My Take on Mediumship

[metaphysics101]

I've been interested in mediumship for quite some time....

One thing I've never heard someone ask the skeptics though is, what if it's true that the information they receive, they DO have to interpret. What if it is true that the information does come through in their own frame of reference to help them better understand the information they are receiving?
What if it's true that they do have to decipher the information? There was a medium on Alex's podcast a couple of years back by the name of Marcel that explained that it's often like cryptology when it comes to decoding the message..

Okay, now assume all of the above information is true, it would still come across like cold reading right? If all the above information is valid, then it is true that there's not one medium alive who wouldn't APPEAR to be doing cold reading, as questions would have to be asked to help the medium better understand what they are getting. As an example if a medium is getting a month of September, because the medium getting the message has a strong month of September, then he would more than likely ask, "why does the month of September have such a strong significance?

Now of the course the problem is, if it's true tht the information DOES comes across that way, then it really opens the door to potential fraud has con artists quickly learn cold reading techniques to cash in on the buck....However, assuming the above information is true, then mediumship could very well be valid, but it would still have a similarity to cold reading.

I just wonder why the skeptics ASSUME that if someone was coming through, that they would say be able to communicate information like, "Your mother is telling me her name is Margaret?"......In fact, it doesn't make any sense to me that the information would ever be that clear. Heck, if it was that possible for the energy to be that specific, then we would probably all be getting clear cut messages all the time once our loved ones pass, and that obviously doesn't happen.

So first off, for a skeptic to even entertain the thought of mediumship as a possibility, they would have to be open to the idea that the information may have to be interpreted, decoded and provided through the medium's frame of reference. If a skeptic from the get go is convinced that a spirit wouldn't come through this way, then game over!. There's no further you can go at that point.

I'm not saying that skeptics should believe in mediumship, but it just seems like they aren't even open enough to even allow the option of information interpretation/decoding etc as a possible reason to the similarity to cold reading.. I would like to know, why that is?? I honestly don't see why that is so hard to believe.

Now the skeptical response would be, but why do they often come through with mundane boring information? My explanation for that might be that, because if they are using the medium's frame of reference, that it's the only way they can probably bring information through, and sometimes that information might be boring, but should ultimately have meaning to the sitter.

Now with that said, I'm sure there are MANY frauds involved in mediumship(aka Sylvia Brown). Even other mediums such as Marcel have nothing but bad things to say regarding Sylvia Brown.

Anyway, that's my thoughts. .... I figure I could post something this here. If I was to post something this on the James Randi Forum, I'd probably have private message death threats by now.

[anonymous]

There are many examples of mediumship where the sitter has no knowledge of what the medium is communicating but the information is later verified.

Proxy sittings are when the sitter gets a reading for another person who they don't even know:
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8p...evidence_proxy

Many of Mrs Piper's readings were done with proxy sitters:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2009/05/f...ations-of.html

Drop in communicators are spirits that have no relationship to the sitter and say nothing about the sitter but communicate for purposes of their own:
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8p...dence_drop_ins

The cross correspondences were messages given in parts through different mediums that had nothing to do with the sitters but communicated specialized knowledge of the spirit:
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8p...orrespondences

Triple blind experiments with mediums rule out cold reading:
Anomalous Information Reception By Research Mediums Demonstrated Using A Novel Triple -Blind Protocol
http://veritas.arizona.edu/papers/Be...%20vol%203.pdf

[Scott]

Originally Posted by metaphysics101

I've been interested in mediumship for quite some time....

One thing I've never heard someone ask the skeptics though is, what if it's true that the information they receive, they DO have to interpret. What if it is true that the information does come through in their own frame of reference to help them better understand the information they are receiving?
What if it's true that they do have to decipher the information? There was a medium on Alex's podcast a couple of years back by the name of Marcel that explained that it's often like cryptology when it comes to decoding the message..

Okay, now assume all of the above information is true, it would still come across like cold reading right? If all the above information is valid, then it is true that there's not one medium alive who wouldn't APPEAR to be doing cold reading, as questions would have to be asked to help the medium better understand what they are getting. As an example if a medium is getting a month of September, because the medium getting the message has a strong month of September, then he would more than likely ask, "why does the month of September have such a strong significance?

Now of the course the problem is, if it's true tht the information DOES comes across that way, then it really opens the door to potential fraud has con artists quickly learn cold reading techniques to cash in on the buck....However, assuming the above information is true, then mediumship could very well be valid, but it would still have a similarity to cold reading.

I just wonder why the skeptics ASSUME that if someone was coming through, that they would say be able to communicate information like, "Your mother is telling me her name is Margaret?"......In fact, it doesn't make any sense to me that the information would ever be that clear. Heck, if it was that possible for the energy to be that specific, then we would probably all be getting clear cut messages all the time once our loved ones pass, and that obviously doesn't happen.

So first off, for a skeptic to even entertain the thought of mediumship as a possibility, they would have to be open to the idea that the information may have to be interpreted, decoded and provided through the medium's frame of reference. If a skeptic from the get go is convinced that a spirit wouldn't come through this way, then game over!. There's no further you can go at that point.

I'm not saying that skeptics should believe in mediumship, but it just seems like they aren't even open enough to even allow the option of information interpretation/decoding etc as a possible reason to the similarity to cold reading.. I would like to know, why that is?? I honestly don't see why that is so hard to believe.

Now the skeptical response would be, but why do they often come through with mundane boring information? My explanation for that might be that, because if they are using the medium's frame of reference, that it's the only way they can probably bring information through, and sometimes that information might be boring, but should ultimately have meaning to the sitter.

Now with that said, I'm sure there are MANY frauds involved in mediumship(aka Sylvia Brown). Even other mediums such as Marcel have nothing but bad things to say regarding Sylvia Brown.

Anyway, that's my thoughts. .... I figure I could post something this here. If I was to post something this on the James Randi Forum, I'd probably have private message death threats by now.

I would put it this way. How can you design a study that would allow the psychic to not have to do interpretation from just their frame of reference? It might be to narrow the options of what is being looked for such that there is clear demarcations so that results are clear. If the information comes off as possibly coming from cold reading, Barnum statements, or confirmation bias then why jump to the psi mechanism?

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Scott

I would put it this way. How can you design a study that would allow the psychic to not have to do interpretation from just their frame of reference? It might be to narrow the options of what is being looked for such that there is clear demarcations so that results are clear. If the information comes off as possibly coming from cold reading, Barnum statements, or confirmation bias then why jump to the psi mechanism?

See Anonymous' post above.

AP

[Arouet]

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that mediumship is real but always looks like cold reading for various reasons. We may be in the situation of not having enough reliable evidence to believe it exists when in fact it does exist.

Skepticm entails being aware that you may be withholding belief in things that may in fact be true - and being entirely justified in doing so.

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that mediumship is real but always looks like cold reading for various reasons. We may be in the situation of not having enough reliable evidence to believe it exists when in fact it does exist.

Skepticm entails being aware that you may be withholding belief in things that may in fact be true - and being entirely justified in doing so.

I will disagree that mediumship always looks like cold-reading, or even that "cold-reading" is a genuine phenomenon. The descriptions I've read of cold-reading by Wiseman and others do not match what I see mediums like John Edward, Richard Ireland, or Theresa Caputo doing. Keep in mind that I am not suggesting that something that looks like cold-reading is genuine mediumship, I'm saying that what I have seen certain mediums do doesn't even look like cold-reading, regardless whether it is or isn't. The same mediums have been accused of cold-reading on numerous occasions, but the description does not fit.

My favorite example comes from John Edward. On one episode of Crossing Over, he told a woman in the audience that her grandfather had been killed by the mob and his body was stuffed in an icebox (in the back of a restaurant, IIRC). There were no comments or facial expressions from the audience member that could have possibly conveyed that information, nor did he go on a long fishing expedition. Even if a tremendous amount of editing had clipped out quite a bit of material, the clip involved still showed no hint of what is described as "cold-reading."

As to whether "cold-reading" occurs at all, the only people I've seen practice the technique are magicians who are so bad at it that I don't see how it qualifies. It reminds me of the animated movie "Prince of Egypt" when Moses turns the river into blood, and then the magicians do a pale imitation by coloring a bowl of water pink. As I see it, the magicians who do this benefit from the natural politeness of their viewers, who don't want to disappoint the performer by complaining about how bad their performance is.

There is a big difference between an act where the performer says "I see a 'G', female. Does it belong to you sir? No? then right beside you, a 'G', female..." then continues in this vein for the entire show, and someone like Edward, who might start that way to locate a person, but then who launches into very specific details like, "Okay, your grandfather is here. Was he killed by the Mafia? Because he's showing me that he is shot and then stuffed into an icebox by some gangsters in the back of a restaurant."

Having said all that, while I disagree with the OP in a specific sense, generally, I agree that the Q & A quality of communicating with spirits can be mistaken for cold-reading, even when that conclusion is ill-supported and illogical.

AP

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by metaphysics101

There was a medium on Alex's podcast a couple of years back by the name of Marcel that explained that it's often like cryptology when it comes to decoding the message..

Ghosts don't all have the same communication skills and there is a learning curve in how well they communicate. They often develop a relationship with the medium and get better at communicating over time. Some use images, colors, or feelings to get points across... and different mediums pick up information in different ways.

[Wendybird]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

Ghosts don't all have the same communication skills and there is a learning curve in how well they communicate. They often develop a relationship with the medium and get better at communicating over time. Some use images, colors, or feelings to get points across... and different mediums pick up information in different ways.

Totally agree with that, Sandy B. Some spirits can communicate better than others. Also due to levels of consciousness, I've heard even spirits often need their own "mediums" to get a message through to the human medium/recipient of the message. For example, a "higher" spirit may need to use a lower spirit to act as a medium, or a less expereinced medium's own spirit guide may act as an intermediary for a message from another spirit, since the medium's spirit guide knows how most effecively to communicate to the medium, e.g. what symbols to use that have specific meanings for the medium.

And mediums vary in their abilities. Some are clairevoyant and see images, such as symbols, colors, or letters of the alphabet. Others may be claireaudient and hear words or phrases. Or they might be clairesentient and feel sensations in the body such as a pain or emotion, or even feel the gist of a situation. Some mediums may experience a combination of these methods, and in what way a message comes through may also depend on how the spirit is attempting to convey the message. If a spirit tries to send words to a medium who mainly receives symbols, the message won't come across very well, if it all.

More often than not, the bits of message (symbols, words, feelings) that do come across do need to be interpreted into a narrative to give a bigger picture. Mediums are often trained to "give only what you get" because the medium's interpretation could be completely wrong. A symbol that means one thing to the medium (a bee = industriousness), may mean something entirely different to the sitter (Uncle Joe died from a bee sting)!

[429cage]

Originally Posted by metaphysics101

I've been interested in mediumship for quite some time....

One thing I've never heard someone ask the skeptics though is, what if it's true that the information they receive, they DO have to interpret. What if it is true that the information does come through in their own frame of reference to help them better understand the information they are receiving?
What if it's true that they do have to decipher the information? There was a medium on Alex's podcast a couple of years back by the name of Marcel that explained that it's often like cryptology when it comes to decoding the message..

Okay, now assume all of the above information is true, it would still come across like cold reading right? If all the above information is valid, then it is true that there's not one medium alive who wouldn't APPEAR to be doing cold reading, as questions would have to be asked to help the medium better understand what they are getting. As an example if a medium is getting a month of September, because the medium getting the message has a strong month of September, then he would more than likely ask, "why does the month of September have such a strong significance?

Now of the course the problem is, if it's true tht the information DOES comes across that way, then it really opens the door to potential fraud has con artists quickly learn cold reading techniques to cash in on the buck....However, assuming the above information is true, then mediumship could very well be valid, but it would still have a similarity to cold reading.

I just wonder why the skeptics ASSUME that if someone was coming through, that they would say be able to communicate information like, "Your mother is telling me her name is Margaret?"......In fact, it doesn't make any sense to me that the information would ever be that clear. Heck, if it was that possible for the energy to be that specific, then we would probably all be getting clear cut messages all the time once our loved ones pass, and that obviously doesn't happen.

So first off, for a skeptic to even entertain the thought of mediumship as a possibility, they would have to be open to the idea that the information may have to be interpreted, decoded and provided through the medium's frame of reference. If a skeptic from the get go is convinced that a spirit wouldn't come through this way, then game over!. There's no further you can go at that point.

I'm not saying that skeptics should believe in mediumship, but it just seems like they aren't even open enough to even allow the option of information interpretation/decoding etc as a possible reason to the similarity to cold reading.. I would like to know, why that is?? I honestly don't see why that is so hard to believe.

Now the skeptical response would be, but why do they often come through with mundane boring information? My explanation for that might be that, because if they are using the medium's frame of reference, that it's the only way they can probably bring information through, and sometimes that information might be boring, but should ultimately have meaning to the sitter.

Now with that said, I'm sure there are MANY frauds involved in mediumship(aka Sylvia Brown). Even other mediums such as Marcel have nothing but bad things to say regarding Sylvia Brown.

Anyway, that's my thoughts. .... I figure I could post something this here. If I was to post something this on the James Randi Forum, I'd probably have private message death threats by now.

See, I think this is actually a valid point. With that being said, though most mediums do claim to have to interpret their impressions, (usually, unless they're entranced) there are many mediums who don't go "fishing" -though they may be using other garden variety tricks of the mentalist trade (even unconsciously).

Many mediums do give messages under conditions which are not conducive to cold reading tricks (I'm lumping body language reading under that general heading as well). Now, most claim that they experience a sort of "overshadowing", where some of the spirit's thoughts are often impressed onto their mind (which is why learning to "still your mind" might be very important). If they haven't been proven to be fraudulent, then I think we should consider what they might be experiencing.

It may be that people can communicate with the dead in that way. It may be that they are simply having hallucinatory experiences and unconsciously fishing and picking up clues about the sitters -from this, they could form their readings. However, the latter opinion is much, much more difficult to maintain in cases where mediums have been adequately separated from their sitters, aren't allowed feedback and haven't been allowed to do any research -that is, assuming they get significant results under such conditions.

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by metaphysics101

I've been interested in mediumship for quite some time....

One thing I've never heard someone ask the skeptics though is,

I take it you mean to ask skeptics now. Cause here comes my answer.

what if it's true that the information they receive, they DO have to interpret. What if it is true that the information does come through in their own frame of reference to help them better understand the information they are receiving?
What if it's true that they do have to decipher the information? There was a medium on Alex's podcast a couple of years back by the name of Marcel that explained that it's often like cryptology when it comes to decoding the message..

The usual tests are designed in such a way that it wouldn't matter. Basically, skeptics strive to test whatever claim someone makes. Since skeptics, by definition, have no theories on the paranormal there's nothing else they can do.

Now of the course the problem is, if it's true tht the information DOES comes across that way, then it really opens the door to potential fraud has con artists quickly learn cold reading techniques to cash in on the buck....However, assuming the above information is true, then mediumship could very well be valid, but it would still have a similarity to cold reading.

The usual tests aims to establish if there is any information that is meaningful to the intended recipient but not to someone else. There's no assumptions built in about what the information should be like.
It doesn't matter to such a test if it looks like cold reading.

Now the skeptical response would be, but why do they often come through with mundane boring information? My explanation for that might be that, because if they are using the medium's frame of reference, that it's the only way they can probably bring information through, and sometimes that information might be boring, but should ultimately have meaning to the sitter.

There are a number of so-called direct voice mediums who claim that the spirits are speaking with their voice. There's also other types of mediums who also claim a way better connection to the spirits than what you suggest here. Stuff like that was more popular in the past.
Reading between the lines, I take it that you believe that mediums who make such claims are all frauds. That's certainly reasonable but being a skeptic means being willing to listen to any far out claim.

Anyway, that's my thoughts. .... I figure I could post something this here. If I was to post something this on the James Randi Forum, I'd probably have private message death threats by now.

I doubt it but I'd be quite interested in learning otherwise.