# Dear parapsychologists, I invite you to convince me that you are scientists. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 20, 2007, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924 "2007-09-20T22:57:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/281 "2007-10-05T18:57:03Z")
[QUOTE=DocCathode] Previously you stressed the importance of being able to see a body part to read an aura. Now you say you can read them over the internet? [/QUOTE] I didn’t say “body part”, I said “some part of the subject.” By that, I mean the words you are typing. _Especially_ your username. Your username reveals a lot about yourself, or at least the part of yourself you are willing to reveal to the outside world. For example, by looking at your username I see “Doc” and “Cathode”, which clearly shows you are interested in medical science. Your aura (and by that I mean my synesthetic response to those two words) suggests that you’re probably not an M.D. yet, or have chosen a profession relating to medicine that does not require an M.D. Your words display a healthy skepticism about the world, which is common in students, but rare in professional doctors. How’d I do? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/282 "2007-10-05T19:13:10Z")
[QUOTE=KGS] For example, by looking at your username I see “Doc” and “Cathode”, which clearly shows you are interested in medical science. [/QUOTE] Actually, I chose the name to reflect my interest in tinkering and convey the image of a mad scientist. > [@](#): > > Your aura (and by that I mean my synesthetic response to those two words) suggests that you’re probably not an M.D. yet, or have chosen a profession relating to medicine that does not require an M.D. I was a psych major back in college. At present, I work as a clown. > [@](#): > > Your words display a healthy skepticism about the world, which is common in students, but rare in professional doctors. I think my skepticism is obvious to any reader. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/283 "2007-10-05T19:21:48Z")
[QUOTE=KGS] They are the same thing. [Here’s a better link.](http://www.psi-tronics.com/OracleHealingKit/oraclehealingkit.htm) We can do that right now, if you like. I don’t always see auras in real life, but I can read them via the Internet. I’m also willing to reveal my methodology and how it pertains to synesthesia and the art of cold reading. (And if your hypothesis is that “aura reading” is merely a shorthand to cold reading…then we’re on the same page. This is all about fighting ignorance, after all.) And yes, [I have synesthesia.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8993409&postcount=16)🆒 [/QUOTE] > [@KGS](#): > > \> I associate numbers with colors, so I use the mnemoic of the color pattern to > \> help remember the numbers. 274 is ugly black/yellow which clashes with purple, > \> while the number I picked has a cool bluish-green pattern that’s pleasurable to > \> dial, write and speak. (Also, saying “nine” four times in a row sounds kinda > \> stupid.) Let me offer an easier explanation for your “aura reading”: 1. You have synesthesia and therefore, anything written automatically gets associated with colors in your mind 2. On the Internet (particularly on a message board) any message written by any user will have certain patterns. Even without synesthesia some of these patterns can be recognized 3. Therefore, you associate certain users in certain messageboards with certain colors. Voilá: your internet-aura recognition explained, without any transmission of “mysterious energies”. Your real life aura recognition might be related, like you said yourself, by synesthesia. Again, no “mysterious energies”. Just a slightly different wiring of your brain, presenting you with a slightly skewed (or enhanced) view of the world. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/284 "2007-10-05T19:29:32Z")
[QUOTE=DocCathode] Actually, I chose the name to reflect my interest in tinkering and convey the image of a mad scientist. [/quote] Well, I’ll admit that was a pretty crappy cold read. You should be glad I didn’t charge you any money. 😃 > [@](#): > > I was a psych major back in college. At present, I work as a clown. At least I was close on the first part. I never would’ve guessed your current profession. If you don’t mind me asking…why did you become a clown? Did you decide that’s what you really want to do with your life, or is it just to pay the bills? > [@](#): > > I think my skepticism is obvious to any reader. This is true. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/285 "2007-10-05T19:33:12Z")
[QUOTE=KGS] I never would’ve guessed your current profession. If you don’t mind me asking…why did you become a clown? Did you decide that’s what you really want to do with your life, or is it just to pay the bills? [/QUOTE] I love children. A dollar store was selling some twisty balloons and magic tricks. I started entertaining children on long busrides. I think I have some skill at clowning and there’s money to be made. My dream job is to host my own children’s television show. ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/286 "2007-10-05T19:35:35Z")
[QUOTE=KGS] And yes, [I have synesthesia.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8993409&postcount=16)🆒 [/QUOTE] You realize that synaesthesia is characterized by internally generated hallucinations? Synaesthesia is a binding problem. In the grapheme/color case, the “actual” color (e.g., the redness that is induced by a frequency in the environment) is bound in spatial attention in the ventral path of parietal cortex after going through the usual route through the visual system. But so is an additional “greenness,” or whatever the hallucinatory color is for that particular person. This representation has no basis in reality - it is internally generated through extraneous recurrent connections. Much of this can be proven. Further, synaesthetes know the difference between the hallucinatory color and the real thing. It’s not something to be ashamed of, but it certainly doesn’t allow you to see auras or ghosts. Your brain is a hallucination machine. It is a simulator. It is often broken in surprising ways. If you think you are seeing auras, ask yourself, what mechanisms in my brain are giving rise to this simulation? The answer is often far more mundane than “everything I look at is violating the laws of physics and projecting an aura that only I can detect.” ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/287 "2007-10-05T19:37:30Z")
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara] Let me offer an easier explanation for your “aura reading”: 1. You have synesthesia and therefore, anything written automatically gets associated with colors in your mind 2. On the Internet (particularly on a message board) any message written by any user will have certain patterns. Even without synesthesia some of these patterns can be recognized 3. Therefore, you associate certain users in certain messageboards with certain colors. Voilá: your internet-aura recognition explained, without any transmission of “mysterious energies” [/QUOTE] There are NO “mysterious energies” involved here. Unless you’re talking about [intuition.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_%28knowledge%29) ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/288 "2007-10-05T19:46:33Z")
[QUOTE=alterego] You realize that synaesthesia is characterized by internally generated hallucinations? Synaesthesia is a binding problem. In the grapheme/color case, the “actual” color (e.g., the redness that is induced by a frequency in the environment) is bound in spatial attention in the ventral path of parietal cortex after going through the usual route through the visual system. But so is an additional “greenness,” or whatever the hallucinatory color is for that particular person. This representation has no basis in reality - it is internally generated through extraneous recurrent connections. Much of this can be proven. Further, synaesthetes know the difference between the hallucinatory color and the real thing. It’s not something to be ashamed of, but it certainly doesn’t allow you to see auras or ghosts. [/QUOTE] Interesting. Unless I’m mistaken, you’re suggesting that these “ghosts” I sense (Bartholomew, et al) aren’t real ghosts at all, but a manifestation of parts of my brain that aren’t properly connected yet? To be honest, I never considered that possibility. You’ve given me serious food for thought here. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/289 "2007-10-05T19:50:11Z")
[QUOTE=KGS] There are NO “mysterious energies” involved here. Unless you’re talking about [intuition.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_%28knowledge%29) [/QUOTE] > [@KGS](#): > > If what you say is true, then it’s logical to assume that “aura reading” takes place entirely within the observer’s mind, and\*\* therefore no energy transfer\*\* takes place. (Which doesn’t explain why aura meters apparently work…but we’ll worry about that later.) (bolding mine) I was using your previous post as a reference (you seemed to imply some energy transference to explain aura reading). And what I am saying is that your “internet aura reading” is explainable via internal brain functions. In other words, we have an entirely mundane event, not a paranormal event in our hands. (you see letters+colors on a screen, associate the patterns they form them with a user and have your “auras”). ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/290 "2007-10-05T20:34:00Z")
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara] In other words, we have an entirely mundane event, not a paranormal event in our hands. [/QUOTE] I fully agree. After all, “cold reading” is a verified, recognized science (although it’s application is more of an art form.) But this discussion pertains to more than just cold reading. For example – telepathy. Does it work? I don’t know for sure. But…just yesterday, I went to McDonald’s and the total was $8.75. So my thought process went: “I’ll give the cashier a $20 bill, so my change will be $11.75.” Yes, I suck at math. :rolleyes: But the important point is, I was thinking “$11.75” very strongly in my brain. And she gave me…$11.75. I didn’t even realize the mistake until I got home. Now…is that telepathy? Or just a strange coincidence? If it only happened once, I’d assume coincidence. But this kind of thing _does_ happen. Not often, but it happens. Does anyone else have a similar anecdote? ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/291 "2007-10-05T20:39:51Z")
[QUOTE=KGS] I fully agree. After all, “cold reading” is a verified, recognized science (although it’s application is more of an art form.) But this discussion pertains to more than just cold reading. For example – telepathy. Does it work? I don’t know for sure. But…just yesterday, I went to McDonald’s and the total was $8.75. So my thought process went: “I’ll give the cashier a $20 bill, so my change will be $11.75.” Yes, I suck at math. :rolleyes: But the important point is, I was thinking “$11.75” very strongly in my brain. And she gave me…$11.75. I didn’t even realize the mistake until I got home. Now…is that telepathy? Or just a strange coincidence? If it only happened once, I’d assume coincidence. But this kind of thing _does_ happen. Not often, but it happens. Does anyone else have a similar anecdote? [/QUOTE] Who cares about anecdotes? What is the mechanism of transmission? ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/292 "2007-10-05T21:03:16Z")
[QUOTE=alterego] Who cares about anecdotes? What is the mechanism of transmission? [/QUOTE] No idea, but my best guess would be that it’s some form of [empathy:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy) > [@](#): > > **Neurological basis** > > Research in recent years has focused on possible brain processes as concomitant with empathy (Preston & de Waal, 2002). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has recently been employed to investigate the functional anatomy of empathy (for reviews see Decety & Jackson, 2006; Decety & Lamm, 2006; deVignemont & Singer, 2006). These studies have shown that observing another person’s emotional state activates parts of the neuronal network involved in processing that same state in oneself, whether it is disgust (Wicker et al., 2003), touch (Keysers et al., 2004), or pain (Morrison et al., 2004; Jackson et al., 2005, 2006; Lamm et al., 2007; Singer et al., 2004, 2006). [emphasis mine] ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/293 "2007-10-05T21:39:59Z")
[QUOTE=KGS] I fully agree. After all, “cold reading” is a verified, recognized science (although it’s application is more of an art form.) But this discussion pertains to more than just cold reading. (snip) [/QUOTE] I agree on one part: this discussion definitely pertains to more than just cold reading. But the part I was addressing was the part about “auras”. Do you think my (and even more, **alterego** ’s) understanding of “auras” is right? Or close to being right? What does it say about its being a subject of parapsychological research? And, since you brought it up, would Randi’s “debunking” of purported aura-reading actually be right? (Meaning, of course, that, since it’s actually an observers “defect”, he is forcing the “aura reader” to realize it doesn’t actually grant him a reading on the object of his reading) About cold reading: more than one on this board, and, I suspect, on the paranormal “believers” side, thinks the cold reading “science” is actually more of an art. I share that idea. Mostly since “cold reading” seems to be a collection of techniques to extract information from another person. I have yet to see some kind of book or even Internet site that classifies the ideas involved in its practice and, overall, [its description](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading) is more of a one on one activity than anything else. Why do you call it a science, anyhow? Are you aware of one, or more, sites and cites that would put it on the same level as, for instance, physics, mathematics and biology? ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/294 "2007-10-05T22:45:16Z")
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara] But the part I was addressing was the part about “auras”. Do you think my (and even more, **alterego** ’s) understanding of “auras” is right? Or close to being right? What does it say about its being a subject of parapsychological research? [/quote] You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize I need further study on the matter. Whereas this discussion started as a passing distraction, now it’s actually inspired me to return to the New Age Church and take further classes on aura reading & other forms of divination. That way, in a few years, I can return and explain my observations from a _scientific_ point of view. I’ll let you know how it goes. As for paranormal research in general…here’s the problem. Scientific Method works best when applied to things like astrophysics and chemical reactions. Because chemistry doesn’t lie. People, on the other hand, lie all the time. It’s human nature to lie. It’s also human nature to _assume_ somebody’s lying, even if they’re telling the truth. So, if a person says, “I can read auras” – how do we know he’s not lying? And if I look at that person and say, “I’m an aura reader, I have friends who are aura readers, and you sir are no aura reader” – how do you know that _I’m_ not lying?? Therein lies the problem. It’s Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in its most extreme form. > [@](#): > > And, since you brought it up, would Randi’s “debunking” of purported aura-reading actually be right? Not the way he does it, no. He’s not concerned with “debunking”; his sole motivation is to make people look like idiots. He takes in people who don’t really understand how “psychic science” works, and subjects them to experiments that are 100% designed to fail. If he ever went so far as to explain the _reasoning_ behind his skepticism, or even acknowledge the framework of New Age/Wiccan rituals and eastern philosophy, then I’d cut him some slack. He’s a showman, plain and simple. And he’s done far more harm than good to the cause of fighting ignorance. At least shows like Mythbusters and Penn & Teller’s Bullshit explain the scientific & logical rationale behind their debunkings. I don’t always agree with their methodology, but at least they share the common goal of expanding knowledge and teaching their viewers how to avoid hucksters, instead of making random people look like fools. > [@](#): > > About cold reading: more than one on this board, and, I suspect, on the paranormal “believers” side, thinks the cold reading “science” is actually more of an art. [snip] Why do you call it a science, anyhow? Are you aware of one, or more, sites and cites that would put it on the same level as, for instance, physics, mathematics and biology? “Science” explains how something works – “Art” is the application of that knowledge. I’d elaborate, but it’s Friday and I really need to get my work done. 😉😃 ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/295 "2007-10-05T23:17:46Z")
[QUOTE=KGS] You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize I need further study on the matter. Whereas this discussion started as a passing distraction, now it’s actually inspired me to return to the New Age Church and take further classes on aura reading & other forms of divination. That way, in a few years, I can return and explain my observations from a _scientific_ point of view. I’ll let you know how it goes. [/quote] Fair enough. > [@KGS](#): > > As for paranormal research in general…here’s the problem. Scientific Method works best when applied to things like astrophysics and chemical reactions. Because chemistry doesn’t lie. People, on the other hand, lie all the time. It’s human nature to lie. It’s also human nature to _assume_ somebody’s lying, even if they’re telling the truth. So, if a person says, “I can read auras” – how do we know he’s not lying? And if I look at that person and say, “I’m an aura reader, I have friends who are aura readers, and you sir are no aura reader” – how do you know that _I’m_ not lying?? Therein lies the problem. It’s Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in its most extreme form. I don’t really believe that. Again, of course you’ll have lying people, but there are ways to design experiments that don’t allow people to cheat (both consciously and inconsciously). They are not easy to design and, since they are designed by people they won’t be infallible. Nevertheless, bit by bit, inch by inch, you’ll be able to sift out the truth. Specifically in areas where people are prone to lie to themselves like aura reading you can show them how they are fooling themselves. You lose the “aura” concept but you gain a bit of understanding of the human mind. I think that’s a fair trade. > [@KGS](#): > > Not the way he does it, no. He’s not concerned with “debunking”; his sole motivation is to make people look like idiots. He takes in people who don’t really understand how “psychic science” works, and subjects them to experiments that are 100% designed to fail. If he ever went so far as to explain the _reasoning_ behind his skepticism, or even acknowledge the framework of New Age/Wiccan rituals and eastern philosophy, then I’d cut him some slack. He’s a showman, plain and simple. And he’s done far more harm than good to the cause of fighting ignorance. > > At least shows like Mythbusters and Penn & Teller’s Bullshit explain the scientific & logical rationale behind their debunkings. I don’t always agree with their methodology, but at least they share the common goal of expanding knowledge and teaching their viewers how to avoid hucksters, instead of making random people look like fools. I don’t know about Randi’s show (I have only peripherial knowledge of his methods) but Penn & Teller in Bullshit specifically make people look like fools. On any subject on which they disagree with those people. Still, they make compelling arguments about what they debunk and how they do it. And sometimes that is needed to drive the point home. > [@KGS](#): > > “Science” explains how something works – “Art” is the application of that knowledge. I’d elaborate, but it’s Friday and I really need to get my work done. 😉😃 And here’s where I disagree completely. Look at the Wikipedia entry. They specifically describe cold reading as a series of techniques, which is a different way to speak about application of certain knowledge. The Science that lies behind Cold Reading would actually be Psychology (or rather, the Study of Human Behavior). “Cold Reading” doesn’t explain anything. Indeed, you seem to be using a different term than everybody else when you refer to “Cold Reading”. As far as I know, the term it is never applied to Aura reading, for instance, nor is it related to telepathy or anything of the kind. So: could you please explain your use of “Cold Reading”? What does “Cold Reading” explain, since you say it’s a science and not an art? Do you have any links that substantiate that claim? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/296 "2007-10-06T00:38:15Z")
[QUOTE=KGS] Everyone’s asking me to come up with my definition of a “psychic”, and…well, my best explanation would be, “Someone who is skilled at detecting unconscious rhythms & [apophenic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia) connections in the grand matrix of the universe.” I’m not even sure what that means myself 😃 but I’ll try to explain: We all know about [cold reading.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading) Anyone who knows how to interpret body language and how the neurotypical mind works can become a skilled cold reader, whether they’re truly psychic or not. However, a genuine psychic reading goes _beyond_ mere body language – it’s about reading a persons “rhythms”. The way they dress, their tone of voice, the way they carry on a conversation, all combine to project “rhythms” which give you a deeper insight into that person’s personality. The process more like statistical analysis or weather forecasting – that’s why psychic readings tend to be general and not very specific. For example, I can say, “ **RecessiveMeme** has a playful & energetic personality, but she’s also very logical” (which shows in the tone of your postings, so it’s not really a “cold read” at all) – but if I were to say, “Your mother’s maiden name is Schwartz, and you like chocolate ripple ice cream,” I’d probably be way off the mark. It’s vital to understand, however, that most people DON’T read these apophenic connections; and frankly, I don’t know why. I suppose it’s the nature of our modern, 21st century society – everyone’s distracted, tied down to their routines, always watching too much Fox News. Sometimes, even the most obvious connections get skipped over. [/QUOTE] Sorry I haven’t been following closely - work has its demands on my time. But I will note that more and more, your definition of “psychic” sounds analogous to my definition of “person who is not a psychic”. Take this “rhythm” business for example. You don’t say it’s “reading a magical carrier wave that provides a direct emotional and informational connection from the other person’s brain to yours”. You say it’s “being sentient enough to notice that the person’s dress, behavior, and mannerisms tell you something about them”. This isn’t paranormal, it’s just _normal_.. Similarly, your attempt to “read” screen names is nothing more than applying simple inference and a grand sense of unjustified confidence in your conclusions. There’s nothing psychic about this, either. A “true” psychic could use something like a screen name as a touchstone to infer things that are _not_ implied by the name itself, such as the user’s favorite color or shoe size (assuming their user name is not ILuvRed or Size13Boot). From my screen name (which as I recall you found cryptic), a genuine psychic should easily be able to tell me what I was doing last night (10/04/2007) at 11pm. (Care to take a stab? It has nothing to do with begging or cone-headed yellow muppets.) If all you’re doing is repeating back avaiable information that you have observed or inferred, you might indeed be exercizing the non-psychic skill of cold reading, but you are not doing anything worthy of the term ‘psychic’. Similarly, I saw nothing in your explanation of how to tell whether you’re working with or against the world, aside from you’re supposed to be “in touch” with yourself, which clearly isn’t all it takes. And that you have decided that the Governator has done this, just because he’s successful in the world (or because you like his movies, I can’t tell which). This is not encouraging. I really don’t think there’s anything there, and that the “working against the world” think is nothing more than a label that can be applied after the fact to people you don’t like or who are skeptical of your supposedly psychic claims. Really, the only thing you claim a skill at that sounds even remotely paranormal is seeing ghosts, and somewhere from 50% and 100% of that sounds like it’s all in your head. (Of course, if ghosts were real, they’d surely have been objectively verified in some indisputable way by now, since not \*_everyone_ is dishonest and devoted to covering it up, so I lean towards the 100%.) Not to tell you what to do, but large chunks of what you describe as “psychic” sound like you’re just hanging psychic-sounding names on ordinary things so as to be able to give your life spice, or something. Perhaps you’re doing that with the supposed effects of your ghosts, too; there might be other explanations for whatever you’re seeing (possibly including this synaesthesia stuff; I don’t know nothing about that), and you choose the psychic explanation and label first because you like the sound of it, or something. So maybe, the next time you think something is psychic or paranormal, take a step back and say, “Is there any non-paranormal way this could have occurred?”, as opposed to “Where can I find an example of the paranormal in this?” ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/297 "2007-10-06T01:54:39Z")
[QUOTE=KGS] I don’t always see auras in real life, but I can read them via the Internet… This is all about fighting ignorance, after all. [/quote] If you haven’t won the [easy million dollars,](http://randi.org/research/index.html) you haven’t a case. It’s put up or shut up time, friend. I can tell a green car from a red one. If someone offered me a million dollars to do it, I would be on it like white on rice. What are you waiting for? > [@lekatt](#): > > As you can see she is a real psychic who works for the FBI and police departments, I have seen her on TV many times and she is very good. If she hasn’t won the million dollars for a few minutes’ worth of her time, she is a fake and a fraud. These are _exactly_ the kind of actions the Million Dollar Challenge was designed to call out. Let’s see that supernatural ability in action. Stop hiding it; the whole world will benefit and you’ll be rich. Otherwise, you are contemptable, lying scum. What will it be? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/298 "2007-10-06T03:06:33Z")
[QUOTE=Musicat] If you haven’t won the [easy million dollars,](http://randi.org/research/index.html) you haven’t a case. It’s put up or shut up time, friend. I can tell a green car from a red one. If someone offered me a million dollars to do it, I would be on it like white on rice. What are you waiting for?If she hasn’t won the million dollars for a few minutes’ worth of her time, she is a fake and a fraud. These are _exactly_ the kind of actions the Million Dollar Challenge was designed to call out. Let’s see that supernatural ability in action. Stop hiding it; the whole world will benefit and you’ll be rich. Otherwise, you are contemptable, lying scum. What will it be? [/QUOTE] Please don’t call me names and insult me. No one, not one person who is a psychic will ever apply for the money under Randi’s terms. It would be very stupid. Now, Randi provides no level playing field, the “test” is conducted behind closed doors with no observer permitted for the psychic. If you doubt this then please find us a copy of a test, the psychic who took it and some details of the meeting. Randi has been “called out” by many psychics with the stipulation the test by filmed and ultimately televised, Randi refused even after the psychic offered to pay all the expenses of the fliming. Among psychic and spiritual people Randi is a joke, but he is a hero to the skeptics who support him with their money. I heard him on Larry King live tell everyone he could take one “cold reading” and read any number of people with it and be accurate. The audience booed him so much Larry had to ask them to quiet down. Now you can go on taunting spiritual people with Randi all you want if it makes you feel good. But until there is a level playing field offered nothing will happen. All civilizations, ancient and modern, have honored their psychics. Psychics, at least most of them, are kind compassionate people who help others. If not for free, as I do, then for a fee based on the ability to pay. My site gets thousands of hits a month and many email me kind letters of thanks for the information I provide. You will not find a psychic with mental problems, depression, anxiety or other emotional imbalances. TV psychics and other very famous psychics do charge large amounts of money, but they represent only a tiny fraction of the psychics who help others. I can tell by your post you know nothing about psychics, what they do or how they do it. Calling them names will accomplish nothing, they are, of course, hurt by insensitive people, but their calling is more important, they have been around for thousands of years and will still be around thousands more. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/299 "2007-10-06T03:35:41Z")
Mr. Lekatt, Sir, you are wrong on every single one of your points and if any sense can be made of your statements, you are wrong on those as well. You have been shown to be wrong on frequent occasions over several years by an overwhelming majority of posters in this forum. You have shown no ability to learn from your mistakes and no interest in investigating the falacies that have been pointed out from the gentle to the vociferous; reoccuring falacies and non-sequiturs exist in nearly every one of your posts. It is beyond me why you even persist in posting as even the electrons have given up in disgust and are lying flacid and exhausted in atomic tupor. If you can bring forth any reason why parapsychologists should be taken seriously as scientists, we have been waiting to hear it. You have, so far, absolutely, resoundingly, nothing. Nothing. Nada. Zee Beeg Zeero. Quit while you are behind. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924/300 "2007-10-06T03:37:47Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] Please don’t call me names and insult me. No one, not one person who is a psychic will ever apply for the money under Randi’s terms. [/quote] If they apply, then they are not “real” psychics, right? No true Psychic Scotsman and all that. > [@lekatt](#): > > It would be very stupid. Now, Randi provides no level playing field, the “test” is conducted behind closed doors with no observer permitted for the psychic. I thought lying was a sin? > [@lekatt](#): > > If you doubt this then please find us a copy of a test, the psychic who took it and some details of the meeting. Should be easy enough to find [here.](http://www.randi.org/) > [@lekatt](#): > > Randi has been “called out” by many psychics with the stipulation the test by filmed and ultimately televised, Randi refused even after the psychic offered to pay all the expenses of the fliming. A single example where a “psychic” offered to fulfill the requirements of the test _and_ provide for the filming would be appreciated. Now, I’ve seen examples where “psychics” tried to submit a televised routine for the MDC, but never an example such as you claim. > [@lekatt](#): > > Among psychic and spiritual people Randi is a joke, but he is a hero to the skeptics who support him with their money. Damn right, skippy. > [@lekatt](#): > > I heard him on Larry King live tell everyone he could take one “cold reading” and read any number of people with it and be accurate. The audience booed him so much Larry had to ask them to quiet down. You heard the audience on Larry King boo James Randi? Neat trick, that. _What_ audience? > [@lekatt](#): > > Now you can go on taunting spiritual people with Randi all you want if it makes you feel good. But until there is a level playing field offered nothing will happen. If there were a level playing field, Randi would get just as much airtime as Edward or Browne. > [@lekatt](#): > > All civilizations, ancient and modern, have honored their psychics. Psychics, at least most of them, are kind compassionate people who help others. If not for free, as I do, then for a fee based on the ability to pay. Yes, “psychics” _do_ tend to soak their victims for all they’ve got. > [@lekatt](#): > > My site gets thousands of hits a month and many email me kind letters of thanks for the information I provide. You will not find a psychic with mental problems, depression, anxiety or other emotional imbalances. If they do, you’ll just claim that they are not psychics, right? > [@lekatt](#): > > TV psychics and other very famous psychics do charge large amounts of money, but they represent only a tiny fraction of the psychics who help others. > > I can tell by your post you know nothing about psychics, what they do or how they do it. Calling them names will accomplish nothing, they are, of course, hurt by insensitive people, but their calling is more important, they have been around for thousands of years and will still be around thousands more. I know all about 'psychics", what they do, how they do it, who they do it to, and how they get away with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-parapsychologists-i-invite-you-to-convince-me-that-you-are-scientists/419924.md?page=16)