Skeptic Chris French tries to 'Cold Read' and loses to psychic Gordon Smith

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Hyman was a member of a group disgracefuly named the 'psychic entertainers association' ... these conjurors (not psychics) practise faking phenomena that looks like psychic phenomena ... Hyman was a former palmist

And he said he was out of practice. As someone who had once been in the game, he knew what kind of skill it took to pull off. The fact that he once had the skill does not mean he considered himself to still have the skill

More nonsense.

how so? I'll ask again: accept for the sake of the argument that all psychics cold read and there is no psi, but they don't realise it. You want to compare them to a person who does say they are cold reading - would you not agree that the psychic who did it a lot would still perform better than a deliberate cold reader who hadn't done much of it at all?

I'm curious as to what you think is nonsense. You seem to think that knowing about cold reading would make someone an expert cold reader?

[FallingLeaf]

Originally Posted by Arouet

You seem to think that knowing about cold reading would make someone an expert cold reader?

When I was 15, I was mesmerised by a certain footballer. He had dark, thick hair, like me, he had ethnic connection to a certain African country (same as mine) and he was - how shall I put this? - not a bad looking chap, like me.

When it came to the football trials at school, I told everyone one I had studied him (true), I could almost predict his every move (true - when he was on the edge of the area, rathe than cut in on his weaker foot, he would instead go for the cross or try his luck with beating his man) and that (gulp) I could play like him. So I played in his position.

I got slaughtered.

There's a lesson in there somewhere.

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Arouet

And he said he was out of practice. As someone who had once been in the game, he knew what kind of skill it took to pull off. The fact that he once had the skill does not mean he considered himself to still have the skill



how so? I'll ask again: accept for the sake of the argument that all psychics cold read and there is no psi, but they don't realise it. You want to compare them to a person who does say they are cold reading - would you not agree that the psychic who did it a lot would still perform better than a deliberate cold reader who hadn't done much of it at all?

I'm curious as to what you think is nonsense. You seem to think that knowing about cold reading would make someone an expert cold reader?

Reading these exchanges is bringing the same word to my mind, "nonsense." For me, it makes sense that if anyone is going to invent a technique and then claim that someone else is using it, that the onus is on them to demonstrate it. If they cannot do this, they need to drop it. It is painful to read or watch as skeptics attempt to show this, because they are not only very bad at it, but they are actually doing something dishonorable with the unsuspecting audience members they practice upon. To prove that mediums are frauds who ply the feelings of others for profit, they themselves ply the feelings of the unsuspecting audience members in an attempt to prove that the psychic is doing the same thing. Then the psychic walks in and blows them out of the water--every time.

In the exchange OM posted, French was hanging on the guests statements of "maybe" and "I guess" as full on validations on equal footing with the feedback for Gordon, about whom they said "he was spot on, amazing, etc" (this is the sense of it, not meant to be a quote.) Every time I've watched these things, the "cold reader" hungrily accepts polite but grudging verifications, while not noticing the enthusiastic acceptance of what amounts to far more meaningful content from the medium. This isn't simply a matter of "practice," nor is it any kind of praise to say that a medium is naturally better at it. This happens because the medium simply is not cold reading, period. Cold reading is a real phenomenon, but it is not what magicians say it is. Chris French demonstrated it very well for what it is: an uncomfortable wrong-headed method by which skeptics can unsuccessfully attempt to explain mediumship.

To me, this and all other debunking exercises make me think of a little rubber rowboat full of skeptics, about to disappear over the falls. The point is that sometimes, when faced with the consequences of a bad turn, it's time to find another way out. As applied to the present example, cold reading is such a poor explanation that it should be quietly withdrawn.

One should note however, that the conflict between skeptics and proponents is useful for drawing attention to ideas that others might not ever think to question. For that reason, I expect the conflict to remain, and for good reason.
AP

[Arouet]

You and OM have called my hypothetical nonsense without explaining why its nonsense - you haven't addressed the hypothetical at all. The point of a taking a position for the sake of the argument is to explore the implications of accepting that. it's a thought experiment. I do this all the time around here, accepting for the sake of the argument that psi is real. Can't you two for a momment proceed in a discussion on the basis of psi not being real?

[Kamarling]

Originally Posted by Arouet

I'm curious as to what you think is nonsense. You seem to think that knowing about cold reading would make someone an expert cold reader?

I see why you are saying this but can you give any examples of mentalists outperforming psychics under equivalent conditions? I'd like to know how Gordon Smith was able to pick up, by cold reading, such detail about the father of the woman in the clip. I presume they were both subject to the same conditions. Even if he isn't practised at the art, French should have been able to explain how Smith was so accurate. He (French) did what I would expect with cold reading unknown subjects: fished for hits and made high probability guesses. Smith, on the other hand, tuned in directly to relevant facts and feelings.

I also found it interesting that the two men seemed friendly but, in effect, French was there to prove to the audience that Smith is a cheat.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Kamarling

I see why you are saying this but can you give any examples of mentalists outperforming psychics under equivalent conditions?

I don't know of any such experiment being run. I'm just saying that if one were to be run you'd need people of equivalent experience.

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Arouet

You and OM have called my hypothetical nonsense without explaining why its nonsense - you haven't addressed the hypothetical at all. The point of a taking a position for the sake of the argument is to explore the implications of accepting that. it's a thought experiment. I do this all the time around here, accepting for the sake of the argument that psi is real. Can't you two for a momment proceed in a discussion on the basis of psi not being real?

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your hypothetical. My answer is that yes, practice would improve performance, but not in the way you think. That is, if all psychics were cold readers and psi didn't exist, (both of which are false statements), then I would expect the better cold readers to be better at coming up with generically correct information, but with no improvement in the uncannily correct and meaningful information that comes through.

We have seen videos here of mediums, John Edward, Richard Ireland, Gordon Higginson, etc, and they come up with details that if they weren't examples of psi, are examples of phenomenally lucky streaks of random guessing because there is nothing about the appearance or reactions of the people being read that could possibly supply the information. However, this is like saying that someone who consistently answers math problems correctly doesn't know math, but is a lucky guesser.

AP

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by paqart

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your hypothetical. My answer is that yes, practice would improve performance, but not in the way you think.

Right - so you agree that even if psi were not real that French would not likely do as well as the practicing psychic.

I get that you think a cold reader will never do as well as a psychic but that's the hypothesis being tested - we have to at least start with two similarly experienced people to start drawing conclusions.

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Right - so you agree that even if psi were not real that French would not likely do as well as the practicing psychic.

I get that you think a cold reader will never do as well as a psychic but that's the hypothesis being tested - we have to at least start with two similarly experienced people to start drawing conclusions.

Unless the other one is actually psychic, you can't do this. That is the problem, because if one of the people IS psychic, then the other can't ever hope to be equivalent unless he is also psychic.

AP

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Can skeptics like James Randi actually 'cold read' good enough to impress anyone? Or do they just cheat instead?

'... Randi was introduced pseudonymously as a psychic and proceeded to attempt cold readings, with embarrassingly negative results. He was eventually stopped, ostensibly because of some technical hitch, left the room, and later returned to resume his act, this time with more success. The presenter, Kate Galloway, who did a difficult job with considerable skill, then revealed to a far from astonished audience, most of whom said they had recognised Randi from the outset, that it was all faked, and that Randi had access to audience names and addresses, and indeed employed a researcher to show how easily fake mediums could discover information about potential sitters, or clients ....' -Montague Keen

It seems James Randi's attempt at 'cold reading' was so bad ... the producers (perhaps hoping for a debunking exercise) stopped it and James Randi returned to do hot reading instead .... possibly Randi attempted 'cold reading' but it went so bad, he then relied on cheating.

And cold reading is not cheating?
Do you think the 'real' psychics stop at cold reading?
Do they have some moral code that is OK with cold reading , but not with hot reading?

I recently heard a magician explain how some tricks are based on the premise that the audience assumes that the performer will not go to the extremes necessary to make a trick work.
The example given involved the magician holding a live fish in his mouth through some time during the act.

Why assume a cheating psychic would not put in the extra effort to get some 'hot' information?

You are comparing amateur cold readers with die hard proffesional cheats who will use every trick in the book to get some effect.