Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

How do you mesure mediumship?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How do you mesure mediumship?

    Starting a new thread for discussing this subject...

    Originally posted by Frankmat View Post
    Coming up with odds is one thing... but I am still not sure how you would measure Mediumship.

    For example I have a reading that I had with a medium where I live who I still consider the best I have seen... and it was only a few weeks ago. He gave me these very specific details and only these.

    Michael - older man.
    Maria - Older female.
    Giuseppe - older man.
    Man passed with lung issue... and Anthony.
    Another Anthony who is a friend and he passed in a car accident because he feels an impact.

    Now... I could absolutely confirm the following.

    My grandfather was Michael.
    My grandmother was Maria.
    My dad's name is Guiseppe
    I had an uncle who passed from cancer but ultimately he died from pneumonia.
    I had a cousin Anthony who died from suicide... a gunshot wound to the head.

    Now only because I am a medium myself... did I know he misinterpreted the suicide as a car accident.. because I also would do this if I felt a painful impact to my head. He was not a friend but my cousin... but again I know that a friend, cousin, brother etc... comes to me the same way as they are all on the same line of the family tree (think generation)

    Now... according to the MDC and most skeptics... there were 8 specific bits of information, Michael, Maria, Guiseppe, Anthony, Lung issue, Anthony, car accident, friend. Yet they would only accept that he got 5 of those 8 hits correct.

    A 62% hit rate. A massive failure and Mediumship not proven.

    Yet to me I have absolutely no doubt in the world he was connecting with all of these people because the information could not possibly have been cold reading... and was way too specific.

    Is this how most skeptics would measure a mediumship reading? or does it make more sense to come up with a study design that Dr Gary Schwartz used... where the sitter rates how accurate they were. How I personally would rate that reading would be miles away from how the MDC would rate it. Mine would be accurate.
    You can get proof of a non random result if you have statistically significant result. If chance predicts you should get 50% and you get 60% (over many trials) with enough confidence, say + or - 1% then you can have evidence for anomalous cognition.

    60% might be a crappy reading, but it could prove something anomalous is occurring. This is why I think that a correctly designed experiment using mediums could provide excellent proof of anomalous cognition. Because there are many mediums who give very good readings. I've seen one of Gary Schwartz's mediums working in a Spiritualist Church. She was competent but of average ability. There are much better mediums around but they are not always professionals, some of them are peppetual students in development circles. It would take an insider who is trusted to help set up a proper investigation. Mediums would have to be treated like people not lab rats, anonymity protected, ethics guidelines for humans in research, etc. I don't think it is likely to happen. Any well known pseudo-skeptic, who's career or fame is founded on ridiculing psychics, coming anywhere near it would make it hard to get mediums to participate.
    Last edited by anonymous; February 7th, 2013, 12:41 AM.

  • #2
    Frankmat, when you say that he gave only these specific details, does it mean that the rest of the reading was nonspecific information (which can be very meaningful still), or that this was the total reading? Did he give any other names, or partial names?

    It's interesting to get a glimpse into the way that the medium's personal interpretation inevitably colors the reading. If I may ask, in your personal experiences of mediumship, do you find that different spirits use the same symbols to you across readings, or is it more like unique mental images for each reading? (George Anderson, for instance, sees a drink on the rocks whenever he needs to convey a faltering romantic relationship.) Do you find your accuracy is better when you refrain from interpreting what you see and just describe it? (I know this is usually best when it comes to precognitive dreaming, for instance.)

    If the medium you spoke with had said, "I feel a sudden impact to the head," rather than interpreting it as a car accident, it would have probably been more helpful to you both! (In 20/20 hindsight, of course ) Thank you for sharing your experiences with us, Frankmat, I'm glad to read about them.

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree that is not so easy to come up with a percentage value that synthesizes the contents of reading. Each piece of information can contain any number of details that are far more complex to evaluate than a simple coin flip.

      In my small experience with mediums (I have had 3 full readings and a short one) I always excluded any vague/generic statements that could apply to anybody, and look at the remaining pieces of information that actually contain names, places, references to specific events etc...

      1) First of all one should take in account the settings of the reading:

      -> In person vs on the phone reading (the latter offering less clues)
      -> Whether the medium and sitter live in relatively close proximity or not (e.g. if they live in the same town they might now each other either directly or indirectly)
      -> Amount of information that the medium might obtain from the sitter prior to the reading: might be via phone calls to schedule the session, involuntary information leakage by the sitter etc...
      -> Internet based leakage: social media and personal websites can leak lots of information for about the sitter and even relatives.

      2) The reading itself
      -> As I said, very generic statements that apply to anybody, vague references to places or names like "a female name starting with a C..." or similar things should be discarded (although they still count for the total amount of statements provided)

      -> The other pieces of information can be rated in a 1-100% scale based on the accuracy of the statement. Precise and unequivocal references to names, places, ongoing events etc... should count as hits, but of course there's a certain amount of subjectivity that comes into play.

      -> The amount of clues that are suggested by the sitter responses should also be taken into account when evaluating a statement. It's inevitable that the sitter will, at times, provide some details about an event or situation that the medium brings up, emotivity plays a big role here.

      -> In an ideal settings the sitter should be as silent as possible and provide only yes/no replies when absolutely necessary. On the other hand it's also important to understand that the medium is dealing with mental images and symbols which are difficult to interpret correctly at times. Asking confirmations to the sitter is unavoidable.

      I think the methodology used by G. Schwartz in his "Afterlife Experiment" is quite effective for an experimental setup. No one in those conditions would be able to provide anything significant unless "something else" is going on.

      Comment


      • #4
        My experience of mediumship is very much like Estelle Roberts which I feature in the latest post on my website.

        It doesn't require interpretation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Is this how most skeptics would measure a mediumship reading? or does it make more sense to come up with a study design that Dr Gary Schwartz used... where the sitter rates how accurate they were. How I personally would rate that reading would be miles away from how the MDC would rate it. Mine would be accurate.
          I agree, the sitter's rating is important because he/she should know better what is highly significant and what isn't. I cannot imagine how someone else could determine the level of significance without input from the sitter himself.

          In one of the readings I have had a few years ago (over the phone on the other side of the planet) the medium was reporting a couple of messages from a close relative, in particular about my job of the time with very specific details about the situation and also the way I was feeling about it.

          That particular bit of information struck me as extremely specific and accurate. I later pondered if the medium might have picked that up psychically ... This is an aspect that might make rating even more complex.

          On the other hand I have to say that, if the medium is pointing his attention to what is receiving from the other side it is unlikely that he can multitask and also try to read my feelings and/or other information.
          If he does, he should know at least.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by zerdini View Post
            My experience of mediumship is very much like Estelle Roberts which I feature in the latest post on my website.

            It doesn't require interpretation.
            Thanks, you're an endless gold mine

            I would love to hear an interview with you on the Skepitico podcast.

            @Alex: if you are around here, please take note!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bucky View Post
              Thanks, you're an endless gold mine

              I would love to hear an interview with you on the Skepitico podcast.

              @Alex: if you are around here, please take note!
              thx for the contribution Zerdini... taking notice

              timely... I have an interview with Julie Bieschel in a few days. seems to me that the question breaks down to scientific measurement... like the kind Julie does... and personal measurement. different IMO. I've had a few readings and the most important information was personally meaningful, but may not necessarily evidential to someone else.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Briar View Post
                Frankmat, when you say that he gave only these specific details, does it mean that the rest of the reading was nonspecific information (which can be very meaningful still), or that this was the total reading? Did he give any other names, or partial names?
                Oh.. no what I meant was that I turned up wanting a Psychic reading... not Mediumship... and I did not tell him this. 99% of people come to him wanting to connect to loved ones... I didn't need that.

                That in itself was quite impressive... because when he sat down he immediately started giving me the above information from my deceased loved ones... and then said "You know this is strange.. but I almost feel this is going to turn into a reading about you... a psychic reading rather than your dead people proving to you they are still around."

                At that point I explained that was exactly what I was after... which is why most of the evidential mediumship information stopped... and it became psychic.

                There was lots of personal validation information about my job, life etc... which was very specific to me on a personal level but which is harder to evidentially prove.

                Originally posted by Briar View Post
                It's interesting to get a glimpse into the way that the medium's personal interpretation inevitably colors the reading. If I may ask, in your personal experiences of mediumship, do you find that different spirits use the same symbols to you across readings, or is it more like unique mental images for each reading? (George Anderson, for instance, sees a drink on the rocks whenever he needs to convey a faltering romantic relationship.) Do you find your accuracy is better when you refrain from interpreting what you see and just describe it? (I know this is usually best when it comes to precognitive dreaming, for instance.)
                You definitely have recurring symbols but my symbols can be completely different than someone elses.

                For instance.. a wheelbarrow for me indicates a renovation at home. A wheelbarrow full of cement though indicates someone is building a home. An egg for me symbolises a new beginning... yet for others I know this is a symbol for pregnancy... where for me I don't get pregnancy as a symbol I get it as a feeling in my stomach.

                As to whether your accuracy is better if you don't intrepret... that's a tough one. EVERYTHING is an interpretation... but there are some symbols that I see so often that I know I am right... those wheelbarrow symbols being a good example.

                It's the things and symbols you see which don't happen often... that can be difficult to interpret... and in that case what I will usually say is "I am not exactly sure what they are showing me here... but I believe it is this..." and if it doesn't make sense to them then I will say "Ok well I will show you exactly what I was shown... because it may mean something to you".

                I don't see it as whether or not you are accurate... it's more about trust and giving exactly what you see. That's where lack of ego comes in. That generally makes the best reading. I learnt a long time ago that there is nothing worse than second guessing yourself... not saying it... and then the person coming up to you afterwards and saying "I really hoped he would talk about his pet chimp...." only for you to have seen that and not said it because you were worried about "being wrong". It's not much good afterwards saying "Oh my god I did see a pet chimp"... nobody is going to believe you then and neither should they.

                Originally posted by Briar View Post
                If the medium you spoke with had said, "I feel a sudden impact to the head," rather than interpreting it as a car accident, it would have probably been more helpful to you both! (In 20/20 hindsight, of course ) Thank you for sharing your experiences with us, Frankmat, I'm glad to read about them.
                Ahhhh yes! and that is where you learn it is about HOW you say it... as much as you saying it. I will always say it as "I am feeling a sharp pain to my head like an impact... that can mean for me..." Over time you get to improve your mediumship so that in your own mind you start to ask the deceased questions... like... "So was it a accident or something you caused?" You build on information and narrow it down to be more accurate. Unfortunately though a lot of mediums I've learnt with tell me not to do this because in their mind you are just giving yourself more opportunity to "stuff up" by being too specific. I personally don't agree with that way of thinking...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Briar View Post
                  It's interesting to get a glimpse into the way that the medium's personal interpretation inevitably colors the reading. If I may ask, in your personal experiences of mediumship, do you find that different spirits use the same symbols to you across readings, or is it more like unique mental images for each reading? (George Anderson, for instance, sees a drink on the rocks whenever he needs to convey a faltering romantic relationship.)
                  Just on this I remembered something else. We get taught to do this thing called "double linking". It means you can actually tune in to the connection between a medium and the sitter... and basically "eavesdrop" in on the conversation.

                  This is why I was able to sit with him even though it was my reading and KNOW what he was getting... so I knew he was misinterpreting it... because I had 'both sides of the story' for want of a better word.

                  I have an example of this actually... where I double linked with another medium during a radio show in the US where the other medium did a reading on this caller... I KNEW what he was getting was right but he was misinterpreting it... so it was not making sense to her.

                  The other medium then asked if I was 'picking up anything'... which I was because I was double linking... and gave her exactly what I was getting which you will see was pretty much what was going on in her life.

                  Unfortunately the audio doesn't have the bits he was misinterpreting before I came on (mainly because the audio was for my website) but it was almost the opposite of what he said.. and it also gives you an insight as to how I get information.

                  The entire time she was on the phone talking to the other medium I kept hearing "She is a 1 she is a 1" which is my numerology profile for a teacher... and that was before I even knew what her date of birth was... which she confirmed she was a 1 in numerology. I then heard "teacher" and "overseas" and was seeing asian people.

                  I also see in my head tarot cards now too... so I can be on the radio and I don't even need to use the cards.... but because I have used tarot so much and know the meaning of each card... it has almost become another language to me... like English is... or .NET is in my computer job my "guides" now use this as another form of language that I've learnt and use the symbol of tarot to get me messages without the need for cards. All of it really I discovered by chance and lots of practice with readings... but would be very different to how other mediums work.

                  As they say... there is no right or wrong way only your way!

                  http://www.matera.com.au/Audio/Frank...th%20Megan.mp3
                  Last edited by Frankmat; February 7th, 2013, 09:24 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Check out the windbridge institute website. Dr Julie Beischel applies clinical trial methodologies to test mediums for accuracy. Very scientific approach .

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X