"The One"

[Perihelion Xanateris]

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.

So... you think all psychics do that, do you?

 

[Robert Oz]

So... you think all psychics do that, do you?

No, I don't think all psychic's do that. There are two types of psychics: the charlatans and the deluded (and I don't mean 'deluded' in a derogatory way).

There are many out there who have picked up the knack of cold reading over months or years of practising. There are many documentated cases of people who convinced themselves of psychic ability and later realised they had picked up cold reading techniques through mimicing other psychics, taking advice from other psychics, reading psychic literature and lots and lots of practice. This includes famous skeptic Ray Hyman.

If the readings you read on other forums are similar to cold reading techniques discussed on many websites and several books on the subject, then it is quite possible the psychic might fall into the 'deluded' category.

If the readings on other forums are much more specific and are not similar to cold reading techniques, it is possible they fall into the 'charlatan' category and are googling details.

Robert.

 

[Twiler]

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.

Don't you understand? I have to work from vague feelings in a cruel, deceitful world. Given the negative energy from unbelievers, any success is like a flower in winter and should be admired not mercilessly crushed underfoot.

The idea that I might have extrapolated my suggestions from your posts is indicative of a suspicious nature. I wish for a more open-minded person to present themselves for testing, although I feel that this experiment has already shown conclusive proof.

 

[Perihelion Xanateris]

No, I don't think all psychic's do that. There are two types of psychics: the charlatans and the deluded (and I don't mean 'deluded' in a derogatory way).

There are many out there who have picked up the knack of cold reading over months or years of practising. There are many documentated cases of people who convinced themselves of psychic ability and later realised they had picked up cold reading techniques through mimicing other psychics, taking advice from other psychics, reading psychic literature and lots and lots of practice. This includes famous skeptic Ray Hyman.

If the readings you read on other forums are similar to cold reading techniques discussed on many websites and several books on the subject, then it is quite possible the psychic might fall into the 'deluded' category.

If the readings on other forums are much more specific and are not similar to cold reading techniques, it is possible they fall into the 'charlatan' category and are googling details.

Robert.

Aaaaand... there's no category for "genuine", right?

Open-mindedness... ur doin it wrong

 

[Twiler]

Aaaaand... there's no category for "genuine", right?

Open-mindedness... ur doin it wrong

I imagine that categories are added as people appear to fill them.

 

[Robert Oz]

Aaaaand... there's no category for "genuine", right?

Open-mindedness... ur doin it wrong

Like I said... genuine psychics would have to show us something that differentiates their performance from a cold reader.

If a psychic performs with accuracy that suggests possible cheating, then they need to perform just as well under controlled, double-blind tests. They do not!

Doing it wrong is being open-minded to the point where you take someone at his or her word without requiring evidence before you believe.

Robert.

 

[Perihelion Xanateris]

Doing it wrong is being open-minded to the point where you take someone at his or her word without requiring evidence before you believe.

Which I don't. However, I am much more inclined to accept evidence that may seem flimsy to more hardened skeptics, mainly because I am much more familiar with the subtle nuances of psi, the core elements which are so hard to objectively quantify.

 

[Robert Oz]

Which I don't. However, I am much more inclined to accept evidence that may seem flimsy to more hardened skeptics, mainly because I am much more familiar with the subtle nuances of psi, the core elements which are so hard to objectively quantify.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The "subtle nuances of psi... which are so hard to objectively quantify" can be duplicated by performers with no psychic powers whatsoever. We need to see something that tricksters, mentalists and cold readers cannot duplicate. Otherwise, there is just no way of knowing who is genuine and who isn't.

For evidence to be taken seriously by the skeptical community, it needs to be via tests that eliminate the possibility of trickery and are double-blind... it's as simple as that. Anecdotal evidence is not good enough. Personal experience is not good enough. Objective evidence under controlled, double-blind tests is all we have.

Perihelion, I get the impression that you feel you have a limited amount of psychic power. Have you thought of someone just before they call or turn up on your door-step? Have you successfully predicted the flip of a coin or the roll of a die for what seems to be greater than chance results? Have you predicted the sex of an unborn child? I feel you have had at least some of these experience or perhaps similar ones.

I also feel you have had some successful experiences with seances and making some sort of contact with people who have passed. However, you may still be limited in the amount of control you have over your gifts. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. That's just the way psi works.

How has my attempt at a cold reading gone? What if I told you it was the result of genuine psychic powers? I can honestly say, however, I have not searched for information about you over the internet and am unaware of how accurate my reading has been. I have just made some guesses based on the fact that I know you believe in psychic powers. I am curious to know how I went... whether right or wrong.

Robert.

 

[AndyD]

I am much more inclined to accept evidence that may seem flimsy to more hardened skeptics, mainly because I am much more familiar with the subtle nuances of psi, the core elements which are so hard to objectively quantify.

...to the point where the phenomena might as well not exist at all.

It's like if I say there is an animal that looks exactly like a Collie Dog but it isn't actually a dog and that I can spot this kind of animal in a dog show. I point to three Collie Dogs in a show and say that, of all the dogs here, including other Collie Dogs, these three are not really dogs at all.

You, I expect, would fail to see the subtle differences that I can and so would probably doubt that I can really see any difference at all. You might also doubt the existence of the kind of beast I claim them to be. I would argue that judges see differences in Collie Dogs all the time, they just haven't realised, yet, that some of them are really pseudo-dogs, not real dogs.

Science could get involved and DNA tests would show the three animals to be dogs, from a scientific standpoint. I, of course, would say that science can't test for the features I can see and that those differences are difficult to even quantify in a way that would make testing practical. I might even suggest that just casting doubt on my belief is enough to make the beast impossible to identify.

Should you believe me? Would you believe me? You probably wouldn't but I am much more inclined to accept evidence that may seem flimsy to more hardened skeptics, mainly because I am much more familiar with the subtle nuances of pseudo-dogs, the core elements which are so hard to objectively quantify.

See the problem yet? Where does this belief in the unbelievable start and end? Is there really a man in Nigeria who's willing to share $60million with me? Is there really a small "pill" that will save me 20% on my fuel bill? Some people insist these things are true. They even claim to have experienced them first-hand. They understand these things in a way I can't seem to grasp and they remain frustrated by my continued disbelief.

Back to the pseudo-dogs. The point is that, if I can't show any reasonable thing that proves these "dogs" to be anything other than what common sense (and science and evidence) shows them to be, then, for all intents and purposes, they are what common sense (and science and evidence) shows them to be - dogs.

Similarly, if psi is so subtle, so untestable, so unquantifiable and so frail that it cannot be distinguished from normal, every day guessing, cold reading or other application of statistical knowledge (like card counting), then for all intents and purposes, it isn't anything other than what common sense (or science and evidence) shows it to be and therefore, "psi" becomes, at best, a synonym for "guessing". To assume differently requires "blind faith" and that is neither evidence nor convincing and as such, should probably remain personal.

Until someone, somewhere comes up with actual, verifiable, replicable evidence then, for all intents and purposes, psychic phenomena don't exist.

 

[Perihelion Xanateris]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The "subtle nuances of psi... which are so hard to objectively quantify" can be duplicated by performers with no psychic powers whatsoever.

No, they can't. Tricksters can perhaps fool people into thinking it's the same, but it's not.

Perihelion, I get the impression that you feel you have a limited amount of psychic power.

MISS

Have you thought of someone just before they call or turn up on your door-step?

MISS

Have you successfully predicted the flip of a coin or the roll of a die for what seems to be greater than chance results?

MISS

Have you predicted the sex of an unborn child?

Lucky guess. Partial credit.

I also feel you have had some successful experiences with seances and making some sort of contact with people who have passed.

MISS. I'm not a medium.

However, you may still be limited in the amount of control you have over your gifts. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

MISS.


So much for cold reading.

 

[Robert Oz]

That's very interesting Perihelion. I predicted that you attribute some psychic powers to yourself. You gave that a miss and yet after writing it, I read another thread where you said you successfully predicted a heart condition! Please explain.

If you haven't thought of someone who called soon after, you are one of a few. Many, many people experience this at least from time to time, but most attribute it to coincidence. So, by never experiencing it, you are quite special.

The flip of a coin or roll of a die was an outside guess, and I'll accept that miss.

So you never played around with seances as a kid? Okay. I'll accept that as a miss as well, but find it odd in your case.

You said miss to having a limited gift, but not much control, and again you later posted that you predicted the heart condition for your grandfather and later attributed it to yourself.

I think if I posted the exact same prediction on a psychic forum and you read it, I would have scored higher. Even if I accept misses on the coin flipping, thinking of people before they call and seances, based on your post on the other thread I count two more hits than the one you gave me. Three out of six is better than the psychics on "The One" did.

Robert.

 

[Mark Felt]

No, they can't. Tricksters can perhaps fool people into thinking it's the same, but it's not.

When they have the same results, yes, they're the same.

Lucky guess. Partial credit.

Oh, irony, you bitch.

 

[Robert Oz]

Perihelion,

Out of a suspicion that you did not answer my cold reading questions honestly, I have googled your user name on other forums. Please explain the following:

I made a prediction that you felt you have some psychic powers. I also predicted that you do not have total control over these powers - sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

You said that both these predictions were misses and yet:

At http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detaila.html?id=19546, you wrote "Even speaking as a psychic who doesn't chrage for his services, I think these laws are a good idea."

In the JREF forums you wrote "As a Wiccan - and a psychic - I feel the need to defend against undue blanket accusations (eg. "all mediums/psychics/etc are frauds") by impossible skeptics".

You also wrote that you successfully predicted the sex of an unborn child and your own heart condition after missing with your grandfather. Please show how you came to the conclusion that my two predictions about your psychic powers were misses.

I assure you, I was unaware of this information when I made my predictions and only went in search of further information when you labelled them as misses.

I confirm that I got at least three hits out of my six predictions and again highlight that this is better than the psychics performed on "The One". How many of my other predictions did you lie about?

Robert.

 

[AndyD]

And this...

I've been a skeptic from the beginning. The difference between me and the rest of you is I'm a hell of a lot more open-minded. In other news, yes it's actually possible to be a psychic AND a skeptic! You read it here first!

There are times, believe it or not, when I've questioned my own abilities. The reason I haven't succumbed to those doubts is because I've seen and experienced too much to explain it all away.

{from The One thread in General}

Actually Robert, I'd assumed you were just building a profile of PX, not making predictions - in this case.

I had given PX the benefit of the doubt early on but the lack of honest responses (or relevant responses) over the last couple of days leaves me leaning toward troll - at least on this issue. There just doesn't seem to be any genuine interest in discussing the show. It seems it was just an opportunity to take a swipe at Randi, through Saunders. I think the swing missed.

 

[Robert Oz]

Actually Robert, I'd assumed you were just building a profile of PX, not making predictions - in this case.

Hi Andy,

I was being honest when I said my predictions were based solely on the exchanges between Perihelion and myself. I thought it was obvious from what he had written to date that he believed he was a psychic.

The rest was pure guessing (but guessing based on the knowledge that he thought he was a psychic).

Perihelion should have just accused me of making educated guessing on information he had already revealed (even indirectly). Instead, he lied and said my predictions about limited psychic power and limited control were misses.

My cold reading went as follows:

"Perihelion, I get the impression that you feel you have a limited amount of psychic power."

This was based on his previous post about being "familiar with the subtle nuances of psi, the core elements which are so hard to objectively quantify". This could have meant he either believed he was psychic or had read into it enough to "understand" how it works. I made what I thought was the more likely guess.

"Have you thought of someone just before they call or turn up on your door-step?"

This happens to many of us except most of us attribute it to coincidence or confirmation bias.

"Have you successfully predicted the flip of a coin or the roll of a die for what seems to be greater than chance results?"

This was a long shot, but I thought I'd throw it in as a lucky guess. If it was a hit it would be a good hit. Misses are usually forgotten, so why not try.

"Have you predicted the sex of an unborn child?"

This was a hit. I was confident that someone who thought they were psychic would try this from time to time. It seems I was correct in Perihelion's case.

"I feel you have had at least some of these experience or perhaps similar ones."

Perihelion ignored this waiver. I made a get out clause by saying he has experienced at least some of these.

"I also feel you have had some successful experiences with seances and making some sort of contact with people who have passed."

This was another long shot guess, but I am honestly surprised (if it's true) that Perihelion never played around with seances (even as a teenager) considering his interests.

"However, you may still be limited in the amount of control you have over your gifts. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. That's just the way psi works."

All psychics should agree with this one, it can't miss. If the power were not limited it would be an exact science and we would have many, many psychic lottery winners.

That was basically my thought process, and Perihelion lied to make it look worse than it was.

Robert.

 

[Perihelion Xanateris]

That's very interesting Perihelion. I predicted that you attribute some psychic powers to yourself. You gave that a miss and yet after writing it, I read another thread where you said you successfully predicted a heart condition! Please explain.

If you haven't thought of someone who called soon after, you are one of a few. Many, many people experience this at least from time to time, but most attribute it to coincidence. So, by never experiencing it, you are quite special.

The flip of a coin or roll of a die was an outside guess, and I'll accept that miss.

So you never played around with seances as a kid? Okay. I'll accept that as a miss as well, but find it odd in your case.

You said miss to having a limited gift, but not much control, and again you later posted that you predicted the heart condition for your grandfather and later attributed it to yourself.

I think if I posted the exact same prediction on a psychic forum and you read it, I would have scored higher. Even if I accept misses on the coin flipping, thinking of people before they call and seances, based on your post on the other thread I count two more hits than the one you gave me. Three out of six is better than the psychics on "The One" did.

Robert.

Don't start twisting things around just because you failed. I didn't lie, I answered your questions as honestly as I could.

You said I have limited control over my powers. I don't, but my powers are not as advanced or as well developed as I would like them to be. There's a world of difference there. You didn't say anything about limited power, just limited control.

I gave the hit partial credit because I felt you were just throwing that out based on what others have done in the past. It was little more than a wild guess.

Besides, even if I had done any of the others, would you really be inclined to believe it? Right now, I'm getting a very strong feeling that the answer is no. As impossible skeptics go, you're right up there with Randi and Saunders. I doesn't matter what I say or do, you'll brush it off anyway.

I see you as being behind a brick wall, or a concrete barrier, wearing headphones while soemone's trying to show you something important.

 

[Robert Oz]

Don't start twisting things around just because you failed. I didn't lie, I answered your questions as honestly as I could.

You said I have limited control over my powers. I don't, but my powers are not as advanced or as well developed as I would like them to be. There's a world of difference there. You didn't say anything about limited power, just limited control.

I seriously doubt you are as strict in your interpretations with "genuine" psychics.

How is "limited control" and "not as advanced or as well developed as I would like them to be" any different? If those words came from a "genuine" psychic you would have sung the success to the high heavens. You either have limited control, no control or unlimited control. Which is it?

Can you turn the gift on at any moment, under any conditions with precise results? That is unlimited control. Therefore, your "control" is limited.

Also, please show us or direct us to a psychic reading that is more precise in wording than the one I provided. I would very much like to read the "psychics" who have one up on us who gave a reading that is so clear that there is no room for doubt.

In fact, I challenge you, Perihelion, to provide a psychic reading that is more precise and definitive than what I provided. Show us how it is done. Show us predictions that cannot be twisted into misses, since you are a "genuine" psychic.

I gave the hit partial credit because I felt you were just throwing that out based on what others have done in the past. It was little more than a wild guess.

I already said all of my predictions were wild guesses. Of course they were guesses, since I do not claim to be psychic! That is not a partial credit, but a precise hit. Again, the exact same words coming from a "genuine" psychic would have been sung to the high heavens as a spectacular hit!

Besides, even if I had done any of the others, would you really be inclined to believe it? Right now, I'm getting a very strong feeling that the answer is no.

Yes, I would believe that you have made successful predictions in the past. I just don't believe there is anything psychic to it. My guess that you guessed the sex of an unborn child was, by all definitions, a correct prediction, but I do not claim to be psychic.

As impossible skeptics go, you're right up there with Randi and Saunders.

Thank you.

I think you are the only person on this forum who would not count at least three of my six predictions as very good hits.

I await your psychic reading with much clearer and precise hits than mine with no room for doubt. Please show us how it's done, Perihelion.

Robert.

 

[Robert Oz]

You said I have limited control over my powers... You didn't say anything about limited power, just limited control.

Perihelion,

Please explain the above comment based on my first prediction - word for word:

Perihelion, I get the impression that you feel you have a limited amount of psychic power."

Robert.

 

[AndyD]

Quote:
Perihelion, I get the impression that you feel you have a limited amount of psychic power.

MISS

Robert, I think you've done a spectacular job considering all that negative energy you're being confronted with. I know PX said he was a skeptic but he's looking more like a closed-minded cynic in this exchange.

How can someone who claims to have psychic powers not also claim to have psychic powers?

 

[Robert Oz]

Robert, I think you've done a spectacular job considering all that negative energy you're being confronted with. I know PX said he was a skeptic but he's looking more like a closed-minded cynic in this exchange.

How can someone who claims to have psychic powers not also claim to have psychic powers?

Thanks AndyD.

I am the first to admit that I am neither psychic nor very good at cold reading. In fact, my cold read of Perihelion was my first attempt and I still did better than the psychics on "The One" who have been doing it for years. I also did not have any feedback from Perihelion, since all six predictions were made in the one post. Person to person, I would be able to back-track and change direction and develop hits, etc.

I am keen to see Perihelion do a better job, since he claims to be a "genuine" psychic and was so disappointed in my effort.

Robert.