CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

pakeha said:
They don't test themselves. Over and over again.
With friends, family, neighbors, strangers.
And yet, they are willing to pay out time and money, fair amounts of both in some cases, to travel across the world to be filmed failing to do what they claim.
Very strange.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that many of them just don't understand what testing really means. They have usually been doing whatever it is they claim for years, and they consider those years of un-blinded, uncontrolled activities and confirmation bias to be tests. After all, they're not stupid and couldn't possibly have come to believe they could do things if there wasn't really something going on. And the friends, family and so on are part of the problem, since they're just as likely to believe as the applicant themselves. Skeptical thinking and knowledge of controlled testing just aren't all that common.

pakeha said:
Are they cold-blooded opportunists or ardent believers?
Click to expand...

For the most part, the people who apply for tests are believers. The frauds who know they can't really do anything are not generally stupid enough to take part in tests that would prove that.

In other words, a danger to the community or harmless cranks with an excentric hobby?
Click to expand...

However, that does not mean that they're all just harmless cranks. If someone claims to be able to heal people, it doesn't matter if they really believe it or are just a con artist, they're still dangerous to the people who believe them.
 
Quite right, cuddle
However, that does not mean that they're all just harmless cranks. If someone claims to be able to heal people, it doesn't matter if they really believe it or are just a con artist, they're still dangerous to the people who believe them.
Click to expand...

Still, there are laws which govern intrusions into the medical field, which is why I didn't mention 'healing'.
And yes, obviously it's a danger.

What isn't illegal is claiming to 'find' missing persons, unless someone argues such a claim interferes with a police investigation. Given the evidence that's been posted up on the subject, I think its safe to say no 'psychic' investigator contributed meaningful input to an on-going police investigation, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Tricky. Harmless crank or dangerous nutter. A matter of degree, perhaps?
 
pakeha said:
Mindset or delusion, laca.
Click to expand...

Delusion is part of a mindset, AFAIK.

pakeha said:
The thing to set off the alarms as far as I'm concerned is the attention/publicity preoccupations many show.
Are they cold-blooded opportunists or ardent believers?
Click to expand...

I agree with Cuddles here, for the most part they seem to be believers.

pakeha said:
In other words, a danger to the community or harmless cranks with an excentric hobby?
I can't make up my mind, obviously each case must be judged on its own merits but-
Would it be appropriate to include proof of a psychological evaluation in the requirements for the testing?
Click to expand...

Delusion is harmful. For the person and for the society. Psychological evaluation won't help in most cases, IMO.
 
laca;5159079 ...Delusion is harmful. For the person and for the society. Psychological evaluation won't help in most cases said:
Of course you're right, although it's a step in the right direction, don't you think.
My concern was with having a psychological evaluation as part of the conditions for the MDC, thinking that might help minimise the possibility of the MDC feeding the delusions of seriously ill people.
Click to expand...
 
pakeha said:
Of course you're right, although it's a step in the right direction, don't you think.
My concern was with having a psychological evaluation as part of the conditions for the MDC, thinking that might help minimise the possibility of the MDC feeding the delusions of seriously ill people.
Click to expand...

That's what the academic affidavit is for, right?

There have been some of said papers issued for MDC applicants. If I were the JREF, I would want to ask them some questions concerning the cases of Connie and Pavel Ziborov.
 
pakeha said:
My concern was with having a psychological evaluation as part of the conditions for the MDC, thinking that might help minimise the possibility of the MDC feeding the delusions of seriously ill people.
Click to expand...

Nobody passed even the preliminary test for the MDC. How is that feeding one's delusions? If anything, it should weaken them. Sadly of course, this is almost never the case.
 
You're very right, laca, in saying the failure in itself should be dissuasive, however, in this particular case, that of CS, we've seen it's not.
 
pakeha said:
You're very right, laca, in saying the failure in itself should be dissuasive, however, in this particular case, that of CS, we've seen it's not.
Click to expand...

That's what I said.

laca said:
Nobody passed even the preliminary test for the MDC. How is that feeding one's delusions? If anything, it should weaken them. Sadly of course, this is almost never the case.
Click to expand...
 
Oh, sorry, my bad, laca, although actually I was thinking specifically of CS.

My point is that even the negative publicity of failing a preliminary test seems to 'fuel' the deluded. CS is one example. Another, perhaps OT, is Derek Ogilvie.
 
It takes really strong faith to believe something against really strong evidence and, for the believer, that is good, that is just a test of the strength of their faith!
 
You're right, BillyJoe.
Still, one thing is claiming a belief, and quite another is announcing an ability and then not being able to demonstrate it.
 
pakeha said:
You're right, BillyJoe.
Still, one thing is claiming a belief, and quite another is announcing an ability and then not being able to demonstrate it.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between claiming a belief [ in an ability and then not being able to demonstrate it ] and announcing an ability and then not being able to demonstrate it?
 
laca said:
What is the difference between claiming a belief [ in an ability and then not being able to demonstrate it ] and announcing an ability and then not being able to demonstrate it?
Click to expand...
The difference is believing what you claim, and claiming what you believe.
 
...and you have survived a really strong challenge to your faith, a real David and Goliath effort (from the believer's point of view)
 
BillyJoe said:
...and you have survived a really strong challenge to your faith, a real David and Goliath effort (from the believer's point of view)
Click to expand...

...only Goliath won. (From the sane person's point of view.)

The main reason for the fight was David galivanting with Goliath's concubine. It is said they were ... doing the forbidden arts. Which pissed Goliath off.

David was his drinking buddy for years. They had a fantasy invasion team together: "The Slingy Devil".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom