Contact with the Great Beyond--Psychics like Praagh

[ShaneVA]

This is only my third post on this message board, but I’m going to go ahead and jump right in:

I’m really not so certain about “psychics” such as James van Praagh or John Edward. A lot of times, they seem to “hit” only after searching for information. I sometimes watch Edwards’ show and perform right along with him. I’ve made some pretty decent “hits”–not as frequent as Edwards, but then again, I haven’t been doing it for 15 years. There is no way I would consider myself “psychic.”

However, on another note, I’ve been clinically dead twice (once when I was 11 days old and another time when I was 3). I remember nothing from these events, obviously, which I attribute to the fact that I was so young. Yet, I’ve also had a few strange occurrances during my life:

When I was 8, I came home from school one day and distinctly heard voices coming from the intercom system within our house. I was home alone and since there were no intercoms outside, whoever or whatever was talking was doing so from inside the house. I was in such fear that I went outside and sat on the driveway until my parents arrived home from work.

When I was 11, my sister and I were playing with a ouija board. We had 5 candles lit, and suddenly the flames on all 5 candles stretched over a foot in the air. Wax began spilling over the candles in a flood-like fashion. There were no windows or vents which would have naturally caused this phenomenon. We still have no rational explanation for what occurred.

And finally, the kicker: When I was 18, my grandmother passed away. Two weeks afterwards, I had a dream in which she told me to tell my mother (her daughter) to not feel bad about forgetting about her bedpan. (My mom had placed a bedpan under my grandmother and forgotten about it until the next moring. My mom felt EXTREMELY guilty about it and didn’t tell ANYONE, including my father). There was no possible way I could have known about that specific detail. I know rationally you could say that I heard about it and just forgot, but I would have known if I had heard it because all this occurred within a two-week time frame. I had no idea that my grandmother was so weak that she even had to use a bedpan during her final week alive.

Perhaps there are rational, logical explanations for what I have posted above. In fact, I would assume that my first two experiences listed above could have a very simple rational explanation. Yet the experience about my grandmother would be terribly difficult to “rationalize.” There was NO WAY I could have known about that particular specific even, and it still freaks me out today. Was it “psychic” ability? Was I communicating with my dead grandmother? I honestly have no idea, but I’m not going to rule out the possibility.

Just my 2 cents. BTW: cool board.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**Is that understandable? **

Sure, it’s understandable. It’s also thoroughly unsupported, illogical, and repeatedly refuted.

It also has nothing to do with what I pointed out, which was that if you’re saying people aren’t using cold reading, they would have to be using some other technique of coming up with their info, even if it’s just wild guessing. But you said that they are not using cold readings, and that you don’t know if they’re using some other method. The two statements are contradictory; If you claim to know that they are not using cold reading to produce their results, it is also claiming that they are using some other method. If you claim they are using cold reading, you are claiming that they are not using some other method. And if you claim that you don’t know if they’re using cold reading, then, since it has not been excluded from the possible methods, you are claiming that you don’t know if they are using some other method.

If something exists, it exists. If something does not exist, it does not exist. A persons belief about an objects existance or non existance, wether they claim to be psychic or skeptic, has no bearing on that objects existance. We have to go on what evidence is shown to us, and the evidence is in favor of cold readings as opposed to psychic phenomenon, wether you believe it to exist or not.

[GIGObuster]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**
As usually twisting words to make brownie points.

I said that cold readings do not exist for psychics, they are a skeptical theory, now how do I know whether this person is a skeptic or what.

cold readings exist for skeptics in the same way demons exist for fundies.

Is that understandable? **

Wrong leekat, It is not only skeptics but the law and other researches who have also found that cold reading does exist:

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~law/tcdpap1.html

Open to question: Psychic detectives and offenders profilers as external experts
L Alison and C O’Keeffe, University of Liverpool, UK

Previous research has established that psychic detectives are no more accurate about the details of an offence or the background characteristics of the offender (Kocsis, 1998; Pinnozoto, 1987) than a control group. It may be that the reason they are still occasionally used by the police relates to the extent to which they can make an account sound convincing. There are several rhetorical devices that may be employed in discourse to make one’s account more believable. This study examined 12 psychic’s accounts of three crimes. Research has shown that individuals are inclined to interpret ambiguous information to ‘fit’ their own personal agendas (Sundberg, 1955; Hyman, 1981). This has been termed the ‘fallacy of personal validation’ (Forer, 1949). Psychics exploit this tendency via a technique termed ‘cold reading’ by which they employ vague information or stock spiels in order to convince that client that more personally tailored information has been given than is actually the case. There are several components to such manipulation that may or may not be employed to assist in convincing the listener that they are provided personal and specific information. Similarly, profiles that rely heavily upon intuition, general or vague information, as well as the reputation or convincingness of the provider may have questionable utility or veracity.

And ShaneVa I don’t doubt your stories, but I do think there are more mundane explanations, I had experiences also like the ones you described, However I did found the explanations years later, and anyhow, the beef right now is with a SECOND party getting to mess with our memories and experiences, in other words: your experiences are ok but not relevant to see if other person has the power to repeat what you saw, I could conclude that psychics are useless because only the individual can interpret what he experienced, guys like Praagh should but out.

[ShaneVA]

and anyhow, the beef right now is with a SECOND party getting to mess with our memories and experiences, in other words: your experiences are ok but not relevant to see if other person has the power to repeat what you saw, I could conclude that psychics are useless because only the individual can interpret what he experienced, guys like Praagh should but out.

Okay, I get your point now. Thanks for the clarification. 21 pages of threads was too much to read.

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by GIGObuster *
**Wrong leekat, It is not only skeptics but the law and other researches who have also found that cold reading does exist:

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~law/tcdpap1.html

And ShaneVa I don’t doubt your stories, but I do think there are more mundane explanations, I had experiences also like the ones you described, However I did found the explanations years later, and anyhow, the beef right now is with a SECOND party getting to mess with our memories and experiences, in other words: your experiences are ok but not relevant to see if other person has the power to repeat what you saw, I could conclude that psychics are useless because only the individual can interpret what he experienced, guys like Praagh should but out. **

There have been no controlled research on “cold readings” that I know of, if you have some research on them please show a link, I would be very interested. As of right now, no one has proved they exist. Randi said on the Larry King show that you could give the same reading to 10 people and get the same result from all of them.

Now, for the above link, there is no new information here. It is the opinion of the writers (skeptics) that psychics are doing cold readings. I see no reference to any research for this. I would like to see the research they are talking about relating to police psychics, I would like to know how that was determined.

I will try to explain it again.

When a psychic gives a reading, he/she gives the reading from what they can see with their psychic ability. Strong or not so strong ability.

When skeptics look at psychics giving a reading they often say the psychic is giving a “cold reading”.

Psychics do not give cold readings and I have never heard any talk among psychics about cold readings. Unless they have been reading skeptical material they wouldn’t know what one was.

Therefore, cold readings are a theory of skeptics and nothing that psychics do. Does this help.

Love
Leroy

[Meatros]

*Originally posted by GOM *
**1. Now that’s puzzling to me. Why do you accept God as a spiritual being, but no others?

2. I think that statement is probably valid for the vast majority of us. Perhaps you should be thankful for that. Many times in the Bible when an angel shows up it is a frightening experience for the people involved. **

1. I suppose I accept other people’s souls to inhabit the realm of God’s. I obviously have no support for this, I just believe it through faith.

2. Maybe I should be thankful of that, but the thing that gets me is that practically everyone I know has seen something very unusual (I don’t want to say supernatural though). Only one of my friends has seen something that I can not explain in any way though.

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by Phoenix Dragon *
**Sure, it’s understandable. It’s also thoroughly unsupported, illogical, and repeatedly refuted.

It also has nothing to do with what I pointed out, which was that if you’re saying people aren’t using cold reading, they would have to be using some other technique of coming up with their info, even if it’s just wild guessing. But you said that they are not using cold readings, and that you don’t know if they’re using some other method. The two statements are contradictory; If you claim to know that they are not using cold reading to produce their results, it is also claiming that they are using some other method. If you claim they are using cold reading, you are claiming that they are not using some other method. And if you claim that you don’t know if they’re using cold reading, then, since it has not been excluded from the possible methods, you are claiming that you don’t know if they are using some other method.

If something exists, it exists. If something does not exist, it does not exist. A persons belief about an objects existance or non existance, wether they claim to be psychic or skeptic, has no bearing on that objects existance. We have to go on what evidence is shown to us, and the evidence is in favor of cold readings as opposed to psychic phenomenon, wether you believe it to exist or not. **

This is strange indeed, I explained the first part again in the above post.

Now is the second part you state

If something exists, it exists. If something does not exist, it does not exist. A persons belief about an objects existance or non existance, wether they claim to be psychic or skeptic, has no bearing on that objects existance.

Now the really big problem with this, is we are not talking about an object. We are talking about a concept, cold readings are only a concept in the minds of skeptics, as demons are concepts in the minds of religious folks.

Maybe that will help you understand it better.

Love
Leroy

[Phoenix_Dragon]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
Now the really big problem with this, is we are not talking about an object. We are talking about a concept, cold readings are only a concept in the minds of skeptics, as demons are concepts in the minds of religious folks.

If you want to nitpick it like that, it would be more fair to say a “cold reading” is an action, not a concept. It remains the same. Either cold reading is done, or it is not. One’s beliefs as to wether it is done or not does not affect the fact.

Psychics do not give cold readings and I have never heard any talk among psychics about cold readings. Unless they have been reading skeptical material they wouldn’t know what one was.

Except for the psychics that decided to show everyone how it’s done, hmm?

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**
As usually twisting words to make brownie points.
**

Since I have asked a very straightforward question I hope you’re accusing someone else of “twisting words to make brownie points.”

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**
I said that cold readings do not exist for psychics, they are a skeptical theory, now how do I know whether this person is a skeptic or what.
**

You may consider the part of the question with the words “people who claim to be doing cold readings” to mean that they are claiming that the process they are performing is a cold reading. I’m talking about stage magicians who do psychic acts and tell everyone that it, (their acts/ performances of stage magic), are done by means of the process known as cold reading.

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**
Is that understandable?
**

No. I have asked a very simple, straightforward question that can be answered with a very simple, straightforward “Yes” or “No”.
The question is about your thoughts, (the thoughts of you, Lekatt). The thoughts I’m asking about are the ones you have about stage magicians who make the claim that the feat they, (the stage magicians making the claim), perform is cold reading.
In other words…

Do you think that people who claim to be doing cold readings are using some method other than cold reading?

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**
Now the really big problem with this, is we are not talking about an object. We are talking about a concept, cold readings are only a concept in the minds of skeptics, as demons are concepts in the minds of religious folks.
**

Some skeptics are stage magicians. These skeptics who are stage magicians sometimes give performances of their skills. Sometimes these performances involve a “psychic act”. When these skeptical stage magicians give a performance of their psychic act they claim that they do it through the technique called cold reading.
Do you think that these stage magicians, who are giving performances of their psychic acts and claiming that they are using the techniques of cold reading, are actually using some other method besides cold reading to give their performances?

People who belive in demons most often don’t actually have any purported contact with the demons. The ones who do are most likely not really having contact with demons. They are probably either engaged in conscious fraud or in delusional behavior.

Do you think that these skeptics, who are stage magicians, when they give performances their “psychic act”, are engaging in conscious fraud and using some other method than the method they claim they are using, (cold reading)?
OR
Do you think that these skeptics, who are stage magicians, when they give performances their “psychic act”, are engaged in delusional behavior and only imagine that they are performing their acts by mean of cold reading?

[DocCathode]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**Like: “Pay no attention to the man behind the wall, only listen to the Great and Wonderful Oz.”
**

Have you read the book, or only seen the movie?

In the book, the lion, tin man, scarecrow and Dorothy have individual audiences with Oz. One sees a great beast with claws and fangs. One sees a ball of flame. One sees a beautiful empress. They all insist that Oz is a great and powerful magician. Then, Dorothy uncovers the truth.

What the others saw was only skillfully crafted illusion. They saw and heard what they claimed. But, their explanation of it was completely wrong.

Lekatt, I’ve torn aside the curtain and am pointing at the puppeteer. But you insist that he doesn’t exist and that Oz is a great and powerful magician.

[GIGObuster]

Even medicine has examined cold reading!:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&dopt=r&uid=3360083
Experientia 1988 Apr 15;44(4):326-32:

The cold reading process is shown to depend initially on the Barnum effect, the tendency for people to embrace generalized personality descriptions as idiosyncratically their own. Psychological research into the Barnum effect is critically reviewed, and uses of the effect by a professional magician are described. This is followed by detailed analysis of the cold reading performances of a spirit medium.

Now, the problem with many serious studies is that usually you have to pay a fee for access, but you are not sincere when you ignore that there have been many studies done before, (5 just on the other cite)
I am so far content with the brief descriptions and conclusions: there is cold reading done by psychics.

lekatt I am not going to pay for the complete experiment reports but feel free to do so, I don’t think they will reveal a different conclusion though.

[photopat]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
I had hoped that Toofargone would answer your post, and he still may. I hope he does.

I hope he does too.

Let me explain: you took about 10 lines of personal experience and tried to tell the author, with 25 lines of explanation, that he was wrong about his own experience.

Inaccurate. I asked him “to consider the possibility that your mother didn’t predict the crash.” I then offered an explanation that didn’t require a “psychic” event.

You had only the 10 lines he wrote. He had several months of experience and probably many conversations with his mother and others about this event.

Of course. Which is why I said I didn’t doubt that what he was describing occurred. But based on his description I offered a plausible scenario.

I have had this done to me many times on this board by those who thought they were more intelligent than I, about my own experiences. They were not present at my experience, they knew nothing.

Perhaps not, but we can still make suggestions and offer our point of view.

The only logical, proper responses to someone’s personal experience is to believe it, not believe it, or just not judge it. Nothing else is appropriate.

I take exception to the term “judge.” As I said before, I offered a plausible explanation. From there it’s up to Toof to judge whether or not what he was describing concurs with my suggestion. I don’t believe it was a psychic event, but I never “judged” it either according to your apparent definitions. On the other hand, it’s not up to you to decide what’s appropriate in a discussion/debate forum. When somebody relates an event it’s entirely appropriate for others to examine that event and offer ideas pertaining to it. Otherwise, we live in ignorance.

**I know you meant no harm, and I mean no offense either. It’s just that everyone should think about the presumption of telling someone you know more than they do about their own experiences.

Love
Leroy **

I don’t think what I did was presumptuous at all. If anybody else does, I hope they say so, but I suspect this is solely your opinion.

Lekatt-If you doubt someone, it is ok to ask for more information, or indicate you need more data to understand their position, but that was not happening. The intent was clearly to explain away the person’s experience. This is not exceptable in respectful company.

You said the above in a different post and I disagree with it. It’s quite possible to be respectful yet offer alternative explanations. Certainly getting the most data possible is ideal, but sometimes we have to make preliminary determinations based on minimal data. That doesn’t mean we can’t change our minds or refine our explanations later. In fact, scientists do that all the time.

I do agree that it’s inappropriate to deny somebody’s beliefs unless both parties are involved in a respectful discussion. With a few exceptions, to just say “your religious beliefs are wrong” would certainly be inappropriate. That’s not what we’ve been doing here.

Let me relate a brief story. I was having dinner with some friends a few weeks ago, and their 6 year old son was looking at a dinosaur book. At some point the topic of the Loch Ness monster came up. The child believes in Nessie, and said that it was probably a plesiosaur. I remember being a child and thinking the same thing, (after all, that’s not a new idea) even though I don’t believe it at all now. When he asked me what I thought, I told him that I hoped there were some dinosaurs down there because that would be really cool.

Now, I could have told him that Nessie is just a legend, but it wasn’t my place. I’m not his parent, and besides, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with believing in things like that when you’re a kid. Reality will reveal itself soon enough.

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by photopat *
**I hope he does too.

Inaccurate. I asked him “to consider the possibility that your mother didn’t predict the crash.” I then offered an explanation that didn’t require a “psychic” event.

Of course. Which is why I said I didn’t doubt that what he was describing occurred. But based on his description I offered a plausible scenario.

Perhaps not, but we can still make suggestions and offer our point of view.

I take exception to the term “judge.” As I said before, I offered a plausible explanation. From there it’s up to Toof to judge whether or not what he was describing concurs with my suggestion. I don’t believe it was a psychic event, but I never “judged” it either according to your apparent definitions. On the other hand, it’s not up to you to decide what’s appropriate in a discussion/debate forum. When somebody relates an event it’s entirely appropriate for others to examine that event and offer ideas pertaining to it. Otherwise, we live in ignorance.

I don’t think what I did was presumptuous at all. If anybody else does, I hope they say so, but I suspect this is solely your opinion.

You said the above in a different post and I disagree with it. It’s quite possible to be respectful yet offer alternative explanations. Certainly getting the most data possible is ideal, but sometimes we have to make preliminary determinations based on minimal data. That doesn’t mean we can’t change our minds or refine our explanations later. In fact, scientists do that all the time.

I do agree that it’s inappropriate to deny somebody’s beliefs unless both parties are involved in a respectful discussion. With a few exceptions, to just say “your religious beliefs are wrong” would certainly be inappropriate. That’s not what we’ve been doing here.

Let me relate a brief story. I was having dinner with some friends a few weeks ago, and their 6 year old son was looking at a dinosaur book. At some point the topic of the Loch Ness monster came up. The child believes in Nessie, and said that it was probably a plesiosaur. I remember being a child and thinking the same thing, (after all, that’s not a new idea) even though I don’t believe it at all now. When he asked me what I thought, I told him that I hoped there were some dinosaurs down there because that would be really cool.

Now, I could have told him that Nessie is just a legend, but it wasn’t my place. I’m not his parent, and besides, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with believing in things like that when you’re a kid. Reality will reveal itself soon enough. **

I think you chased him away by offering a “plausible scenario” to his personal experience. In other words telling him he didn’t understand his own experience, but you did. I don’t think skeptics will ever get it until it happens to them in spades.

[PatriotX]

HEY LEKATT !
I have asked a very simple, straightforward question that can be answered with a very simple, straightforward “Yes” or “No”.
The question is about your thoughts, (the thoughts of you, Lekatt). The thoughts I’m asking about are the ones you have about stage magicians who make the claim that the feat they, (the stage magicians making the claim), perform is cold reading. ."

You may consider the part of the question with the words “people who claim to be doing cold readings” to mean that they are claiming that the process they are performing is a cold reading. I’m talking about stage magicians who do psychic acts and tell everyone that it, (their acts/ performances of stage magic), are done by means of the process known as cold reading.

In other words…
Do you think that people who claim to be doing cold readings are using some method other than cold reading?

[photopat]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**I think you chased him away by offering a “plausible scenario” to his personal experience. In other words telling him he didn’t understand his own experience, but you did. I don’t think skeptics will ever get it until it happens to them in spades. **

Maybe…or maybe he’s just had other things to do and hasn’t gotten back to this thread, or thought my post was reasonable and didn’t feel the need to rebutt it, or disagreed and decided not to bother. There’s no way to know for sure until he posts again, so my guesses are just as valid as yours. Perhaps even more so, since I don’t assume he was “chased away” by a reasonable statement.

[photopat]

By the way, can you find any sources other than your own web site and Zammit?

[Revtim]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
**I’m talking about stage magicians who do psychic acts and tell everyone that it, (their acts/ performances of stage magic), are done by means of the process known as cold reading.

In other words…
Do you think that people who claim to be doing cold readings are using some method other than cold reading? **

I apologize if this had been brought up before, I only read back a couple pages, but a recent Penn & Teller ‘Bullshit!’ episode had a man who did just that. He fooled a group with a John Edwards-type act, then admitted he used cold-reading. Lekatt, do you believe this man was actually psychic, and lying about doing cold reading?

[Meatros]

*Originally posted by Revtim *
**I apologize if this had been brought up before, I only read back a couple pages, but a recent Penn & Teller ‘Bullshit!’ episode had a man who did just that. He fooled a group with a John Edwards-type act, then admitted he used cold-reading. Lekatt, do you believe this man was actually psychic, and lying about doing cold reading? **

Also, in “Demon Haunted World”, Carl Sagan mentions that the amazing Randi convinced some of the australian media with a “fake” psychic.

[stpauler]

*Originally posted by Meatros *
**Also, in “Demon Haunted World”, Carl Sagan mentions that the amazing Randi convinced some of the australian media with a “fake” psychic. **

Here’s a link about it “Carlos”

José Alvarez had hoaxed an entire continent with his art. But he had created something that the media and his audiences would take from him and recreate to suit their own needs. One lesson here has to be the magician’s refrain: deception requires cooperation.

Hehe.