Psychic Secrets Revealed -- Tonight!!

[alfaniner]

8pm est

I wondered how long it would be until someone took up the mantle. Let's hope it's accessible, but not too simplified.

I'm much more supportive of this sort of "exposure" than those shows which reveal magicians' secrets.

Is there anyone we know that will be featured on it? (Shermer, Randi, Rowland) or (Edward, Brown, Van Praagh)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just set my VCR to catch it (as I'll be at work).

Can't wait until tomorrow morning, though I'd appreciate any reviews from JREF members throughout the night.

[SRW]

What I am hoping for is that they run part of the Dateline broadcast where they caught JE cheating. And not just make this another Secrets of Magic reveled show.

If all they do is show "fake psychics" being fake, the believers will just say "well yes they cheat but our heroes do not."

[New Ager]

Here's the capsule that's in TV Guide:

Demonstrations and debunkings of psychic readings; "miracle" healings; telekinesis; and channeling messages from beyond the grave.

I wonder if JE or SB will comment.

The negative vibrations will probably not allow their appearance. :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Somehow you've all managed to discuss this without mentioning the network. You must be psychic!

NBC, I believe?

~~ Paul

[HarryKeogh]

just checked tvguide.com

nbc at 8PM

[SRW]

I posted it here Monday

Show link (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17736)

I was going to bump it but saw this thread.

[alfaniner]

Sorry, SteveO. I looked for a similar previous thread but didn't go back far enough.

On the west coast, they aren't showing it. The NBA playoffs start at 6:30 here.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by LukeT
On the west coast, they aren't showing it.

Oh, the irony.

[renata]

Originally posted by LukeT
On the west coast, they aren't showing it. The NBA playoffs start at 6:30 here.

Really? The playoffs are on ABC, and the psychic show on NBC. Furthermore, in LA, this round are shown on TNT or ESPN. You might want to check your listings.

Originally posted by renata


Really? The playoffs are on ABC, and the psychic show on NBC. Furthermore, in LA, this round are shown on TNT or ESPN. You might want to check your listings.

I did. Portland, Oregon. KGW is NBC. According to tvguide.com, the NBA playoffs start at 6:30 on KGW.

edited to add:

6:30 PM Channel 8 KGW Wednesday, 23

NBA Playoff
Game 2: Trail Blazers at Mavericks
150 min.
Portland at Dallas in Game 2 of a Western Conference quarterfinal series. The Mavericks lead the series 1-0 after defeating the Blazers 96-86 on Saturday. Dirk Nowitzki poured in 46 points and grabbed 10 boards for Dallas. Rasheed Wallace led Portland with 26 points. (VCR Plus+ 196385)

Additional Airings
Date Time Channel VCR Plus+
Wednesday, 23 6:30 PM 54 TNT 873410

[renata]

Originally posted by LukeT


I did. Portland, Oregon. KGW is NBC. According to tvguide.com, the NBA playoffs start at 6:30 on KGW.



How weird. I wonder how that could have happened- if ABC has paid for the NBA playoff rights, and an NBC station is showing them. However, it must be local- in LA they are showing playoffs on TNT tonight and ABC on the weekend, and the psychic show on NBC. Maybe KGW is your local Trailblazer station? Do they ever show other games, or just the Jailblazers? All is right with the world if you live in Southern California :p

[Dogwood]

I'll be watching, but I'm going to make my own prediction here. I'm guessing this is a thinly disguised "Mentalists" secrets revealed. We'll see very little about cold or hot reading and a lot about magnets, trick decks, and mentalism props. But, I hope I'm wrong.

[Dinonychus]

Originally posted by mark tidwell
I'll be watching, but I'm going to make my own prediction here. I'm guessing this is a thinly disguised "Mentalists" secrets revealed. We'll see very little about cold or hot reading and a lot about magnets, trick decks, and mentalism props. But, I hope I'm wrong.

And thus is why I will be taping it and watching it later. Preferrably after I read everyone's reviews.

[bignickel]

Watching it now. So far it seems to be "Psychic Magician Secrets Exposed" with the 4 unmasked magicians.

One of them is named Mark Edward. Heh.

The first trick was in William Poundstone's Big Secrets, and a card force could have accomplished the same thing.

No cold reading yet. Don't have high hopes that I'll see any.

EDITED after seeing spot before commercial.
Cold reading demonstration is coming up. Hopefully it won't turn into the old hearing aid number.

[Tez]

Originally posted by bignickel
Watching it now. So far it seems to be "Psychic Magician Secrets Exposed" with the 4 unmasked magicians.

One of them is named Mark Edward. Heh.

The first trick was in William Poundstone's Big Secrets, and a card force could have accomplished the same thing.

No cold reading yet. Don't have high hopes that I'll see any.

watching it too. Sounds like they will be demonstrating cold reading, but your prediction may be safe ;)

[bignickel]

Yep, it was the hearing aid.

Maybe I can predict the future! :)

They're doing the cold reading with a 'gypsy' now. Probably to avoid problems with JE. No tarot cards. Same technique as Randi in the room full of students with 'customized' horoscopes.

[Mercutio]

hidden mike, earpiece radio...

the "cold reading" is much more a standard Barnum Effect demo.

So far, anyway.

[bignickel]

They're gonna do the JE bit later.

Also: "Law & Order" tonight will have a suspect explain away his knowledge of a crime scene via a 'psychic vision'.

"The Matrix Reloaded" commercial rocked!

[Tez]

Originally posted by bignickel
Yep, it was the hearing aid.

Maybe I can predict the future! :)

They're doing the cold reading with a 'gypsy' now. Probably to avoid problems with JE. No tarot cards. Same technique as Randi in the room full of students with 'customized' horoscopes.

yeah - the cold reading demo didnt show at all the whole process of following the recipients' leads - merely the old "we're all as pathetic chimpanzees as each other" effect...

[Rose]

So far my only real complaint is that they've not stated that there is usually more than one way to do most of these stunts. Other than that, I'm pleased to see them demonstrating so many different topics, even if most of them are "secrets of magicians revealed" type. Then again, the good scam artists borrow heavily from the tricks of 'real' magicians. The bad ones simply rely on their target's total incredulity.

[dharlow]

Thought that that hot reading example was a far more damaging expose than the cold reading hypothesis as regards JE. Well done.

[Mr. Skinny]

I'm watching it now as well. Haven't read the thread.

It seems like a fairly good primer. It's not as in depth as I'd like, but at least it's revealing some tricks that may make people think.

[Tez]

Originally posted by Rose
So far my only real complaint is that they've not stated that there is usually more than one way to do most of these stunts. Other than that, I'm pleased to see them demonstrating so many different topics, even if most of them are "secrets of magicians revealed" type. Then again, the good scam artists borrow heavily from the tricks of 'real' magicians. The bad ones simply rely on their target's total incredulity.

I agree - many people will think all of JE's stuff is done by hot reading and colored tape on chairs after their demonstration!!

[Dogwood]

As I feared. No cold-reading. Hot reading and barnum effect. Plus, they really did the behind the back card reading the hard way. Hidden mirror in a shoe? They should have called Ian Rowland.


Overall, feh.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Tez


I agree - many people will think all of JE's stuff is done by hot reading and colored tape on chairs after their demonstration!!

Yes, JE does at times resemble a cold reader. However, arguments by believers focus on his "special hits". I tend to agree with the believers in the sense that to argue that he is simply a cold reader is not a particularily sound argument. However, I've always stated that his show is a television production, and there are no limits on what someone will do when placed in that position to maintain their fame.

[dharlow]

Mark, I think you have psychic abilities;)

Yes, I agree about that card trick. They should have checked out Rowland's Sense of Touch. That was kind of like the trick used on one of the Fox shows in which the magician has a complex apparatus under his sleave that he uses to wind a guy's watch forward while he grasps his wrist. Nevertheless, it does remind everyone that magicians will go to ALL lengths to achieve an effect.

[diddidit]

I thought it was interesting that they completely avoided discussing the self-deception tendencies of the average person - obviously avoiding calling the viewer stupid. although many of the tricks on there would fail in the presence of an observant participant (someone who could add quickly would have caught the number-in-the-envelope thing).

But then, pointing out how easy it is to actually fake these things without relying on human tendencies does a lot of damage to psychic claims, as it paints them as actively deceptive and fraudulent without requiring the audience members to admit their own gullibility.

did

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Fun show. My 10-year-old son watched it with us. I kept whispering "Note that this is a trick!"

~~ Paul

I was disappointed. It seemed that for the most part they were revealing magic tricks and things no self-professed 'psychic' would ever do for a victim.

[bonch]

The important thing is that they may have instilled critical doubt.

[alfaniner]

I only caught the last ten minutes, fortunately the "important" part I wanted to see. In the summary just before the conclusion, I saw they showed mostly parlor tricks, and not the stuff that the highly compensated "psychics" are using on TV nowadays. I was disappointed that they did not even mention cold reading, but was mildly amused that they got a guy that looked a lot like John Edward to do the hot reading.

[Dogwood]

That was Mark Edward (no relation). He's a "reformed" former psychic/medium who really should know better. He appeared in the first Penn & Teller ******** show.

[dharlow]

I'm surprised that so many people here were disappointed in the lack of cold reading for this show. To me, there are no controls for hot reading on JE's show, so the hypothesis of hot reading is just as viable as cold reading.

[SRW]

This show starts in 20 min. out here, the basket ball game is not being shown on all west coast stations. I'm holding off reading everyones reviews for now.

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by Lost Sailor
I was disappointed. It seemed that for the most part they were revealing magic tricks and things no self-professed 'psychic' would ever do for a victim.

I felt the same way. I guess they will not reveal the secrets of the big name "psychics" for fear of being sued by these con artists.

It make me appreciate the work of James Randi even more. :)

[Clancie]

Thought that that hot reading example was a far more damaging expose than the cold reading hypothesis as regards JE. Well done.

That's interesting if the focus was on exposing hot reading.

Of all the talked about techniques--hot.cold reading; audience buy-in--hot reading seems like the easiest to control for in a reading (in a test situation), and the would be the easiest to prove (i.e. hardest to conceal) in connection with a tv show like CO.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Lavie Enrose


I felt the same way. I guess they will not reveal the secrets of the big name "psychics" for fear of being sued by these con artists.

It make me appreciate the work of James Randi even more. :)

How do we know what methods the "big name psychics" are using? They could just as well be using the hot methods employed in that show. As far as law suits are concerned, Penn and Teller focused on cold reading and I am not aware of their being sued recently.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Clancy


That's interesting if the focus was on exposing hot reading.

Of all the talked about techniques--hot.cold reading; audience buy-in--hot reading seems like the easiest to control for in a reading (in a test situation), and the would be the easiest to prove (i.e. hardest to conceal) in connection with a tv show like CO.

Exactly Clancy (G2? If so, hello!) But there are no controls for hot reading on John's show. Thus, I find hot reading the more plausible explanation than simply John picking up vague cues from the sitters time and time again (of which I have seen little evidence from cold readers).

This brings up a rather interesting point that I have noticed in some of the reactions tonight. Methods of psychics were exposed, and they at least conned some people (though I wish they had shown how many people were convinced or intrigued versus who was skeptical). There are those who lament the lack of the exposure of cold reading. Why? Television mediums have no controls employed to prevent them or assistants from hot reading.

My own personal opinion on this is because for a skeptic to charge hot reading means that they must provide evidence that this occured. Most posters on this forum are smart enough to know that one must provide evidence of a claim. Since there is little substantial evidence that these tv mediums employ hot reading (which by no means implies that they do not), some here seem to feel more secure by arguing that psychics obtain ALL their hits by cold reading. But cold reading can be bounded by no specific limits, and is therefore an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

I have never understood why the argument that "There are no controls for hot/cold reading" against believers seems to hold little weight for some skeptics. To me, a television show is a television show, and, as demonstrated tonight, people will go to all ends to obtain an effect on an audience. My own opinion is that there are some who feel they need to attack, rather than demand evidence, and they feel secure in attacking believers by charging that JE et al. are cold reading. But this is an unfalsifiable attack, and dare I say that many of the people who engage in this attack have little knowledge of the practice of cold reading, or of the magic of mentalism in general.

[ratpfink]

How many psychics do card tricks?

Believers will just explain it away as "Well, my psychics don't do it that way so their powers are real." But then, they'll always explain it away like that.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I can't believe some people here are griping about the show. With all the zillions of garbage uncritical wide-eyed gullible TV shows on the air, someone finally does one with actual critical thinking, and you complain that is wasn't any good?

Sure it could have been better, but it was pretty good for what it was. My seven-year-old daughter learned quite a bit, I am happy to report. She's quite the skeptic.

By the way, for those of you who don't have enough irony in life, I believe this show was produced by the same company that produced Fox's Moon hoax show (Nash Entertainment).

[Clancie]

Hi dharlow (Yep, it's me; or more correctly, I guess, it is I :)

You may or may not know this, but I have great respect for your serious, scholarly interest in mediumship past and present, particularly as opposed to the "its all baloney, clearly hot/cold reading, all so obvious any moron could see it" school of thought that is so much more common, imo.

That said, I'm surprised the hot reading demo seemed to impress you, unless I misunderstand your post. Don't you think there's always a terrific risk of exposure when a reading relies on a confederate?

I know that if I'd just been standing in line talking about my friend I was in Little League with when we were 7 and 8, someone who'd given me a baseball card when we were kids and recently died in a car crash...and then the medium came through saying exactly the same thing to me half an hour later, I'd be a little suspicious of hot reading. Wouldn't you?

I'm not ruling out the possibility of some kind of hot reading going on, but I thought the things they demonstrated (information gathering in line; tape on chairs; accomplice at the house) would be really hard to pull off successfully on a 3 hour tv show. And so many people would have to know, at least the way this program did it.
originally posted by Lavie Enrose
I guess they will not reveal the secrets of the big name "psychics" for fear of being sued by these con artists.
Oh, I think they reveal the secrets they knew. One can wonder why they don't know more, though.

What especially puzzles me is that Mark Edward was a professional medium for many years so he should be able to share all the sleazy "tricks of the trade", unless this is pretty much all he did.

Its hard to imagine he built a whole career around generalities (like his readings on P&T) and on hot reading-with-helpers like this. (But then, there's vanPraagh, who isn't much different, so...maybe so).

[Shadowhawk]

I was pretty disappointed by the show. They definitely went with the "Look at all the fancy stuff!" angle rather than the "Skilled deceptionist" angle. Cutting spoons almost all the way through to spoonbend 'em, the mirror in the shoe gag, and the overly complex tables (including one with a guy underneath)...

Then they tossed in a few tricks I've never even heard of, like the dial-a-psychic card reader and the audience shattering a glass with their ESP (and the help of a mousetrap spring and wire).

South Park did a better job debunking Edward and clones.

[Clancie]

originally posted by ratpfink
Believers will just explain it away as "Well, my psychics don't do it that way so their powers are real." But then, they'll always explain it away like that.
This kind of condescending post really aggravates me. Are you an expert on this or....?
originally posted by the Bad Astronomer
I can't believe some people here are griping about the show. With all the zillions of garbage uncritical wide-eyed gullible TV shows on the air, someone finally does one with actual critical thinking, and you complain that is wasn't any good?
I agree. And I thought it would work better as a teaching tool for kids than the P&T one. It'd be fun to stop the tape, have them come up with explanations, and show them how it was really done.

One quibble with the card trick with the prewritten total...

Wouldn't anyone here who wrote the third number down, easily remember the other two numbers above them and know they didn't match his total? With a spread from 1 to 1000, there are a lot of opportunities that the real totals would be far off what he had pre-written.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Clancy
Hi dharlow (Yep, it's me; or more correctly, I guess, it is I :)

That said, I'm surprised the hot reading demo seemed to impress you, unless I misunderstand your post. Don't you think there's always a terrific risk of exposure when a reading relies on a confederate?

I know that if I'd just been standing in line talking about my friend I was in Little League with when we were 7 and 8, someone who'd given me a baseball card when we were kids and recently died in a car crash...and then the medium came through saying exactly the same thing to me half an hour later, I'd be a little suspicious of hot reading. Wouldn't you?

I'm not ruling out the possibility of some kind of hot reading going on, but I thought the things they demonstrated (information gathering in line; tape on chairs; accomplice at the house) would be really hard to pull off successfully on a 3 hour tv show. And so many people would have to know, at least the way this program did it.

Not neccessarily. If one is not looking for a confederate, one will not detect one. JE focuses on himself, so I don't think it at all implausible that someone could gather information on his sitters. Keep in mind that he could only choose those which his accomplises have selected.

There are so many possibilities for JE to cheat that there is no reason to expose him, IMO. That is what I wrote on earlier, and it is why I am puzzled that skeptics find it neccessary to "debunk" him. To me, this is as amusing as I find the attempts to debunk the completely unverified accounts in the Bible. Why debunk something that has no strong evidence to support it?

As regards your views on my knowledge of mediumship, I thank you. And I also thank you for actually taking the time to visit a medium and provide your account on the internet. It was your visit (along with RC) that prompted me to visit the TvTalk forum in the first place. That being said, you should not rely on my interpretation of the evidence. I reccomend searching it out for yourself. If you have obtained the Gauld book, try to find a nearby library that carries the complete SPR journal archive (I understand that this can be difficult). It is only through the original source that we can understand anything...paranormal or not.

[Shroud of Akron]

i have to say that this show actually did some good. my wife was (before tonight) a john edwards believer. i used to tease her all the time about it, she just teased back. the wierdest thing is that once she doubted JE, she started doubting "experiences" she believed that she has had. it was sort of sad, but enlightening at the same time. she looked completely lost and crushed, but started thinking critically on all sorts of things. the last thing she said to me tonight was "john edwards is a fake, i'm insane, and there is no god."

[Clancie]

Shroud of Akron,

JE may be a fake, but I can't see how that show would have made your wife reach that conclusion.

I'm curious: does she now think that CO staffers get information from people in line and feed it to JE, mark the chairs (though there are no assigned seats), etc.? If so, does it bother you at all that there's no evidence for that (even from Jim Underdown, who went to CO looking for things like that, but--as far as I know--concluded that its all done by cold reading, something NBC didn't show?)

And, just a question for you, the same one I asked dharlow. If you stood in line and talked to someone about a friend who'd died, sharing some personal details about your relationship...and then, half an hour later, JE told you those exact same things, wouldn't you feel a bit suspicious?

(My experience, btw, is that people seldom talk about the people they are hoping to hear from while waiting in line, much less share detailed reminiscences with strangers--or even the people who've come with them).

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by dharlow


How do we know what methods the "big name psychics" are using? They could just as well be using the hot methods employed in that show.

Randi Commentary, February 23, 2001 (http://www.randi.org/jr/02-23-2001.html)

Do a search on this web page for "cold reading" and learn even more about Mr. Edward and his methods.

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by Clancy
Oh, I think they reveal the secrets they knew. One can wonder why they don't know more, though.


I think I am confusing people a bit. I was making a joking reference to Uri Geller trying to sue anyone who exposes him; like James Randi when he wrote his book on Geller. This is what I was meant. I guess I should have used ;) or something! Sorry! :)

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer
I can't believe some people here are griping about the show. With all the zillions of garbage uncritical wide-eyed gullible TV shows on the air, someone finally does one with actual critical thinking, and you complain that is wasn't any good?

Sure it could have been better, but it was pretty good for what it was. My seven-year-old daughter learned quite a bit, I am happy to report. She's quite the skeptic.

By the way, for those of you who don't have enough irony in life, I believe this show was produced by the same company that produced Fox's Moon hoax show (Nash Entertainment).

I see your point, and I agree. Anything that gets people thinking critically is a good thing. I am glad your daughter learned a lot from the show. It is good to start developing the critical thinking skills at an early age. :)

Yes, the show was made by Nash Entertainment! :eek:

[Dogwood]

My main gripe is that it was more of a magicians secrets revealed than anything else. There's far too much of that stuff out there already. Who does the needle through the arm bit? James Van Praagh? No, Harry Anderson. I'm glad for what they did say about psychics and mediums, but I think this show was more damaging to professional magicians and mentalists.

[Skeptic]

The problem is that they used "high tech" methods: hidden mirror in shoe, pre-cut spoon, color-coded "hot" reading, a hidden confederate under the table doing the "ghost" writing, etc. Most "psychics" use much simpler methods, that don't require these sorts of props--AND THAT WASN'T MENTIONED.

I am not disappointed as others are, though. The main point is to make people skeptical of these people; sure, a "psychic" COULD say on his show "look, no mirrors!" (or whatever) but that would be a case of "methinks the lady protest too much". The audience will think: if he's so real, why does he have to reply to the criticism at all, when they show only dealt with "fake psychics"?

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by Clancy
Shroud of Akron,

JE may be a fake, but I can't see how that show would have made your wife reach that conclusion.

I'm curious: does she now think that CO staffers get information from people in line and feed it to JE, mark the chairs (though there are no assigned seats), etc.? If so, does it bother you at all that there's no evidence for that (even from Jim Underdown, who went to CO looking for things like that, but--as far as I know--concluded that its all done by cold reading, something NBC didn't show?)she does not necessarily believe that he get's info this way, but has finally realized that it can be faked. by coming to her conclusion, it does not bother me. it does bother me that she started to feel sad, her faith was visibly shaken. i am happy that she is more critical of past experiences, but to see someone you love feel lost and betrayed hurts you as well.

And, just a question for you, the same one I asked dharlow. If you stood in line and talked to someone about a friend who'd died, sharing some personal details about your relationship...and then, half an hour later, JE told you those exact same things, wouldn't you feel a bit suspicious?as for myself, yes i would be suspicious. if i went in with the desire to believe in him, i would probably not be so suspicious. this is much like when i read about "new scientific discoveries", i will admit, the science endorsement will make me less sceptical. i do view this as a personal flaw, but that's who i am. i guess i'm more predisposed to believe someone that practices an accepted field of study than someone that is in a paranormal field.

(My experience, btw, is that people seldom talk about the people they are hoping to hear from while waiting in line, much less share detailed reminiscences with strangers--or even the people who've come with them). curiosity, where did you get this experience?

i edit because me grammar is not being so well

[malaka]

My 2 cents...

I can only echo what many other psoters have said...

The show delivered exactly what I thought it would. I had hoped for more, but it was better than nothing.

I watched it with my gf. She knows I'm logical and skeptical and I try and educate her as much as I can as to my way of thinking. When the bit about remote viewing came on, it was revealed to be an accomplice that had earlier gathered information regarding the "victim". My gf asked how other remote viewers do it when they obviously could not have used an accomplice. I told her, "The difference is...they're wrong!". :)

[Snide]

I agree with the mixed sentiment that it was good to have a show like this, but it could have been better, and in many cases, it will even strengthen a believer's conviction.

To make it better, they could have had a Randi, Shermer, etc. comment after each "trick," explaining how, "this isn't the only way psychic's get you to believe in hearing from the dead, telekinesis," etc. Editing down each trick by about a minute would have taken nothing out of the content, and that would have given a chance for the believers who would say "John Edward/my psychic/whoever doesn't do that" to at least figure out that all psychic skills are explainable.

[Clancie]

Lavie Enrose,
:)

Shroud of Akron,
she does not necessarily believe that he get's info this way, but has finally realized that it can be faked.
Well, yes. All believers should know that it can be faked. That doesn't mean it always is being faked though. (Maybe so. Maybe not).
...to see someone you love feel lost and betrayed hurts you as well.
Yes. If JE is ever revealed to have been hot reading (as opposed to self-deluded cold reading...or being the real deal) he will be widely despised by people who now like him or are neutral/indifferent.

There's no doubt in my mind that what he does helps grieving people. Of course, if its ever proven to be fraud, that will be different.

I guess i'm more predisposed to believe someone that practices an accepted field of study than someone that is in a paranormal field.
Sure.
Curiosity, where did you get this experience (waiting in line)?
I waited in line at a 1500 person JE event in Las Vegas recently, followed by a lot of milling around (at two different time periods) in the lobby/refreshment area. I was with 10 people who were hoping to hear from loved ones; not one of them mentioned any story about the deceased--nor did I. I've also talked with several skeptical types (most people don't just "buy" all this, hook, line and sinker) who've attended CO and saw nothing to indicate hot reading (other than the possibility of doing it, hypothetically, from names in advance. But there aren't assigned seats).

I've also been to several other mediums for one-to-one readings. Good or bad readings, the information has never been hot read stuff, although there are some things that are easy to find out about me online just by doing a Google search.

I'll add to this that in Michael O'Neill's criticism of the show, he speculates about hidden mikes, accomplices, etc. but actually never says that John got the information wrong about him. Reading between the lines, I feel he was unable to explain JE's reading of him without claiming the use of tricks or cheats (which he had no evidence of, except one editing claim, which is disputed).

I don't think your wife should give up on it yet. :)

[Brown]

When notice of the show first appeared in this forum, I expressed my concern that the show might leave the impression that a trick could only be performed in one way.

This show did that, to a degree. Okay, the show demonstrated a way to "wound" an arm with a needle. The same technique cannot be used by Penn and Teller when they wound their arms with knives. In some people's eyes, this lends legitimacy to the knife trick: "I know how the trick is done, and Penn and Teller didn't use that trick!" Of course, Penn and Teller used a different trick.

Shoot, there are lots of techniques for bending spoons, and some of them don't need preparation beforehand. For example, conjuror can simply bend the spoon while attention is misdirected, then reveal the bend in such a way as to make it appear that the spoon is bending. I know one magician who puts a spoon under a table, bends it, brings it back up from under the table, and then simply tells the spectators that the spoon bent in front of their eyes... and they buy it! (It's all in the presentation, folks!)

As for hot and cold reading, there are dozens of techniques. The ones shown on television are not the only ones. Randi himself has disclosed some methods for getting astounding "hits." (A friend of mine who used to gather info about people so he could surprise them with it later called it "bird-dogging," and he used many different techniques for doing it.)

The sealed envelope trick was good. It was good because it was so amazing, and yet so simple to do. But again, there are many ways to do almost exactly the same thing.

I got a kick out of seeing "The Wizard" (the telephone trick) being performed. (See "The Wizard," in John Scarne's "Scarne on Card Tricks," which Scarne credits to Steffi Storm. This is indeed an OLD trick!) I knew exactly what was going on, but it still was spooky.

On the whole, I thought the show was pretty good. It helped people see that they can be tricked into a belief in mysterious powers, and that sometimes the tricks are incredibly simple.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Brown
The sealed envelope trick was good. It was good because it was so amazing, and yet so simple to do.
Seriously?
Maybe if each person wrote the number on a separate sheet of paper--or there were more people--but if I was the third person, I'd definitely remember the other two numbers without even thinking about it (wouldn't anyone?), and would definitely know that the three didn't add up to 1417.

His number was close to theirs, but with the option of choosing numbers from 1 to 1000 the answers could range from "3" to "3000". I think most people in the third spot would figure out the answer was wrong.

But I did like the way they showed how "answers" can be set-up ahead with the notebook and envelope.

[bignickel]

I think what would have turned the show from 'good' to 'great' would have been a JE cold reading:

Show the performer in front of the audience doing the JE schtick, rattling off names 'that start with M. Or J', numbers and such.

Show him getting right answer after right answer, with approapriate 'oohs' and 'ahhs' from the clapping audience.

Then have the narrator (Stacy Keach?) afterward:

"Can Mark Edward (or whomever) really talk to the dead? How did he get so many answers right?

Well, what you may not have known is that what you just saw was heavily edited down from 2 hours of the actual performance. We only showed you all the hits: now check out all the misses"

(show footage of one miss after another)

"Also, the 'psychic' continually throws out guesses that can apply to just about everyone. Plus, he allows the audience member to tell him the meaning of a name or a date, and then voices back that information a minute later, as in this instance:"

(show instance)

"The 'psychic' never guessed this person's birthday! It was volunteered by the audience member herself."

And so on.

[Marc]

Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer
I can't believe some people here are griping about the show. With all the zillions of garbage uncritical wide-eyed gullible TV shows on the air, someone finally does one with actual critical thinking, and you complain that is wasn't any good?

Well yes. What do you think the believers think when they see this show? They will think how virtually nothing on the show would apply to their favorite psychics, and once again easily dismiss skeptics as having no idea what they are talking about. For example this quote from a medium's message board:

In the short segment designed to point out how mediums do their thing, they used tricks which might hold up a few times in a gullible audience, but they would be pretty obvious to most people. John Edward has now given thousands of readings before tens of thousands of people. I would imagine the Cynics from the Skeptical Inquirer (and other periodicals or organizations that pride themselves on debunking) have looked up a great many of them trying to pry information out of them that would show John or his staff asked questions of them or had them seated in certain areas, etc. If even one person who has had a reading claimed that he was offerred money to fake something or had been prepped before the reading, those folks would be all over the story. When you see the sudden burst of emotion --happiness, laughter, surprise, incredulity -- on the face of some one getting a reading from John can you have any doubt as to their sincerity?

To reveal tricks as if there is only one way to do them, especially if you are revealing tricks unrelated to the ones actually in use, does not help convince the people that need help convincing.

[Clancie]

originally posted by bignickel
"Can Mark Edward (or whomever) really talk to the dead? How did he get so many answers right?"

Well, what you may not have known is that what you just saw was heavily edited down from 2 hours of the actual performance.
originally posted by Marc
To reveal tricks as if there is only one way to do them, especially if you are revealing tricks unrelated to the ones actually in use, does not help convince the people that need help convincing.
Then why doesn't someone do a demo the way bignickel suggests?

The closest so far has been the (highly edited--20 minutes down to 90 seconds) Ian Rowland demo on ABC. But PrimetimeThursday used very little of the video that they had, certainly not enough to make much of a point about it.

So, if this is so easy, why doesn't someone else (Randi?) do what ABC should have done? Why is there no educational video showing the "real" process?

An actual demonstration would go far to educate people. I can't understand why it isn't done, if its so easy to do.

Especially since the Mark Edwards/Ian Rowland demonstrations have eliminated the usual excuses of "There are no cold readers willing to do it" and "It would cause too much pain to the sitters".

[bignickel]

Actually, Michael Shermer has done the JE cold reading bit in front of a group of people.

I thought he did a better job than JE.

[Clancie]

originally posted by bignickel
Actually, Michael Shermer has done the JE cold reading bit in front of a group of people. I thought he did a better job than JE.

So, if Shermer can do this, why isn't it videotaped so others can learn from it? Why would skeptics just continiue to rely on heresay that (other?) cold readers can duplicate what JE does--or do it even better?

I can't understand why the claim that cold readers do this persists, the opportunity to document it is there, and no one provides evidence of doing it.

And...Shermer?! It doesn't get more accessible to taped documentation than that. (btw, where'd you see him?)

[bignickel]

He was videotaped. I saw in on TV.

What was the name of that program? Anyone? I thought it was on FOX, or ABC. Mayhaps 20/20 or 'Dateline'?

Guess I'll have post this concerning the episode of "Eye on Nye" he taped January 15, 2003:
http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/mspsy.html

Check your listings!

[Clancie]

He was videotaped. I saw in on TV.

Shermer doing a "mediumship demo better than JE" on television????

I hope someone else can reference this, bignickel, because I'm a really junky for this and honestly think its not out there.

While I remember seeing Shermer appearing as a commentator/debunker on several programs about psychics, I can't remember seeing a single mediumship demo he's done, much less something of "professional cold reader" quality.

And your link to his appearance on the Nye show (which hasn't appeared yet, right?) is interesting, but the hits he describes in the mediumship demo aren't very impressive at all, imo. Some easy guesses that lead to hits, some fishing for information in conversation, some blatant misses. Good for him for trying, but other than that....

[Yahzi]

The show pointed out that this stuff can be faked. And it ended by encouraging you to question the next person who claims he can talk to the dead.

It's a good start. Sure, it could have been better, but at least it's a start. I'm not complaining, I'm cheering.

dharlow
My own opinion is that there are some who feel they need to attack, rather than demand evidence, and they feel secure in attacking believers by charging that JE et al. are cold reading. But this is an unfalsifiable attack, and dare I say that many of the people who engage in this attack have little knowledge of the practice of cold reading, or of the magic of mentalism in general.
What do you mean, unfalsifiable? Are you saying that JE could use all the tricks of cold reading, but actually being getting messages from the dead because talking to the dead is coincidentally exactly like cold reading?

As for many of the people who engage in this attack, and their knowledge of cold reading, James Randi engages in this attack and he's forgotten more about cold reading than you or I will ever know. So what, exactly, was your non-point?

Clancy
Why is there no educational video showing the "real" process?
There is. It was on "South Park." And it's been done time and time again. But, funny thing is, when you hire a professional to lie to people about really intimate things, and then confess to them that they have lied, it kinda makes people with ethics uncomfortable. Including the professional you hired. Odd as this may seem to you, most of the people who have an interest in debunking this crap also have enough human emotion that exposing and crushing people's intimate hopes bothers them, and they prefer not to do it.

Of course, JE hasn't got a shred of conscience, so he can lie to your face 5 days a week and not even blink.

[RSLancastr]

I didn't see the show, but I still applaud it, because my girlfriend, who firmly believed in JE and JVP when I met her, and who I have been showing the skeptic's viewpoint on them, emailed me today after seeing the show, and said "All right, I now accept that JE and JVP are con artists."

[Number 6]

good show

[Mercutio]

On another network, shortly after the show, was the "masked magician" and one of the "secrets revealed" shows. With that in mind, I echo Brown's [above] earlier concern...the narrator here constantly said that, no matter what they claim, "this is always how it is done." And, point of fact, it simply is not how it is always done. It would have been nice if Stacy Keach (sp?) had, just once, said "of course, this is just one of many ways this could be accomplished."

Still, what Bad Ast said, it is better to see this than a believer show, no matter what flaws we see in it.

[Ian Rowland]

Originally posted by Clancie
Then why doesn't someone do a demo the way bignickel suggests?

The closest so far has been the (highly edited--20 minutes down to 90 seconds) Ian Rowland demo on ABC. But PrimetimeThursday used very little of the video that they had, certainly not enough to make much of a point about it.

Especially since the Mark Edwards/Ian Rowland demonstrations have eliminated the usual excuses of "There are no cold readers willing to do it" and "It would cause too much pain to the sitters".
You comment about the Primetime piece having been edited down from '20 minutes down to 90 seconds' is perhaps a little lacking in accuracy, and this might be a good place to set the record straight. My demonstration with the 20-strong audience lasted a little over half an hour. ABC also taped a group discussion with the 20 participants, and an interview with myself and presenter Chris Cuomo. Everything - the demonstration, group discussion and interview - was edited down to a segment running approx. 9 minutes in length. Of this, I'd say about 2 minutes were actulaly of me demonstrating cold reading.

As for the 'excuses' about pain to the sitters, I think it's important to point out that yes, myself and ABC managed to set this demonstration up so that the 20 people involved were handled sensitively and with tact, and were not caused any distress, and indeed I would not have agreed to participate if this were not the case. But please appreciate that this took a really massive effort! It's very hard to do. ABC devoted a LOT of resources, time, money and effort into setting up this particular segment, and the ethical question of handling all the participants fairly, and with tact, was one reason why it was so hard to do.

In the 20 years or so that I've been dabbling in this kind of work, this is the one and only time a TV company has been willing to put in the resources to set up a demonstration of this kind, and it only happened because a senior producer (with enough clout to make things happen) believed in the segment enough to really push for it, and because they had a genius of a producer, called Muriel Pearson, who managed to pull it all together against daunting odds. So I'm not surprised that such demonstrations have been very rare.

However, if you want to see cold reading demonstrated live, and on a large audience, come to TAM2. I'll be including this kind of demo in my lecture show, just as I did at Caltech over the summer and at the skeptics convention in Canberra.

[renata]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland

However, if you want to see cold reading demonstrated live, and on a large audience, come to TAM2. I'll be including this kind of demo in my lecture show, just as I did at Caltech over the summer and at the skeptics convention in Canberra.

Hi, Ian

You may not know this, but Clancie (along with me, Rslancaster, Khalid01 and Electric Monk) attended your Caltech lecture. In fact, Clancie and I have been arguing quite strenuously exactly what you did and did not say during your demonstration! Perhaps now that you are here, you can put this matter to rest, if you like. If you wish, I can gather the quotes as they stood last. However, Clancie has been missing from these board for a few days- she may be away. I look forward to another demonstration at TAM2.

[Ian Rowland]

There will be a video/DVD of the Caltech lecture available fairly soon. It includes all of the (fairly short) cold reading demo except for the very first thread I started which, as everyone who was there knows, went absolutely nowhere. So that might help you settle what was or was not said. If I can be of any more help here, fire away.

- - -

Incidentally, before people hurry to say it's unfair of me to have edited out the one thread which went nowhere... please remember a few points.

(1) When I demonstrate cold reading, I'm not claiming anything except that I'm demonstrating cold reading, and I make this clear at the start of the demo. I also make it clear that sometimes the threads go nowhere. I always make the same points at every public demo I give, so there's no question of trying to make myself look better than I am. Yes, my threads sometimes go nowhere, and I've never tried to hide this.

(2) If you were at the lecture, you could see me and the audience, and understand what was going on - even when I didn't get any response. On the video, there's just one head and shoulders shot of me, and only I have a mic . The footage of the thread that went nowhere is fairly unintelligible on its own, which is another good reason to ditch it.

(3) We had about 1 hour 50 minutes of material, and for reasons to do with DVD compression ratios, we were trying to get the running time down to below 90 minutes, so cuts had to be made SOMEWHERE. And the cold reading piece was one of the few bits where cuts could be made and it would still make sense. We also cut out the entire psychic surgey demo for this reason.

(4) I didn't have to admit here that we've made this edit, and deleted the thread that went nowhere. But I have done. And I would never try to hide the fact.

[renata]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland
There will be a video/DVD of the Caltech lecture available fairly soon. It includes all of the (fairly short) cold reading demo except for the very first thread I started which, as everyone who was there knows, went absolutely nowhere. So that might help you settle what was or was not said. If I can be of any more help here, fire away.


Thanks, Ian

If you want to glance at the most recent retelling of the dispute, here is the last thread. There are a few posts on the middle of the second page, 9/28 dealing with your seminar.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870112271
Because it was never resolved, my post from 9/28 is rather lengthy, as it incorporates many posts from prior threads.

I will not retell the issue there. Suffice it to say, Clancie and I disagree as to your success in cold reading demo. There are some quotes from her in that thread, evaluating your performance, which I will not reproduce here.

One issue that was resolved later, concerning the differences between your mediumship versus psychic style readings. At the time, Clancie believed that there was a difference between psychic cold reading and mediumship style cold reading- bringing through a special communicator. In another thread, she said
The point is, whether cold reading or not, if there is no spirit identified, nothing evidential presented to establish a specific "communicator", then it isn't mediumship (or fake mediumship).

Its not a question of style at all. It is the key difference between mediumship and a "psychic" reading/cold reading.

I was able to locate about 5 readings with John Edward in which no such communicator was brought forth. After that Clancie thought she might have misrepresented what JE claims to do. Therefore, I assume her differentiation between your first two readings and your last two readings are no longer as crucial as they were originally, as JE has been shown to provide information with no communicator whatsoever.

Any input from you will be welcome, but if you rather not get involved, it would make sense as well.