Cold reading

bipedalhumanoid

In my opinion, there are two kinds of psychics. Deluded ones and charlatains.

If you want to learn more about how they do what they do, have a read of this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading

Cold reading is the oldest trick in the book. Some 'psychics' honestly don't know they are doing it, others know exactly what they are doing.

Don't be a sucker, don't give them your money.

Oryx

Ive moved your post from the psychics and mediums forum to here. Please read the relevant charter of each forum to understand what is, and isnt allowed there.

Major Lovechild

Opinions are allowed of course.

maccored

of course. Its a pity though this forum cant seem to talk about anything else but fake mediums though.

bipedalhumanoid

maccored wrote: »

of course. Its a pity though this forum cant seem to talk about anything else but fake mediums though.

What other kind is there?

maccored

just call it the fake medium forum and be done with it. Ye's dont seem to discuss anything else. where all the skeptic threads, or threads with alternative explanations for apparent paranormal activity? Im assuming 'skeptic' in this case refers to those sceptical of the paranormal and not just mediums?

bipedalhumanoid

maccored wrote: »

just call it the fake medium forum and be done with it. Ye's dont seem to discuss anything else. where all the skeptic threads, or threads with alternative explanations for apparent paranormal activity? Im assuming 'skeptic' in this case refers to those sceptical of the paranormal and not just mediums?

Well actually, maccored, I didn't even post this thread in this forum. This was a simple comment made to an existing thread in the psychic forum. Apparently members of that forum can't handle even the mildest of discenting opinion, to the extent that a moderator felt the need to move my comment into a new thread here where the credulites wouldn't see it.

And actually, maccored, the word 'skeptic' refers to those who form beliefs about reality based on the principles of scientific scepticism.

BTW, how could you have an 'alternative explanation' for paranormal activity. Surely the claim of paranormal activity IS the alternative explanation. Just not a very good one.

Oryx

maccored, if you have a problem with the content of the forum you can do two things.

Post content you want discussed.
Bring it up in the feedback thread.

bipedalhumanoid, your post was off topic in the thread where it was posted, so it was moved.

If either of you have any comments on moderation etc, there are the proper places to do it. (PM and feedback).

maccored

Skeptic has a much broader meaning than that. Still, stick to mediums I suppose since it's an easier thing to slag off.

If you cant think of any 'alternative explanation' that means there is none. obviously. :rolleyes:

maccored

Oryx wrote: »

maccored, if you have a problem with the content of the forum you can do two things.

Post content you want discussed.
Bring it up in the feedback thread.

I think ive done both in the past. the general vibe is sceptism = cynicism, or else its just handier taking the piss out of mediums rather tna trying to help understand things like evps, or how environmental factors can affect us. It seems much easier to just berate mediums and call it being 'skeptical'. Pretty fecken boring.

Oryx

maccored wrote: »

I think ive done both in the past. the general vibe is sceptism = cynicism, or else its just handier taking the piss out of mediums rather tna trying to help understand things like evps, or how environmental factors can affect us. It seems much easier to just berate mediums and call it being 'skeptical'. Pretty fecken boring.

I promise you I get tired of it too. But if thats what appears here mostly, then its a popular topic. If other things dont then they arent so popular. But I dont agree with you that it is the only thing mentioned in this forum.

Anyway. Back to cold reading.

Major Lovechild

Indeed. Cold reading can be quite a lucrative business.

Oryx

Major Lovechild wrote: »

Indeed. Cold reading can be quite a lucrative business.

Why, have you learned to do it?

bipedalhumanoid

Oryx wrote: »

bipedalhumanoid, your post was off topic in the thread where it was posted, so it was moved.

The topic was psychic recommendations. I gave reason as to why perhaps none of them are worth recommending. How is that off topic?

bipedalhumanoid

maccored wrote: »

Skeptic has a much broader meaning than that.

And yet your previous definition was far narrower than mine.

maccored wrote: »

If you cant think of any 'alternative explanation' that means there is none. obviously. :rolleyes:

That's called an argument from ignorance. Try thinking about that for a few more seconds.

You suggested that if I personally can't come up with an alternative explanation for something, an alternative explanation to that presented must not exist?
How about the option of there being an explanation and me not knowing what that explanation is? Or even there being an alternative explanation and NOBODY knowing what that is?

For someone so very opinionated in the topic of skepticism, you seem to know very little about it. You can start by googling 'burden of proof'. Then explain to me why it's up to me or anyone else to disprove the claims of others.

If you have good reason to claim the existence of anything relating to the supernatural, you should be able present your evidence... might be a tad more productive than your current hissy fit over topics.

Oryx

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

The topic was psychic recommendations. I gave reason as to why perhaps none of them are worth recommending. How is that off topic?

The post was a skeptical comment in a thread dedicated to 'rate the best psychic you know', a thread where posts should do just that. Yours didnt.

bipedalhumanoid

Apparently this thread is not moderated quite as vociferously as those in the psychic/medium forum. So lets get back to the moderator created topic of 'cold reading'.

We're all aware of how vulnerable people are taken in by cold readers, but we've all probably come accross not so vulnerable, and in some cases, reasonable people who do fall for this parlour trick.

One of the main reasons that some quite reasonable people are lead to believe in the existence of psychic phenomena, as a result of being exposed to cold reading, is that they are not aware of the alternative explanations.
The question is, given the enormous amount of information out there, how can this happen?

Well It's quite simple. The media very rarely voice the skeptical opinion.

There are a number of reasons for this...

1) Woo woo is lucritive. The business of scamming people out of money is not only lucritive to the charlatains who partake in it, but also to the book publishers and media. Watch the little disclaimer at the beginning of the late late show this friday... the one warning you about 'product placement' and you will begin to understand why they prefer not to invite Irish Skeptics on the show to coincide with the latest psychic medium book launch.

2) No balance required. This kind of woo woo, like religion, is classified as a 'faith issue' by the media. Because of this, the normal rules of balance in journalism don't apply. They therefore can get away with not providing balance. Even in the scarce cases where skeptics are involved in such interviews, they very rarely get equal time.
This doesn't work both ways either. If a skeptic happens to be the primary interviewee, it happens occassionally, like when Richard Dawkins is interviewed for instance, you find them jumping over themselves to provide 'balance'.

3) Woo woo is protected from discenting opinion. I can think of a single exception to the above, and that was Pat Kenny's radio interview of Tom Higgins (founder of Irish Psychics Live). Pat provided a balanced interview by playing devil's advocate. Of course Higgins took that straight to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission who actually upheld his complaint!
Other examples of this include internet forums that have special places, such as Skeptics corner, to protect the true believers from any discenting opinion.

The information is out there, the problem is a lack of awareness and those who seek to protected their vested interests. The biggest losers of course are the vulnerable people in our society.

Oryx

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

Apparently this thread is not moderated quite as vociferously as those in the psychic/medium forum. So lets get back to the moderator created topic of 'cold reading'.

This is skeptics. Different rules apply.

One of the main reasons that some quite reasonable people are lead to believe in the existence of psychic phenomena, as a result of being exposed to cold reading, is that they are not aware of the alternative explanations.
The question is, given the enormous amount of information out there, how can this happen?

Search the forum. A plethora of explanations exist within it, for all kinds of phenomena. (Paradolia, cryptozoology, chinese lanterns ) Negative opinion on psychics is allowed, within the boundaries of defamation law etc. The key thing being both sides are allowed a voice. For the sake of peace and allowing the believers room to communicate about their interests without being drowned out by skepticism, the psychics and mediums forum is moderated more stringently than here.

With regards to your other points, we are A media but not THE media. Boards.ie has its own rules for its own reasons. Neither I nor anyone else around here has an agenda about what does or does not get posted. Its all about keeping the peace.

I do disagree about 'woo woo' being protected from dissent in the media. By and large its seen as a joke, entertainment, or a scam. That is the majority perception, imo.

I think it is a good thing to educate about cold reading, btw.

Major Lovechild

Oryx wrote: »

Why, have you learned to do it?

Of course.

(waves hand) This is not the bike you are looking for.

Oryx

Major Lovechild wrote: »

Of course.

(waves hand) This is not the bike you are looking for.

What?

Riamfada

Could I get a cold reading? Seriously.

Dave!

Just drop into any medium, mate

Major Lovechild

Oryx wrote: »

What?

They travel in single file - to hide their numbers

Package

i think all staunch skeptics should go and get a reading from an actual reputable medium BEFORE they make decissions on things.

after all, if you put tesco brand oil into your car and it wrecks the engine, would you go around saying,, "all engine oil is crap, doesnt work, end of"

or

would you say, "i used tesco engine oil and it wrecked my engine, does anyone have any better ideas? what oil wont wreck an engine?"

Dave!

Package wrote: »

i think all staunch skeptics should go and get a reading from an actual reputable medium BEFORE they make decissions on things.

after all, if you put tesco brand oil into your car and it wrecks the engine, would you go around saying,, "all engine oil is crap, doesnt work, end of"

or

would you say, "i used tesco engine oil and it wrecked my engine, does anyone have any better ideas? what oil wont wreck an engine?"

Who's a 'reputable' medium though? If I name some well-known and high-profile mediums like Sylvia Browne or Derreck Acorah, everybody in the Paranormal forum will scoff. But the oul wan who lives around the corner is apparently deserving of respect! But you can bet your arse that the Sylvia Brownes and Derreck Acorahs of this world have a huge number of people who believe them, and who claim that they are accurate.

It's misguided snobbery IMO.

Cold reading can give a person the impression that they're getting an accurate reading too. Derren Brown gives 'readings', and usually gets a high rating for accuracy, yet he knows he has no magical powers.

Onthe3rdDay

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

3) Woo woo is protected from discenting opinion. I can think of a single exception to the above, and that was Pat Kenny's radio interview of Tom Higgins (founder of Irish Psychics Live). Pat provided a balanced interview by playing devil's advocate. Of course Higgins took that straight to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission who actually upheld his complaint!
Other examples of this include internet forums that have special places, such as Skeptics corner, to protect the true believers from any discenting opinion.

Not in any way defending Tom Higgins but that was a very poor interview overall. (The BCI agrees with me!) At one point Pat was going on about parking spaces outside of RTE.

Package

Dave! wrote: »

Who's a 'reputable' medium though? If I name some well-known and high-profile mediums like Sylvia Browne or Derreck Acorah,

Derren Brown gives 'readings', and usually gets a high rating for accuracy, yet he knows he has no magical powers.

derek acorah is a twat, and he has put on the act in the past, but that doesnt take away from his talent, id kill for a readin off him, because i firmly believe he has amazing mediumistic powers, that doesnt mean ive got to like his style or think every reading he does for tv ratings is real.

derren brown ? ah come on,, derren is a mind genius no doubt, is his "debunking a psychic" programme, derren did a bit of cold reading yes, but he didnt attempt to bring "messages" from deceased loved ones, nor did he mention names or dates or places or any messages that i would consider of a personal nature, the same way a medium would.

also,, the twat that the prgramme focused on is NOT a reputable psychic, he is a joke, why didnt Derren apraoach GOOD psychics like Derek, or Tony Stockwell or Tj Higgs? because that would prove to be hard work for Derren and he can hardly have a show which is purposely set to proove mediums are fraud if they used actual mediums can he?

Major Lovechild

Derek, like Sylvia Browne, is a liar and a fraud - so please don't waste your money.

bipedalhumanoid

Package wrote: »

i think all staunch skeptics should go and get a reading from an actual reputable medium BEFORE they make decissions on things.

after all, if you put tesco brand oil into your car and it wrecks the engine, would you go around saying,, "all engine oil is crap, doesnt work, end of"

or

would you say, "i used tesco engine oil and it wrecked my engine, does anyone have any better ideas? what oil wont wreck an engine?"

Why? So when we come back and report, €100 lighter, you can tell us that the medium we saw was not one of the reputable ones?

I think the staunch woo woo supporters should take a tape recorder into their next session with a reputable medium. During the session they should remain silent. If the medium is getting information from dead people, they shouldn't need information from you.

After the session try evaluating it objectively by listening to the audio and count the hits and misses.

Then present us with the evidence. Nobody likes to think they've fallen for a trick, but we're all susceptable to confirmation bias, which is exactly what cold readers rely on.

Package

well for a start, nobody should pay 100e for a reading. Linda Green is one of the best ive ever seen, and she only charges 50 euro for a full 30 minute reading, during which she will tell you names, dates, places, personal info and memories that only you and a select few would know.. you find me a cold reader to say more than

have you been feeling a bit ill in the last few weeks.
are you shy around new people
you are a great person and people like to be close to you
have you lost someone you love in the last few years.

find one to say

i have your aunt jennifer here, she tells me she died suddenly of a heart attack, she said she has met up with old mary with the wooden leg here.

ect.

ive never know derren brown to come up with actual personal info.

besides that. proper mediums will ask you NOT TO FEED THE MEDIUM. ok, some may ask to elaborate on the answer, such as

why is he telling me about an old green bike which only had one wheel?

thats hardly cold reading now is it

Dave!

I can tell you that a good cold reader will leave you thinking that they gave all that specific information, when in reality they said something vague, general or ambiguous, and you filled in the details in your head. Go to a new medium and record it and then listen back to what was actually said by both parties.