How do psychic believers differentiate "real psychics" from fake ones?

[EGarrett]

Surely they admit that there are some fakes out there...so I'm curious how this particular bit of logic works in their heads.

[arthwollipot]

Logic?

[Drummer]

Surely they admit that there are some fakes out there...so I'm curious how this particular bit of logic works in their heads.

My best guess is, and it's really just a guess, that two conditions are necessary:
1) they have to be caught cheating
2) they have to have said things they don't like.

Getting caught cheating alone is not enough. I guess you know the excuses:
- it's not a talent you can switch on and off and s/he didn't want to disappoint people so in this case s/he cheated but all the other times it was real etc.

I think the most important reason they believe in psychics is because they tell them things they want or even need to hear. So if they don't like the psychic in the first place because s/he says things they don't like, *and* s/he gets caught cheating, then I think they're likely to call that psychic a fraud.

Oh, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with any logic going on in their head. Their decisions are emotion based. None of that cold emotionless materialistic rationality please.

[Mojo]

I've seen it argued (by Interesting Ian, I think) that the existence of fake psychics makes it more likely that real psychics exist. The argument being that people wouldn't pretend to be something that didn't exist.

[CLD]

Surely they admit that there are some fakes out there...so I'm curious how this particular bit of logic works in their heads.

I think it works differently for different woos. Some feel that any psychic who seeks money and publicity is fake and "real" psychics are ones who keep a low profile. Others feel everyone has latent "real" psychic ability but the fake ones mix in trickery with "real" ability to up their hit score. Still others feel that the only "real" psychic ability is a very faint phenomenon (a few percent over random chance in test scores) promoted by fringe academic scientists.

[arthwollipot]

I've seen it argued (by Interesting Ian, I think) that the existence of fake psychics makes it more likely that real psychics exist. The argument being that people wouldn't pretend to be something that didn't exist.

See, there's a bit of woo non-logic right there. My son pretends to be Harry Potter. Does that mean Harry Potter exists?

[blutoski]

See, there's a bit of woo non-logic right there. My son pretends to be Harry Potter. Does that mean Harry Potter exists?

I'm not sure I'd just call it 'woo non-logic'. It's similar to Plato's belief that imperfect things imply perfect things. Reification of the ideal.

It just means that their logic is 2,500 years out-of-date.

[blutoski]

Surely they admit that there are some fakes out there...so I'm curious how this particular bit of logic works in their heads.

As with another poster, I think different believers use different criteria.

The validation is done by repuation or personal experience. A psychic who gets a superb hit is afforded legitemacy. But the definition of a 'hit' is personal and arbitrary, so there's a lot of flexibility here.

Some sitters are more savvy about fishing than others. If the sitter hears nothing but vagueness, they may or may not classify them as a hit. "You have family." "My God! It's like she's reading my mind!" versus "Uh-huh. Tell me something that couldn't be about any chump who walks in."

For example, a psychic guesses that the sitter has a brother who collects something to do with clocks and sand. The sitter's brother collects antique sand-dials, which is a damn good hit. Something that sweet could solidify the psychic's legitemacy with a sitter that is on the fence or even downright skeptical.

[Mojo]

I've seen it argued (by Interesting Ian, I think) that the existence of fake psychics makes it more likely that real psychics exist. The argument being that people wouldn't pretend to be something that didn't exist.
See, there's a bit of woo non-logic right there. My son pretends to be Harry Potter. Does that mean Harry Potter exists?


Well, obviously, because nobody could have just made him up, could they? :D

[Mojo]

Actually, it is a fairly standard type of argument. More frequently used in archaeological pseudoscience, for example "the ancient Egyptians can't possibly have built the pyramids/the Easter Islanders couldn't possibly have erected the statues..." I these cases it usually relies on a rather patronizing view of the capabilities of "primitive people".

[JoeEllison]

Usually, it seems that a psychic is deemed "real" if they refuse to allow anyone to test their "abilities", or double-check their results. Don't ask me how that works.

[chillzero]

If you'd like an answer from someone who actually knows this logic...

Back in my day as a tarot reader, etc, I had peers who believed that everyone 'has the gift', but some suppress it, or can't tune in to it.

There are 'psychics' that are clearly fakes; where there is no logical way to dismiss when they are caught red-handed cheating, for example. In these cases, it is easy to admit that this particualar person is a fake, but to still believe the ability exists, and that other people really possess it.

It's the same as decent plumbers / roofers / builders, who work hard and diligently to out the cowboys, and show how they can trick people into buying their services. Honest and decent workmen do exist. So do scam artists. Why would the existence of scam artists belie the existence of good workmen?

[Garrette]

If you'd like an answer from someone who actually knows this logic...

Back in my day as a tarot reader, etc, I had peers who believed that everyone 'has the gift', but some suppress it, or can't tune in to it.

There are 'psychics' that are clearly fakes; where there is no logical way to dismiss when they are caught red-handed cheating, for example. In these cases, it is easy to admit that this particualar person is a fake, but to still believe the ability exists, and that other people really possess it.

It's the same as decent plumbers / roofers / builders, who work hard and diligently to out the cowboys, and show how they can trick people into buying their services. Honest and decent workmen do exist. So do scam artists. Why would the existence of scam artists belie the existence of good workmen?This is my experience in dealing with believers, and to an extent my experience when I was a believer.

To this point, there really isn't a logic problem. The problem comes in when they refuse to extend the analogy.

Truly excellent craftsmen show their work, and the results are consistent, obvious, and warrantied. Others with the same expertise can look at the work. There is a record showing exactly what was done and how, and there is no alternate explanation for how the water flows through the pipes after the plumber puts them in.

None of this is true for psychics. There is no warranty, the results are neither consistent nor obvious, records rarely exist, no others with the same expertise can look at the work to evaluate it, and other explanations for the effect do, in fact, exist.

You can't get the believer to discuss that part of the analogy.