can't reach them because they're closed off to the prospects you argue for. In that case it's hopeless and you should probably stop trying.

Either way you can stop posting now.

It seems that you're the only poster that wants me to stop posting. I have yet to hear anyone else express that desire.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"God allows it"....yeah, that was a classic... That really showed the intellectual depth of Ian's philosophy.

Huh?? In what context did I say this??

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? In what context did I say this??

On PalTalk. Direct quote, Ian.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It seems that you're the only poster that wants me to stop posting. I have yet to hear anyone else express that desire.

The JREF boards would not be the same without II, that's for sure.

Edited because I goofed!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
On PalTalk. Direct quote, Ian.

God allows what? I can't begin to discuss this unless I know what the conversation was.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
God allows what? I can't begin to discuss this unless I know what the conversation was.

......you can't remember what happened on PalTalk??

Are you serious?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
......you can't remember what happened on PalTalk??

Are you serious?

I certainly remember what happened on Paltalk, and I vaguely remember saying that. I can't remember specifically what question was addressed to me though that elicited that response. But one thing I am overwhelmingly confident of is that it does not demonstate in the remotest sense any deficiency on my part of my philosophical ability.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I certainly remember what happened on Paltalk, and I vaguely remember saying that. I can't remember specifically what question was addressed to me though that elicited that response. But one thing I am overwhelmingly confident of is that it does not demonstate in the remotest sense any deficiency on my part of my philosophical ability.

I asked you how the non-physical can affect the physical world. When pressed you said "because God allows it."

You also admitted that your philosophical ability granted you no ability to actually answer questions. Why do you insist on adhering so religiously to a system that is powerless to discern fact from fiction? Please stop. Your philosophy is worthless and no one here is interested in it or will be swayed by the arguments you make from it. Learn some science so you can stop wasting our time.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
{shakes head sadly}

Once again, instead of addressing the words you post a useless exclimation. You're a complete waste of time, Ian.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's skip the nonsense shall we. Skeptics already "know" what the world is like. Nothing will convince them. Not science, not anything. They are immune to evidence and reason.

Then you can leave now. Bye!

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's skip the nonsense shall we. Skeptics already "know" what the world is like. Nothing will convince them. Not science, not anything. They are immune to evidence and reason.
So they would refuse to believe in quantum theory, relativity, evolution, etc? Who are these idiots? And why do you refer to them as skeptics?

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's skip the nonsense shall we. Skeptics already "know" what the world is like. Nothing will convince them. Not science, not anything. They are immune to evidence and reason.

Odd...I seem to recall someone else making the statement that they have just "always known" how the world works, and that their philosophy was right...

I don't think that person was a sceptic, or a skeptic...hmmmm, my memory seems to be fading, who could that have been?

:con2:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


Then you can leave now. Bye! [/B]

I should leave because one solitary person wants me to leave? :rolleyes:

If you do not like my posts, then do not respond to them. Indeed don't read them.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I should leave because one solitary person wants me to leave? :rolleyes:

If you do not like my posts, then do not respond to them. Indeed don't read them.

You should at least try reading my posts before completely mischaracterizing them.

You should leave because either you can't reach us because we're closed minded or you can't reach us because you're not equipped to do so (just between you and me, it's the second one).

Either way, you can quit wasting everyone’s time. Please let me know what you don't understand.

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

You clearly cannot prove anything with philosophy. You have admitted this. E.g. why do you claim that materialism is false, when you know you are unable to prove that it is?

You have failed utterly, Ian. You are not making any progress at all. None in several years. You admit yourself that it is futile.

So, why do you keep claiming victory? Why are you still here?

[The Don]

Because during a frank exchange of views here, he only figuratively gets the **** kicked out of him. In the real world, his "debating" style would like as not result in something physically unpleasant happening to him.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Don
Because during a frank exchange of views here, he only figuratively gets the **** kicked out of him. In the real world, his "debating" style would like as not result in something physically unpleasant happening to him.

Perhaps, but still...Ted is right, what Ian is doing is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing, over and over again, never getting anywhere, despite knowing that you don't.

Ian reminds me of an animal in a zoo that has gone insane, and simply rocks back and forth.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian reminds me of an animal in a zoo that has gone insane, and simply rocks back and forth.
How unpleasant are you planning on being today? Do let us know.

This thread doesn't seem to be about anything any more except slagging people off.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
You should at least try reading my posts before completely mischaracterizing them.

You should leave because either you can't reach us because we're closed minded or you can't reach us because you're not equipped to do so (just between you and me, it's the second one).

Either way, you can quit wasting everyone’s time. Please let me know what you don't understand.

I shall not be leaving. What don't you understand about that?

[Interesting Ian]

Just had some bad news. Just let it drop TLN/Larsen. I'm not in the mood.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian,

You clearly cannot prove anything with philosophy. You have admitted this. E.g. why do you claim that materialism is false, when you know you are unable to prove that it is?

You have failed utterly, Ian. You are not making any progress at all. None in several years. You admit yourself that it is futile.

So, why do you keep claiming victory? Why are you still here?

Whenever you're ready Ian.

[Ashles]

I shall not be leaving. What don't you understand about that?
Ian sounds like a Bond villain there.

But seriously I may not agree with Ian about... well, almost anything really, but will happily admit I often click on a thread when I see Ian has posted as his opinions are often worth reading (for various reasons) and he is a very clear writer.

Some of his debates about dualism and consciousness are only tenable because Ian takes it to the absolute extreme and, as noted by another poster, can often be extremely eloquent.

And of course he is right about one thing - we don't HAVE to respond to anyone.

What I like about this forum is how it very rarely bans anyone (unlike certain other forums we could mention) and it is free for anyone to express any opinion.

I'm not particularly generally particularly interested in the mental mastubatory sessions of consciousness discussions, but there have been some very goof one on this forum thanks primarily to Ian.

That all said I do think you sound slightly nutty sometimes Ian, but so long as you are here for fun, and not because you think you will be able to convince anyone to change their views (nobody will ever end up changing anyone's viewpoints around here, believer or sceptic) then that's all fine and dandy.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
This thread doesn't seem to be about anything any more except slagging people off.

I am not slagging people off, but this is truly how Ian appears to me. So many years, and not a single sign of progress. And yet, he still claims victory.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Just had some bad news. Just let it drop TLN/Larsen. I'm not in the mood.

It's not a question of being "in the mood". It's a question of looking back over the years you have spent here. You have achieved nothing. Nothing.

Why do you continue? You have admitted that you cannot prove anything with philosophy.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Ashles
(nobody will ever end up changing anyone's viewpoints around here, believer or sceptic)
Merissa. Accepted negative results of an experiment as disproof of her hypothesis. I miss her. I miss her so much.

And I may have got through to Dov Ivry. Although he believes so many weird things that curing him of numerology is... at least it's something.

And you never know, the long silence from 1inChrist might be the sound a fundie makes reading a geology textbook.

[Dragon]

Back on topic -

Did anyone else notice that Gordon Smith's hits on his first reading for the audience seemed to be nearly all names of people in the same family who were all sat next to each other? Hot reading seems a distinct possibility ...

(but I'm just fitting the facts to my world-view, of course ;) )

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am not slagging people off, but this is truly how Ian appears to me. So many years, and not a single sign of progress. And yet, he still claims victory.

I know I've made no progress amongst you lot; you're all beyond hope. But there's always the lurkers. Some non-skeptics have to be on here to sort you lot out. Anyway, I'm not in a mood for a quarrel right now. Somebody I know has just unexpected died.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I know I've made no progress amongst you lot; you're all beyond hope. But there's always the lurkers. Some non-skeptics have to be on here to sort you lot out. Anyway, I'm not in a mood for a quarrel right now. Somebody I know has just unexpected died.

I'm sorry to hear that.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Are these "facts" on tape Open MInd or simply anecdotal?


Not on tape (I could call 5 witnesses, all members of my family), anecdotal to you of course. But it certainly wasn’t a case of 'false memory syndrome' :) …. but if you wait a second while I hit my head on a nearby wall, I'll test my perception and senses just to make sure :D (Incidentally the psychic got one letter single consonant wrong in giving my usually street address, which was interesting, he pronounced it as the brain is likely to hear it and make sense of it, not as spelt from reading a telephone directory)


in the case of any medium who does shows-they have 'fans' people will write to them asking them to help contact such and such, telling the medium they are coming to see them at the show in London(example)

Yes possibly that can happen often but that explanation wouldn’t fit my case. I had never met the psychic before and he lived 200+ miles away. If it was trickery, I suppose it could have been done by him (or a helper?) somehow hearing or obtaining our surname (I was with 6 relatives), looking up a telephone directory for address, type of idea. I can be fooled by magicians too, so I'm willing to consider the possibility of a trick ……..as well as the possibility it was completely genuine :) .


Originally posted by Ersby
But how many readings would you have to hear before something significant came up merely by chance alone? You're suggesting that 1 in 33 are any good. I'd suggest that by guesswork alone, 1 in 10 would give you something "significant".

Well, I didn’t quite mean that, I saw several more than once. The awful psychics were generally always awful! :D Some psychics were generally better (but I’m not sure they were beating good cold reading by much or at least by a degree that would convince any sceptic). As I said 2 or 3 were beating cold reading odds to a degree that ‘cold reading’ is an inadequate explanation to anyone being reasonable IMHO.


"God allows it"....


I don’t know in what context that was said, but I think you guys are being tough of Ian. You probably don’t criticize Einstein for saying ‘ God doesn’t play dice’ :) Perhaps to Einstein and many scientists, God is just perfect mathematics behind the universe? What created these mathematical constants? ;) The idea of an intelligent design (and purpose) behind life is still a valid viewpoint.

[Azrael 5]

Open Mind I wasny sugessting YOU wrote to a clairvoyant beforehand,simply that people do and such how some readings are blindingly accurate and some not ,from the same sitting.I have enjoyed discussing this programme,what to do next week?
Incidentally I am going to try contact the producer of the series and ask him a few things about the general bias of the shows.I let you know any results.:D

[Ashles]

I have to just mention that I was in fact trying to type some very 'good' ones in relation to the consciousness debates I mentioned above. Not 'goof'.
Sorry I was at work and trying to concentrate on two things at once.

But I do think Ian is one of the interesting regulars about here.

And I do offer my best wishes to him with regards to what has happened. I hope you're okay Ian.

[Ashles]

Open mind I find this interesting:
he pronounced it as the brain is likely to hear it and make sense of it, not as spelt from reading a telephone directory
Do you mean he pronounced it as read on a page, or as heard and properly pronounced?

You make it sound like he made a mistake with pronounciation - is that correct? Please clarify this.

[Azrael 5]

You work some odd hours Ashles old boy.I presume open Mnd meant he prounounced it as said and not how it looks written,cant think of an example of this.No thought on the spirit paintings by anyone then? :(

[Ashles]

I do work odd hours. (I'm never here in the mornings).

The reason I was asking is that I am confused as to how a reading who was speaking a street name got it wrong "as the brain heard it". It would be pronounced a certain way so why didn't the medium get that?

Open mind says:
pronounced it as the brain is likely to hear it and make sense of it, not as spelt from reading a telephone directory
That doesn't make sense. If the medium got it wrong he must have got it verbally wrong (unles he was writing the session).
If he got it verbally wrong this implies that he pronounced it as read.
This would further imply that he read the address without knowing how it was actually pronounced.

For example (and this is an extreme example) if you lived in Phition Road but it was actually pronounced as as 'Fishin' Road and you heard a reader say "You live in Puhitienn Road" you might presume they had previously read you address somewhere but had never heard it pronounced.

This is what I am trying to clarify - in what exact way the reader made a mistake.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Don
Because during a frank exchange of views here, he only figuratively gets the **** kicked out of him. In the real world, his "debating" style would like as not result in something physically unpleasant happening to him.

For those who don't know, we live very close to each other. And people are extremely aggressive here; I suspect more so than other places.

Hell Don, I've been there. I've had people hating my guts all my life. I've been an outsider all my life. I've had people continually wanting a fight with me all my life. I've had people bullying me all my life; at least during my school years from 5 years old to 16 years old. Yeah . . ever since my earliest recollections. I'm used to it matey.

Will I say 'yes I agree with you' when I get bullied by the scum who live round here??? Ummm . . no I'm afraid I won't.

I've been in quite a few confrontations, but now I've learn't to keep quite about it. I accept now totally that people will never understand me.

{shrugs}

I will never agree with dimwits who understand absolutely nothing.

I suggest you try to deal with it.

[Open Mind]

I don’t wish to give out an address on this internet forum, so let me give you a very similar example......

Imagine my address was ‘5 North Ribberside Avenue’ and the psychic just gives ‘North Riverside Avenue’. I think you will agree that is too close for ‘cold reading’?

If the word ‘ribberside’ is spoken, I think many think people's brains would decipher it to ’riverside’, as it makes more sense. But if you read it on an address book, I doubt it would become ‘riverside’. This means if he was cheating he was deliberately introducing error for some reason.

Yeah, you could argue that introducing an error is just cunning to smooth the gap between cold