I was cold-read by a pyschic - how'd he do it?

Factual Questions
41

[QUOTE=jjimm]
Aeschines, though I tend towards the occam’s razor end of the argument, I have no ‘script’ myself; I am genuinely interested in the subject, but I’ve never seen any “beyond doubt” laboratory proof of psi. Have you got something you could show me that indicates this?
[/QUOTE]
Here is good place to start, which indicates where the debate lies today.

In short, these experiments involve people guessing an image in highly controlled conditions. Chance would be a 25% hit rate, whereas results are very consistently 35% or higher.

The skeptics who argue against such results with adequate information and sincerity (i.e., have gone quite far beyond the level of shouting, “There’s no evidence whatsoever!”) tend to do one of three things:

  1. Criticize the experimental conditions. At first, decades ago, they had plenty to criticize, but their input has been encouraged and put into practice. Now even skeptics admit that the experimental conditions are rock solid. Insincere critics sometimes take the approach of finding a tiny flaw or two and using that to invalidate the entire result, but essentially this approach is a no go.

  2. Hand wave the results. Recognize that something is going on but act as though it doesn’t matter or will be explained satisfactorily later, etc.

  3. Argue the statistics. If Experiment A is successful, for example, they argue that it was merely chance that made it so and, given enough similar experiments, there will be a reversion to the mean and no effect discovered. This leads to, as I said above, very recondite and contentious arguments about statistics.

My view, based upon a fairly decent understanding of science and statistics, is that the effect has been proven and it’s one that jibes with our everyday experience. In my view, people deny psi when they feel that its existence doesn’t fit their worldview.

42

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
The doper, ianzin, has a book about Cold Reading, and is a professional non-psychic cold reader.

http://www.ianrowland.com/ItemsToBuy/ColdReading/ColdReadingMain1.html

You might want to check it out, if you can get a copy.
[/QUOTE]

I can’t wait to read that book. I’m going to demand that my wife get it for me this Christmas.

43

[QUOTE=Aeschines]
Here is good place to start, which indicates where the debate lies today.
[/QUOTE]

Link missing. Please psi it to me. You know where I am.

44

Thanks, P, here is the link:

45

That’s a general type of psi experiment, though, Aeschines, and i’m not too certain you can cite it to prove your point anyway; if psi phenomena do exist, then Ganzfeld experiments aren’t all that helpful in telling us what kind exist (is it mind reading? Is it thought projection?) or all that specific within those areas. It’s good for a general view but not so much the specific.

Anyway, I think what** jjim** was asking for was actual evidence, not just an explanation of why skeptics are wrong in their judgement of evidence. I’d also be interested, though i’d say I have myself seen studies that had a higher-than-chance hit rate for which I couldn’t see a flaw (far as I am from an expert on this). Nothing I can cite with a link, though.

46

[QUOTE=Aeschines]
The skeptics who argue against such results with adequate information and sincerity (i.e., have gone quite far beyond the level of shouting, “There’s no evidence whatsoever!”) tend to do one of three things:

  1. Criticize the experimental conditions. At first, decades ago, they had plenty to criticize, but their input has been encouraged and put into practice. Now even skeptics admit that the experimental conditions are rock solid. Insincere critics sometimes take the approach of finding a tiny flaw or two and using that to invalidate the entire result, but essentially this approach is a no go.

  2. Hand wave the results. Recognize that something is going on but act as though it doesn’t matter or will be explained satisfactorily later, etc.

  3. Argue the statistics. If Experiment A is successful, for example, they argue that it was merely chance that made it so and, given enough similar experiments, there will be a reversion to the mean and no effect discovered. This leads to, as I said above, very recondite and contentious arguments about statistics.
    [/QUOTE]

  1. Note that if any of these effects were sufficiently large, then psi practitioners could secure the 1 million dollar James Randi prize.

On the other hand, if these are very small effects that show up only in huge sample sizes, then we need to be very careful with respect to protocol (#1) and statistical analysis (#3).

47

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
4. Note that if any of these effects were sufficiently large, then psi practitioners could secure the 1 million dollar James Randi prize.
[/quote]
Noooooooooooooo!

Oh, how we’ve “been there, done that” on the SDMB!

48

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
That’s a general type of psi experiment, though, Aeschines, and i’m not too certain you can cite it to prove your point anyway; if psi phenomena do exist, then Ganzfeld experiments aren’t all that helpful in telling us what kind exist (is it mind reading? Is it thought projection?) or all that specific within those areas. It’s good for a general view but not so much the specific.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right. I feel that these experiments don’t provide anything close to a model of how psi works in toto but demonstrate at least there there is an effect that must be taken into consideration when building models of the mind.

49

[QUOTE=Aeschines]
You’re right. I feel that these experiments don’t provide anything close to a model of how psi works in toto but demonstrate at least there there is an effect that must be taken into consideration when building models of the mind.
[/QUOTE]

I’d be careful about making that statement. As your article notes, one of the criticisms is that (and let’s assume that the experiments have proper controls, there’s no conscious cheating, etc) you shouldn’t leap from “Results greater than reasonably expected by random chance” to “This shows some kind of psychic ability”.

50

[QUOTE=Aeschines]
Noooooooooooooo!
[/QUOTE]

What does this mean?

51

It means he has to cite the SDMB threads he has in mind. :wink:

52

Which is greater in number? SDMB threads about the Randi challenge or threads about .9 repeating = 1?

53

The conclusion of those threads would seem more relevant than their number.

54

Several years ago, I picked up a Tarot deck. I read the instructions that came with the deck, and I bought a simple book.
It was for fun. When I did a reading for anyone, the first thing I told them was that I am a charlatan. I would tell them that I could not see the future, I could not read their past. Then I’d do their reading*. Most of what I said was straight out of the book/instructions and so general, it applied to anyone of any age or social status.

I was amazed at the number of people who said I read them to a T. They simply wanted to believe me.

*I did use clues they gave me, consciously and unconsciously.

55

[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]

One other factor that hasn’t been mentioned: you were at a party. The guest list and type of party and the host’s social/economic status would give additional clues to the astute cold-reader. You’re a friend of the host, therefore presumably of the same social/economic status (how you’re dressed can be a clue here, as well.) So, he’s not just looking at your age bracket.

Plus, you say you answered minimally, so he knows right away that you’re skeptical and he doesn’t do anything obvious like ask questions. (If he did ask questions, they’d be phrased in the negative, I bet, so that whatever you answer seems like a hit on his part: “You’re not involved with dogs, are you?” is a hit regardless of whether you answer yes or no.)
[/QUOTE]

I’m not of the same economic status (they are far richer) however you are right in some of the other things you say - we are all Asian (albeit different kinds). And yes, the skepticism part is probably true. I didn’t make it obvious, but I didn’t hide it either.
I wonder if Ian Rowland’s book is available at our library? I’ll try looking for it.

…Oh, damn. They don’t have him at all at our library. Hmm.

56

[QUOTE=Aeschines]
Which is greater in number? SDMB threads about the Randi challenge or threads about .9 repeating = 1?
[/QUOTE]

Which is greater, the number of people who actually have psi, or the number of people who see ‘35%’ and take a flying leap toward the conclusion that psi has to exist?

57

[QUOTE=Anaamika]
He came up with two fairly specific comments about things I hadn’t even told my SO yet. Things I was planning to change in my life this year, that is, 2007.
[/QUOTE]

Is quitting smoking one of the things you’re planning on changing? That’s usually a pretty easy mind-read because you can tell a smoker a mile away and almost nobody who smokes is going to come out in front of people they want to impress and say they’re not trying to quit. Happened to me once.

58

[QUOTE=picunurse]
Several years ago, I picked up a Tarot deck. I read the instructions that came with the deck, and I bought a simple book.
It was for fun. When I did a reading for anyone, the first thing I told them was that I am a charlatan. I would tell them that I could not see the future, I could not read their past. Then I’d do their reading*. Most of what I said was straight out of the book/instructions and so general, it applied to anyone of any age or social status.

I was amazed at the number of people who said I read them to a T. They simply wanted to believe me.

*I did use clues they gave me, consciously and unconsciously.
[/QUOTE]
I had a similar experience, except I was too lazy to read the instructions and just winged it. I wasn’t that great, but I did better than I expected. It’s an interesting process.

The basic principles of cold reading reveal themselves pretty quickly. There’s a tendency for both parties to filter out the misses and glom on to the hits. So just free associating on the cards and observing the subjects’ reactions can get you pretty far.

Just to repeat my point: knowledge of the Randi challenge permits to rule out certain hypotheses or theories about the world. I think it’s fair to say that few possessing pronounced psychic powers would turn down a cool $1 million+: if nothing else, they could donate it to the charity of their choice.

59

[QUOTE=Aeschines]
In short, these experiments involve people guessing an image in highly controlled conditions. Chance would be a 25% hit rate, whereas results are very consistently 35% or higher.

The skeptics who argue against such results with adequate information and sincerity (i.e., have gone quite far beyond the level of shouting, “There’s no evidence whatsoever!”) tend to do one of three things:

  1. Criticize the experimental conditions. At first, decades ago, they had plenty to criticize, but their input has been encouraged and put into practice. Now even skeptics admit that the experimental conditions are rock solid. Insincere critics sometimes take the approach of finding a tiny flaw or two and using that to invalidate the entire result, but essentially this approach is a no go.

  2. Hand wave the results. Recognize that something is going on but act as though it doesn’t matter or will be explained satisfactorily later, etc.

  3. Argue the statistics. If Experiment A is successful, for example, they argue that it was merely chance that made it so and, given enough similar experiments, there will be a reversion to the mean and no effect discovered. This leads to, as I said above, very recondite and contentious arguments about statistics.

My view, based upon a fairly decent understanding of science and statistics, is that the effect has been proven and it’s one that jibes with our everyday experience. In my view, people deny psi when they feel that its existence doesn’t fit their worldview.
[/QUOTE]

From your link:

'There are several common criticisms of some or all of the Ganzfeld experiments:

Isolation - Richard Wiseman and others argue that not all of the studies used soundproof rooms, so it is possible that when videos were playing, the experimenter (or even the receiver) could have heard it, and later given involuntary cues to the receiver during the selection process. … However, Dean Radin argues that ganzfeld studies which did use soundproof rooms had a number of “hits” similar to those which did not. …

Randomization - When subjects are asked to choose from a variety of selections, there is an inherent bias to choose the first selection they are shown. If the order in which they are shown the selections is randomized each time, this bias will be averaged out. The randomization procedures used in the experiment have been criticized for not randomizing satisfactorily. …

The psi assumption - The assumption that any statistical deviation from chance is evidence for telepathy is highly controversial, and often compared to the God of the gaps argument. Strictly speaking, a deviation from chance is only evidence that either this was a rare, statistically unlikely occurrence that happened by chance, or something was causing a deviation from chance. Flaws in the experimental design are a common cause of this, and so the assumption that it must be telepathy is fallacious. This does not rule out, however, that it could be telepathy.’

All these experiments are equivalent to just trying to guess random numbers. Noting the results of roulette wheels shows that there will be coincidences that appear to mean something.
Googling ‘roulette system’ returns over 5,000,000 hits, despite the fact there is no reliable way to win at roulette!

What is it that psychics can actually do?
Can they predict the future? Can they see other places?

How well can they do it?
How reliable are they? How often does the ability not manifest?