Cold Reading Demos at TAM2

[voidx]

I predict it will not be on the TAM2 DVD, just as Jamy Ian Swiss's demo (of confirmation bias, imo) wasn't included in the TAM1 DVD.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Just curious. You mean ersby and NoZed? Or...who?

I'd have to go review that thread again, but I remember commenting on a couple of the cold-reading samples that they were imitiating somewhat JE's style. It might even have been NoZed's reading, I'll have to check.

So they keep saying....

I don't really much care what they say as its mostly my own opinion based on everything I've seen and read. The fact that no one has spent the time and effort to make it happen so far (in my opinion) doesn't change the fact that I don't think it would be that hard for someone with some talent to do.

Well, there's a difference between a good patter and a good validation. But maybe some day.....

While perhaps more consistent than others its always been my opinion that JE's validations are nothing spectacular, especially when one looks at his LKL sessions. Given the number of readings he's given, and the extreme rarity of his super "special" hits, I think its possible they can be accounted for by luck and skilled cold-reading and intuition. I myself have always maintained that his validations are on the vague side and are not at all extremely specific in their discription. The fact that his act and his schtick is consistent (or at least more consistent than others) is one of the major reasons he is good at what he does.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

...I myself have always maintained that his validations are on the vague side and are not at all extremely specific in their discription. The fact that his act and his schtick is consistent (or at least more consistent than others) is one of the major reasons he is good at what he does.

Hi voidx,

One reason I've gone for mediumship readings of my own was that some of JE's hits were so interesting and seemed inexplicable as cold reading. But, of course, the idea of genuine mediumship also seemed completely implausible, too. A very interesting mystery to me, not at all the "open and shut case" of fraud that so many here think it is.

That's one reason that I've had readings of my own and some were, imo, much better than what JE does on television (either live on LKL or edited on Crossing Over). Were they so conclusive...so evidential...so undeniably proof of ADC that they resolved all doubts about this once and forever?

No (and, yes, yes, all anecdotal! ). But, combined with reading about the work of other mediums...the experiences of other sitters (some who seem very credible)...familiarizing myself (I believe) with the vast majority of arguments against it....I've come to think "There might be something to it."

I argue for JE here because he's the medium most people are familiar with. But the idea "there might be something to it" does not rise and fall with JE.

 

[voidx]

Hi voidx,

One reason I've gone for mediumship readings of my own was that some of JE's hits were so interesting and seemed inexplicable as cold reading. But, of course, the idea of genuine mediumship also seemed completely implausible, too. A very interesting mystery to me, not at all the "open and shut case" of fraud that so many here think it is.

That's one reason that I've had readings of my own and some were, imo, much better than what JE does on television (either live on LKL or edited on Crossing Over). Were they so conclusive...so evidential...so undeniably proof of ADC that they resolved all doubts about this once and forever?

No (and, yes, yes, all anecdotal! ). But, combined with reading about the work of other mediums...the experiences of other sitters (some who seem very credible)...familiarizing myself (I believe) with the vast majority of arguments against it....I've come to think "There might be something to it."

I argue for JE here because he's the medium most people are familiar with. But the idea "there might be something to it" does not rise and fall with JE.

I'm aware of that and for the same reason think a cold-reader of equal skill would be nice, but unnecessary. The comparison is made mostly with JE because he is the most visible medium, and his process, even though in my opinion not entirely consistent, is more well known and documented than many other mediums. I know many do not consider him to be the best there is, and for that reason also I think it shouldn't be impossible, or even that difficult for someone to closely emulate his performance. It doesn't surprise me that no one has bothered to put in such an effort all though several claim too. For example Shermer claims he can and has performed better than JE. While there are perhaps performances recorded of Shermer doing this, I've never seen them and so must take his claim with as big a grain of salt as anyone elses simply because I cannot verify it for myself. I read his article where he posed as a psychic for a period of time and it read as though he performed quite convincingly. But at the end of the day its just an article and while I have no reason to believe he's lying, I don't take his word as gospel either. For myself I find it somewhat frustrating to have skeptics claim such things without anything concrete like even video footage of themselves doing so to back it up. It presents those that believe in mediumship with an easy out to dismiss their arguements, so I wonder why they bother to make the claim at all sometimes. If JE is your target of the day, then emulate his schtick as close as possible to show clearly how it is cold-reading.

But again, and I know we disagree here, I don't consider JE's performances impressive enough in the first place in their own right. So even without a comparable cold-reader I think there are many other things that lead me in my opinion that JE is likely not talking to dead folk.

 

[CFLarsen]

We disagree about the "reasons" there's no good cold reading demo. I don't see any reason why an honest audience of skeptics answering "yes" or "no" should be inhibiting whatsoever. Many people JE reads limit their responses, too, in just that way.

They do? That's funny. I was under the impression that these people always told the truth. Because, if a sitter claims there is a hit, then it is a hit. Hey, guess I am wrong, then....

Its just as possible there could be an advantage to Ian in that situation, since the audience -knows- what he's doing and wants him to be successful. (Isn't that what people say about JE's audience?)

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. You know that for cold reading to work, there has to be people who truly believe that the reader has paranormal abilities.

Nevertheless, cold reader or medium...the key is whether or not the validations are honestly given. JE often gets misses and people often say "no". The audience, really, should make no difference. But can the cold reader get convincing hits?

Sure he can. You have seen this yourself. You just deny that it has happened.

Editing makes a difference for JE--but like most admitted cold readers, most mediums don't have that same advantage. So...I think the editing is a non-issue.

Excuse me, what "difference"? Editing is a "non-issue"? Are you joking?

Yes, I almost mentioned your reading in my post. However, let's not forget it was not pure cold reading--there was hot reading involved as well. And only the first part was good (quite good ).

No, no....it was hot reading because you were told it was hot reading. If you had not known, would you not have considered it evidence of mediumship?

Another interesting experiment.....for Ersby?

That's the Clancie we know: Always shoving the burden of evidence on somebody else. Why don't you actively seek evidence yourself?

I know, I know: It is not worth it. Why run the risk of you being wrong?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

NZA,

We disagree about the "reasons" there's no good cold reading demo.

Well, I haven't looked for a cold reading demo and have no idea what may or may not be out there. I know of no convincing cold reading demo -- but then I am not sure I can name any convincing "authentic" demonstration, either. I will admit that I have not looked for either, however -- there may well be.

I don't see any reason why an honest audience of skeptics answering "yes" or "no" should be inhibiting whatsoever. Many people JE reads limit their responses, too, in just that way.

This is a rather large, breezy assertion. I am not a JE scholar, but at least some of the readings I have seen were not limited. Some -- quite a few -- have the people volunteering all kinds of information. With people looking for confirmation, there seems (and this is opinion; I have not sat and counted) to be more of an effort to make things "fit." There is often an emotional need to connect that certainly provides the danger that such volunteering and "fitting the prediction to the facts" can occur.

Its just as possible there could be an advantage to Ian in that situation, since the audience -knows- what he's doing and wants him to be successful. (Isn't that what people say about JE's audience?)

It may or may not be possible (I consider it unlikely, for the reasons given above -- especially as the audience was familiar with the techniques used by cold readers to elicit information), but I was present -- and the answers were monosyballic. I certainly didn't think it was an advantage.

Yes, I almost mentioned your reading in my post. However, let's not forget it was not pure cold reading--there was hot reading involved as well. And only the first part was good (quite good ).

You have said this about 'hot' reading before, but I really don't understand why that distinction makes a difference in this context. I had no information or advantage that would not be available to JE (or most psychics) on seeing a sitter. I had her name and a piece of readily visible jewelry, from which I concluded her middle name and the name of a grandmother. I then got very lucky on "twins" and a couple of other items.

This could all be done by any competent cold reader -- in fact, with experience, I am sure that one could do percecptively -better- than my initial attempt. You keep saying that part of it was a hot reading -- but the same information would be present for any supposed psychic. That is -especially- true for JE, who has the names and birthdates available to him for every person in his studio audience prior to the show.

You denigrate the reading (now) by saying it was a hot reading -- but the only way you know that is that I admitted it.

If I put the reading on tv and never explained my methods, the transcript mught even now be floating around the ether with various believers citings it with a postscrpit: "Explain THAT, skeptics. Explain how he got her middle name, and the twins. Explain THAT with cold reading." This is much what is happening with JE right now -- If I had not explained how I got the hit, I daresay people might still be speculating. Well, JE has never explained -- without that explanation, how sure can you be that some of his work isn't just as 'hot' as me seeing jewelry on someone?

And the rest of the sitting was bad? Really?

Twins?
Paternal Grandmother?
Fishing/Fishing Pole?
Younger Sister?

The only 'warm' part of the reading was the name Rose, itself. If only the first part was 'good,' then I maintain that 95% + of -every- single psychic medium's readings are likewise not good.

Which leaves us with what?

 

[CFLarsen]

Which leaves us with what?

Clancie in deep manure. Watch how she will worm her way around this.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

Throwing a topic open to the entire audience...then getting a string of "no's" for the "sitter"...is pretty consistent with the admitted cold reading demos that I've seen. Not very impressive....

Ummmm . . remember Clancie that Ian Rowland in a few months time will no doubt do another search on his name and might not take kindly to your comment when he sees it LOL

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Interesting Ian

Ummmm . . remember Clancie that Ian Rowland in a few months time will no doubt do another search on his name and might not take kindly to your comment when he sees it LOL

LOL, Ian!!!

Actually, that thought crossed my mind when I posted--and I wouldn't be surprised if he checked soon after TAM2! But Ian's a skeptic! He'll understand.

Besides, I'd be interested if he thought it went better than it seems to me from the two comments so far.

I have to tell the truth, after all. And I've been unimpressed by all the cold reading demos I've seen, including Ian's at Cal Tech.

From what I understand, he thought it went quite well on the PrimeTime Thursday show, but unfortunately we only saw 90 seconds of his 30 minute demonstration, and there's not even a way to get a transcript of the rest (or of the follow ups which were also heavily edited down). I know he did other cold reading/mediumship demos in his lectures here last year--so, yes, I'd be interested in his own assessment of how they went, there and at TAM.

(And if Shermer shows up here, lol, I'm also not afraid to say that I didn't find his mediumship demos in Skeptical Inquirer nearly as impressive as he did! )

And NZA, I'll be back later when I can look up that old thread of ersby's. I -think- I -did- say the same thing before--that the first part was better and that there was hot reading which accounted for the good start. But...I'll check...

 

[Ladewig]

voidx

I'll reserve all judgements until there's a transcript, or in this case even better, a DVD for TAM2 with the session included.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clancie
I predict it will not be on the TAM2 DVD

Even if it does appear on the video recording, it may not be of much use because the "sitters" do not have microphones or cameras turned on them. All one will see and hear is Ian's responses to the sitters' responses.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

And NZA, I'll be back later when I can look up that old thread of ersby's. I -think- I -did- say the same thing before--that the first part was better and that there was hot reading which accounted for the good start. But...I'll check...

Well, that may me why I began my post like this:

You have said this about 'hot' reading before, but I really don't understand why that distinction makes a difference in this context.

So lets assume for purposes of discussion that you have said something similar before -- as we both seem to remember. I think you may be thrown off by my "now" statement after the above, but that was only meant to state that your opinion regarding the reading was formed after I had already admitted that it was cold reading.

I had no information or advantage that would not be available to JE (or most psychics) on seeing a sitter. I had her name and a piece of readily visible jewelry, from which I concluded her middle name and the name of a grandmother. I then got very lucky on "twins" and a couple of other items.

This could all be done by any competent cold reader -- in fact, with experience, I am sure that one could do percecptively -better- than my initial attempt. You keep saying that part of it was a hot reading -- but the same information would be present for any supposed psychic. That is -especially- true for JE, who has the names and birthdates available to him for every person in his studio audience prior to the show.

The only 'warm' part of the reading was the name Rose, itself. If only the first part was 'good,' then I maintain that 95% + of -every- single psychic medium's readings are likewise not good.

Which leaves us with what?

N/A

 

[Garrette]

Lucianarchy:

Easy.

John will, and a cold reader won't, get tested under the same conditions, controls and protocols of the University of Arizona's (Gary Schwartz's) research department.

My offer still holds from the fall. Remember Steve's thread about Garrette accepts challenge?

I e-mailed Schwartz on 2 December. No response yet. I'll contact him again soon.

I am NOT suggesting Schwartz is avoiding responding. I e-mailed just before the holidays, and I have no idea of his schedule. Plus, there is plenty of time. My new availability date is not until late summer.

Remember, though, (and I made this clear in my e-mail): it is to be under the same conditions.

 

[Garrette]

Clancie,

Was it you or Neo (I honestly do not remember which) who spoke of being at a JE seminar when he read someone else but you were certain it was meant for you. You (or Neo) just couldn't get JE's attention.

Since you (or Neo) are willing to credit JE and the spirits with a good reading even when the person they are reading disagrees, would you object to the same latitude for TAM2?

I wasn't there, but for those skeptics who were, do any of you consider the (apparently poor) reading that Ian gave the singled out volunteer as applying to you? Perhaps he simply couldn't get the communications clearly enough to target the right person.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

For myself I find it somewhat frustrating to have skeptics claim such things without anything concrete like even video footage of themselves doing so to back it up. It presents those that believe in mediumship with an easy out to dismiss their arguements, so I wonder why they bother to make the claim at all sometimes. If JE is your target of the day, then emulate his schtick as close as possible to show clearly how it is cold-reading.

You have a point. However, not everyone has the knack for this kind of thing to begin with. Even if they do, they may not have the time or resources to match someone that does this for a living.

Speaking for myself, I have a day job and a family. In order to become what I would consider an effective cold reader, I would want to take a fair amount of time and study up on demographics and technique, purchase other books, talk to some others in the business, and give some readings in order to hone the skill (I think actually doing it for people probably is the biggest help here).

If someone would like to give me a grant so that I can leave my job for a bit, I might consider it. But as it is, I would have to essentially cut off the majority of my extra time - so time with friends, family, magic, and reading would all suffer.

Sorry, but I am not willing to make that kind of commitment in order to emulate mediums -- especially when my efforts would be immediately and steadfastly ignored by 90-plus-percent of the fans out there.

N/A

Edited to remove the most egregious typing errors

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I wasn't there, but for those skeptics who were, do any of you consider the (apparently poor) reading that Ian gave the singled out volunteer as applying to you? Perhaps he simply couldn't get the communications clearly enough to target the right person.

Well, Mr. Rowland gave readings for perhaps half a dozen different people, including me. As stated above, he got a few good hits, a larger number of more "pedestrian" ones, and had a fair number of what I consider misses.

Skeptics were generally unimpressed with the readings, but then they are generally unimpressed with JE's, too -- Frankly, I have to ask why believers are taking skeptics' word for how these readings are, since the skeptics' opinions regarding "real" mediumship cannot be trusted?

If someone maintains that the skeptics are wrong about the JE readings, then those same skeptics are just as likely to be wrong about Ian Rowland, are they not?

And your point is valid, too -- someone else in the audience may well have been willing to validate 100% of a reading, just as happened in the JE seminar you note above.

So, again - we're left with what in the way of differences?

N/A

 

[Zep]

Very true. I have yet to see anyone point out the differences (and not just appeal to personal beliefs) between John Edward and a cold reader.

Anyone.

Any takers? I'd really like to know. I really would. Don't tell me that I am not "really" interested, because I am. My involvement in the skeptic movement should tell anyone that I really, really, really am interested in finding the answer.

Sure, you can dismiss me for not being really interested, but that doesn't really hold water, does it?

Alas, while it would be extremely interesting not to mention highly amusing and entertaining, I'd like to reiterate that it would actually prove nothing at all if a professed cold-reader consistently emulated a so-called psychic. This is one of the classic logical fallacies, I'm afraid. If this IS done, it still does not make the psychic a fraud - maybe they are both not psychic, or maybe both ARE! The two are independent events.

It's like comparing two cars: If you can do 150mph in the Mustang, and then also do 150mph in the BMW, then you can conclude that the BMW is a Mustang. Doesn't hold water...

It is only the direct do-what-you-say-you-can testing that will disprove psychics or otherwise.

 

[CFLarsen]

So, again - we're left with what in the way of differences?

As I said, Clancie in deep manure. She has posted since your question, but not answered it. Yet another example of Clancie avoiding the tough questions.

Alas, while it would be extremely interesting not to mention highly amusing and entertaining, I'd like to reiterate that it would actually prove nothing at all if a professed cold-reader consistently emulated a so-called psychic. This is one of the classic logical fallacies, I'm afraid. If this IS done, it still does not make the psychic a fraud - maybe they are both not psychic, or maybe both ARE! The two are independent events.

It's like comparing two cars: If you can do 150mph in the Mustang, and then also do 150mph in the BMW, then you can conclude that the BMW is a Mustang. Doesn't hold water...

It is only the direct do-what-you-say-you-can testing that will disprove psychics or otherwise.

I quite agree. However, Clancie (and other believers) continue to make this point, so it could be nice to know just what differences exactly they are looking for.

However, we will not see this. It is far easier to just be vague and still maintain that you are right.

 

[Matabiri]

Alas, while it would be extremely interesting not to mention highly amusing and entertaining, I'd like to reiterate that it would actually prove nothing at all if a professed cold-reader consistently emulated a so-called psychic. This is one of the classic logical fallacies, I'm afraid. If this IS done, it still does not make the psychic a fraud - maybe they are both not psychic, or maybe both ARE! The two are independent events.

However, do a search on "Banachek alpha" (or just look here: http://www.banachek.org/Articles/Project Alpha.htm ) for a fine example of why parapsychological testing is not entirely reliable...

(Apologies if everyone already knows about this)

 

[Ersby]

I, too, am on Schwartz’s list of cold readers (this time for telephone readings. Maybe even sitter silent, which should be fun.)

But I can’t believe that no one at TAM2 made any notes! A couple of examples of the things he said would be nice.

Unless, of course, you’re saving those notes for some big article thing later, in which case, you could at least let us know such notes exist.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Skeptics were generally unimpressed with the readings, but then they are generally unimpressed with JE's, too -- Frankly, I have to ask why believers are taking skeptics' word for how these readings are, since the skeptics' opinions regarding "real" mediumship cannot be trusted?

Good point, but one might suspect that skeptics would be more objective when it comes to their assessment of a known cold reader where as they might not be so objective in assessing an alleged medium. I mean skeptics will actually want a cold reader to perform impressively where as they don't want an alleged medium to perform competently. So if their assessment is that it wasn't an impressive performance I think that is telling.

Of course it is true that with an audience of believers, and if they did not know the purported psychic was really a cold reader, they will be much more psychologically inclined to try and interpret what a cold reader says to fit their situation.

So in the situation where the audience are believers, and unknown to them, it is a cold reader doing the readings, how does this compare to the best allegedly real mediums?

 

[BillHoyt]

So if their assessment is that it wasn't an impressive performance I think that is telling.

Really? Funny, I bet we skeptics say that to all the mediums.