"The One"

[Perihelion Xanateris]

I figured Randi would be pouncing on this one.

*sigh* Why do I do this? Am I trying to land myself in hospital?


Here we go.


The issue of the first test. Apart from acknowledging that a couple of the psychics found the lost boy in time, Randi completely ignores the fact that there was any success at all, preferring to focus instead on the "vagueness" of statements, the cameraman supposedly pointing the way to where the boy was and the fact that the majority didn't make it in time.

There are several things wrong with this argument.

Firstly: Each psychic was NOT told the location, nor were any nonverbal indicators given. They were only equipped with a map, a photo of the boy and one of his possessions with which to establish an energy signature identification.

Secondly, the reason psychics make vague statements during readings is because psi abilities in general aren't like in the movies. Even though feelings and sensations are strong, they are only feelings and sensations - trying to extract details is like having poor vision and trying to read fine print without your glasses. They were NOT cold reading - to insist otherwise is an insult to those who work hard and often thanklessly in their chosen field.

Thirdly, as Stacey Demarco said, it's hard to do readings when you're under pressure. Ordinarily psychics work in quiet, calm environments; being on stage in a television studio in front of hundreds is quite different - like trying to thread a needle while someone is shouting in your ear.

Fourthly, I can appreciate Richard Dawkins is quite unused to being confronted in this way. I'm not entirely convinced that he's walked away from that experience and not experienced some sort of paradigm shift.

 

[JoeEllison]

Sounds like you are making excuses for failure, to maintain a belief in frauds. Weak.

 

[Robert Oz]

The issue of the first test. Apart from acknowledging that a couple of the psychics found the lost boy in time, Randi completely ignores the fact that there was any success at all, preferring to focus instead on the "vagueness" of statements, the cameraman supposedly pointing the way to where the boy was and the fact that the majority didn't make it in time.

There are several things wrong with this argument.

Firstly: Each psychic was NOT told the location, nor were any nonverbal indicators given. They were only equipped with a map, a photo of the boy and one of his possessions with which to establish an energy signature identification.

The fact that the cameraman knew the location of the boy is what made the test useless. Look at the footage. Whether intentional or not, the cameraman filmed differently depending on how close the psychic was. Sometimes the cameraman stayed well back and filmed the psychic going the wrong way (filming from a distance). Sometimes the cameraman stood right in front of the psychic so that if the psychic wanted to continue the way they were going they would have to walk around the cameraman. When the psychic was close, the cameraman was right on his or her tail. Running along with the psychic at top speed. These are the subtle, non-verbal clues that show the test was fundametally flawed.

Secondly, the reason psychics make vague statements during readings is because psi abilities in general aren't like in the movies. Even though feelings and sensations are strong, they are only feelings and sensations - trying to extract details is like having poor vision and trying to read fine print without your glasses. They were NOT cold reading - to insist otherwise is an insult to those who work hard and often thanklessly in their chosen field.

Imagine you saw a man put a woman in a box and saw her in half and then join her back together again. After you saw this, the man said he used occult powers to actually saw her in half and join her together again and there was no trickery involved. Another man does the exact same thing, but says its a mere stage illusion or trick. Who would you believe?

In the same way, whether the psychics are cold reading or not, non-psychic cold readers can re-produce the same results and are indistinguishable from the psychics. Who do you believe? These are old tricks that look and sound exactly like psychic readings. But they are just tricks. If real psychics exist, they must show us something that differentiates them from a cold reader. None have done so yet.

Thirdly, as Stacey Demarco said, it's hard to do readings when you're under pressure. Ordinarily psychics work in quiet, calm environments; being on stage in a television studio in front of hundreds is quite different - like trying to thread a needle while someone is shouting in your ear.

The reason the psychics do better with long reading in a private environment is because they have more time to extract information out of the client and they are more likely to forget the misses over a long 20 minute reading rather than a quick 30 second reading. These techniques are well documented. It's all part of cold reading.

Fourthly, I can appreciate Richard Dawkins is quite unused to being confronted in this way. I'm not entirely convinced that he's walked away from that experience and not experienced some sort of paradigm shift.

I assume you meant Richard Saunders. I can assure you, his opinion has not been swayed at all. Remember he saw the full cold reading and not the 10-20% the viewer at home saw.

Robert.

 

[Drudgewire]

Fourthly, I can appreciate Richard [Saunders] is quite unused to being confronted in this way. I'm not entirely convinced that he's walked away from that experience and not experienced some sort of paradigm shift.

Keep reaching for that rainbow. Saunders knew he'd sat through a season of parlour tricks and flawed tests. And as mentioned, he was privvy to all the moments edited out of the broadcast portion which would have taken every ounce of "mysticism" out of the contest.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

Could someone post the link to these videos. All I can find on YouTube is the trailers.

Susan

 

[leonAzul]

Sorry, I'm late to this party.

What are you on about, Perihelion Xanateris? A frame of reference, perhaps a link to the story, would be helpful

 

[JoeEllison]

Could someone post the link to these videos. All I can find on YouTube is the trailers.

Susan

Really? Here's the whole thing in parts: http://ca.youtube.com/user/SkepticalEnquirer

 

[steve s]

Secondly, the reason psychics make vague statements during readings...

I can make vague statements. If they can't do any better than me, they're worthless.

They were NOT cold reading - to insist otherwise is an insult to those who work hard and often thanklessly in their chosen field.

.... being on stage in a television studio in front of hundreds is quite different - like trying to thread a needle while someone is shouting in your ear.

Funny how they never have any trouble on stage and in front of hundreds when they're in a sympathetic environment such as Montel Williams' show.

Steve S.

 

[rjh01]

There are two other threads on this subject. See the tags I have just added.

 

[Perihelion Xanateris]

The reason the psychics do better with long reading in a private environment is because they have more time to extract information out of the client and they are more likely to forget the misses over a long 20 minute reading rather than a quick 30 second reading. These techniques are well documented. It's all part of cold reading.

What a load of crap. Very little - if any - information is extracted from clients other than what is needed to confirm something. For example, if the psychic says "is there a student in your class by the name of V?" then they are asking you to confirm a sensation or vision, not trying to cold read you. Now, if you can't confirm anything they ask you, then they really are cold reading and you've got a fake on your hands.

I wonder... can cold reading be done over the Web? If so, then I challenge you to do a fake reading for me, and see how accurate you get. If you can't, then psychics who read over chat and forums have one up over you.

 

[Mark Felt]

What a load of crap. Very little - if any - information is extracted from clients other than what is needed to confirm something. For example, if the psychic says "is there a student in your class by the name of V?" then they are asking you to confirm a sensation or vision, not trying to cold read you. Now, if you can't confirm anything they ask you, then they really are cold reading and you've got a fake on your hands.

An extremely large amount of cold reading is non-verbal. And "I'm getting a sense of X", where the sucker-I mean readee provides the context and significance and additional information and completes the name of the X? That's not exactly psychic.

I wonder... can cold reading be done over the Web?

Yes.

If so, then I challenge you to do a fake reading for me, and see how accurate you get. If you can't, then psychics who read over chat and forums have one up over you.

You should check the accuracy of the psychics who read over chat and forums and get back to us. What's their hit rate for non-vague comments?

 

[JoeEllison]

What a load of crap. Very little - if any - information is extracted from clients other than what is needed to confirm something. For example, if the psychic says "is there a student in your class by the name of V?" then they are asking you to confirm a sensation or vision, not trying to cold read you.

No, they are cold reading. If they weren't, why wouldn't they just make a declaration? Do ghosts have speech impediments? Do they stutter? Are they playing charades?

 

[Mark Felt]

Fourthly, I can appreciate Richard Saunders is quite unused to being confronted in this way. I'm not entirely convinced that he's walked away from that experience and not experienced some sort of paradigm shift.

I can confirm that the above is utterly false. Check the general paranormal forum, then click on the "The One" thread.

 

[fuelair]

I figured Randi would be pouncing on this one.

*sigh* Why do I do this? Am I trying to land myself in hospital?


Here we go.


The issue of the first test. Apart from acknowledging that a couple of the psychics found the lost boy in time, Randi completely ignores the fact that there was any success at all, preferring to focus instead on the "vagueness" of statements, the cameraman supposedly pointing the way to where the boy was and the fact that the majority didn't make it in time.

There are several things wrong with this argument.

Firstly: Each psychic was NOT told the location, nor were any nonverbal indicators given. They were only equipped with a map, a photo of the boy and one of his possessions with which to establish an energy signature identification.

Secondly, the reason psychics make vague statements during readings is because psi abilities in general aren't like in the movies. Even though feelings and sensations are strong, they are only feelings and sensations - trying to extract details is like having poor vision and trying to read fine print without your glasses. They were NOT cold reading - to insist otherwise is an insult to those who work hard and often thanklessly in their chosen field.

Thirdly, as Stacey Demarco said, it's hard to do readings when you're under pressure. Ordinarily psychics work in quiet, calm environments; being on stage in a television studio in front of hundreds is quite different - like trying to thread a needle while someone is shouting in your ear.

Fourthly, I can appreciate Richard Dawkins is quite unused to being confronted in this way. I'm not entirely convinced that he's walked away from that experience and not experienced some sort of paradigm shift.

I can - fail is fail is fail.......l......

 

[Twiler]

I have no psychic powers. Here is a reading of Perihelion Xanateris:

Perihelion Xanateris is intelligent, perceptive and has the ability to apply critical thinking to claims concerning psychic power. He has a great understanding of the scientific method, and the motives of sceptics.

Perihelion Xanateris, is any of this reading correct? Bear in mind the difficulty of such an endeavor. I think that any degree of success should be taken as a confirmation of the power of cold readings.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have no psychic powers. Here is a reading of Perihelion Xanateris:

Perihelion Xanateris is intelligent, perceptive and has the ability to apply critical thinking to claims concerning psychic power. He has a great understanding of the scientific method, and the motives of sceptics.

Perihelion Xanateris, is any of this reading correct? Bear in mind the difficulty of such an endeavor. I think that any degree of success should be taken as a confirmation of the power of cold readings.

That's incredible. My name is not Perihelion Xanateris (though I have been known to post under the name of Aphelion Zylophone) but this describes me to a "T". Except the part about intelligence.

 

[Robert Oz]

What a load of crap. Very little - if any - information is extracted from clients other than what is needed to confirm something. For example, if the psychic says "is there a student in your class by the name of V?" then they are asking you to confirm a sensation or vision, not trying to cold read you.

Read over what you have written. Firstly, most psychics would go with a more common first initial, like J or S or T. Secondly, with a class of 20 to 30 students (or in the case of a university lecture theatre, possibly over 100), is it psychic to link one of the 26 letters of the alphabet to a person? In fact, a quick experiment I did on the weekend was writing down the members of mine and my wife's immediate family. Just our two families covered ELEVEN letters. The letters covered: A, B, C, D, L, M, R, S, T, W and even V!

We also covered nine months for birthdays. So when a psychic says, "I see a celebration of some sort. Is there a birthday or wedding coming up?" they've got a fantastic chance of getting a hit! Very simple cold reading.

I wonder... can cold reading be done over the Web? If so, then I challenge you to do a fake reading for me, and see how accurate you get. If you can't, then psychics who read over chat and forums have one up over you.

Yes, it is possible to do cold reading over the internet. However, it is very important to the psychic that he or she is reading a believer (or at least someone with an "open mind"). If I were to do a cold reading on you, you would suddenly become a half-decent skeptic and tear the reading apart, as you should be able to tear all psychic readings apart by applying some critical thinking.

Psychic and cold reading literature both advise to stay away from the skeptics. You need to ask yourself why. And it has nothing to do with negative energy and everything to do with seeing through the illusion.

Robert Oz.

 

[AndyD]

Now, if you can't confirm anything they ask you, then they really are cold reading and you've got a fake on your hands.

Ezio De Angelis claims to love the pressure of cold reading before an audience and thinks it's where he does his best work. He read one sitter for four minutes and recorded not a single hit. In a psychometric reading, he said he was holding car keys when they were, in fact, only house keys. He suggested the owner of the keys was a woman, he wasn't.

I guess you'd call him a fake? He was ultimately a finalist.

"The One" thread in the general forum has covered this show to death. Nettiemoore's notes on the final episode demonstrated the extent to which what was televised bore little resemblance to the reality of what happened in studio. In some cases, contestants read up to four sitters yet only one minute of one sitter's reading made it to air. At five minutes per reading, 95% of the material was left on the cutting room floor.

We also know that for other readings, where a score was recorded on-screen, that we saw all hits yet saw as little as 10-20% of the whole reading. Simple arithmetic tells us NO hits were recorded during the 80-90% that wasn't shown. Add to this that some of the hits were "generic" ("I'm seeing brothers, something about brothers...") and the failure rate is so high as to make the process completely useless for any practical purpose.

So, given that I only got to see the edited version and given that the edited version was heavily edited in favour of the contestants and given that I still didn't see anything that made me think there was something psychic going on - I wonder what the OP thinks would have changed Richard's mind when he was sitting there witnessing failure after failure?

I wonder... can cold reading be done over the Web? If so, then I challenge you to do a fake reading for me, and see how accurate you get. If you can't, then psychics who read over chat and forums have one up over you.

I very much doubt it's possible to cold read someone who doesn't even think there's a possibility you're psychic. We could start, however, with "Do you know anyone, friend, relative, distant relative or colleague - anyone - who has a "J name?". If so, who is it? Have they passed?

As for the "lost boy" test. The area was small and they had 15 minutes each. Only one of seven found the boy in a short time (3 minutes). Richard said he would like to see more. He saw more - failure after failure. No positive result was recorded in ANY other remote viewing test. The woman who found the boy fastest, performed especially poorly in the later sea-container test and Ned Kelly test (ie, she wasn't even a little bit close to target.)

As for the vagueness of readings, I consider that if psychic powers are so vague as to be indistiguishable from good guesses, then the reality or otherwise of their existence is irrelevant.

All shows are availalble here

Each episode is reviewed on my blog. Link in sig below.

 

[Perihelion Xanateris]

I have no psychic powers. Here is a reading of Perihelion Xanateris:

Perihelion Xanateris is intelligent, perceptive and has the ability to apply critical thinking to claims concerning psychic power. He has a great understanding of the scientific method, and the motives of sceptics.

Perihelion Xanateris, is any of this reading correct? Bear in mind the difficulty of such an endeavor. I think that any degree of success should be taken as a confirmation of the power of cold readings.

You could easily have inferred that from my posts. If that's what you call cold reading, then well done, you get a gold star.

 

[Robert Oz]

You could easily have inferred that from my posts.

Perihelion,

Your challenge to cold read you was accompanied by a claim that posters on other forums and chat websites have one up on us if we can't get hits. However, those others could just as easily have obtained information from the web.

As soon as you posted the challenge, I did a quick google on your user name and found posts by you on multiple forums. How can you be so sure anyone else on the internet isn't just cheating, by googling your name? Is it simply because they claim to be using psychic powers? Like my imaginary occult master who can actually saw a woman in half.

I remember a work colleague who said his son was given an incredibly accurate psychic reading by text message and was convinced the reading was genuine. I asked what information was provided to the psychic, and the work colleague said, "Just his full name". I googled the name and immediately found everything the psychic had come up with on one forum website where his son was a poster. We then tested the psychic's gift by asking a question the psychic could not have possibly known. The answer received was a miss.

Robert.