"Genuine" or knowing fraud?

[Cradle Cap]

Chatting with a few others, it appears it is NOT the default for most people at all. Many go through a complex problem stepwise rather than trusting to an instant answer from their unconscious.

Piffle, sir! Say you've been commissioned to write a five-minute, five-page script for next Wednesday. All you know is that it must appeal to a 25-35 age range, be funny and feature a Marilyn Monroe lookalike in a major role.

This isn't something you work out stepwise. You have not steps to go on. You place it into your subconscious, twiddle the knob to gas mark five and leave it to bake.

I totally agree with what Chillzero says above.

[Mulder]

Piffle, sir! Say you've been commissioned to write a five-minute, five-page script for next Wednesday. All you know is that it must appeal to a 25-35 age range, be funny and feature a Marilyn Monroe lookalike in a major role.

I admit, this isn't the sort of problem that the people I asked are faced with very often, or in some cases, ever. I will tell them they are all wrong!

[gerbera]

hi!
Fascinating topic of discussion and I am curious as to the whole notion of cold reading and the 'manipulation' of answers in shaping and reshaping responses.
Furthermore, I am stumped as to why you 'rate' Fry over the Sally psychic and the other one you refer to..yeah they are all tv programmes for 'entertainment purposes' only so whether they are primed and fed info before is not common knowledge..or is it?
Is it because Fry at the end of his programme (i did look at this the other day out of curiosity) claims not to have had any interaction with audience members..but he bombards the audience participant with info. and pauses to perhaps re-assess based on the interaction or feedback?

more more more on this topic...it intrigues me whilst also being a somewhat disturbing area of human behaviour that is predatory and immoral.
:cheesy:

[Mulder]

If it was a matter of these two different types of thinking accounting for it, then as I said earlier I think it would be easier to study and discuss.

The problem is, no one is really studying such questions. Psychics 'know' they are in touch with spirits, so they don't question it*. Skeptics (well some of them) think they're nuts, so they aren't interested either. But there are one or two of us who are interested enough to ask - what makes someone think they are psychic?

So far I've discovered that most have some weird experiences when they are young. Curiously, they usually keep quiet about this at the time! Then later, they meet psychics who give them the answer they've been seeking! From then on, belief takes centre stage and defines further experiences.

Interestingly, the 'early experiences' are usually little different to other people's eg. seeing ghosts, imaginery friends, etc. However, they often attach high significance to them, possibly why they keep them secret. So, already, the seeds of belief are sown.

* One enduring characteristic I've noted among 'believers' in general, and psychics in particular, is a singular lack of curiosity.

[Croydon Bob]

The problem is, no one is really studying such questions. Psychics 'know' they are in touch with spirits. Skeptics (well some of them) think they're nuts. But there are one or two of us who are interested enough to ask - what makes someone think they are psychic.


I thought that there was a broad agreement here that most of the big names were knowingly fraudulent and did not think that they were psychic?

[Mulder]

I thought that there was a broad agreement here that most of the big names were knowingly fraudulent and did not think that they were psychic?

I'm talking about 'ordinary' psychics. I don't care about 'big names' as it is obvious that some will be tempted to spice up their shows. Many of the big names probably started as 'ordinary' psychics but now they have become part of the entertainment industry.

[Cradle Cap]

I thought that there was a broad agreement here that most of the big names were knowingly fraudulent and did not think that they were psychic?

Personally, I don't think they're knowingly fraudulent (but I do think they use fraudulent techniques). I think they're deluded. They see themselves as counsellors. What's that condition where people pretend to be doctors? Like that.

[chillzero]

more more more on this topic...it intrigues me whilst also being a somewhat disturbing area of human behaviour that is predatory and immoral.
:cheesy:
Hi - welcome to the forum.
I certainly don't rate Colin Fry above anyone. To me he is the scum of all because he comes from a background of grief counselling, and I shudder to think of the potential for manipulation there.

He has also been denounced as a fake with a rather well documented incident involving a trumpet.



So far I've discovered that most have some weird experiences when they are young. Curiously, they usually keep quiet about this at the time! Then later, they meet psychics who give them the answer they've been seeking! From then on, belief takes centre stage and defines further experiences.
Well, for me, I didn't have any specific incident - I just grew up thinking that the way I 'knew' things was the same for everyone. Much confirmation bias and 'luck' involved there, really.



* One enduring characteristic I've noted among 'believers' in general, and psychics in particular, is a singular lack of curiosity.
Absolutely agree, and I seem to have been unusual in that regard. It made me highly unpopular among my peers to constantly be questioning and wanting more answers. It eventually led to my being shunned, and some bigger problems that affect me still, to an extent. I wrote about some of that in my 'blaming the victim' article.

Mind you, my last boyfriend was in no way a believer and he also found my continual curiosity (about anything and everything) and my need to ask ask ask ask all the time rather difficult to handle! :)

[chillzero]

Personally, I don't think they're knowingly fraudulent (but I do think they use fraudulent techniques). I think they're deluded. They see themselves as counsellors. What's that condition where people pretend to be doctors? Like that.
The fact that they utilise fraudulent techniques and choose to turn a blind eye to 'misses', and to ignore or refuse any attempt to look closely at what they do means to me that they are fraudulent, and knowingly so. there comes a point when you are trying to make a career out of something that you need to review your success rate, and also your methods for enhancing your results. When you do this for a living - your sole living - you have to engage in dishonest tactics, because otherwise these shows wouldn't sell. They are submitted to significant editing, and that is a problem. There are no ethics among these people.

[Mulder]

Interesting stuff on creative thinking (which we've sort of touched on here): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8092029.stm

[Cradle Cap]

The fact that they utilise fraudulent techniques and choose to turn a blind eye to 'misses', and to ignore or refuse any attempt to look closely at what they do means to me that they are fraudulent, and knowingly so. there comes a point when you are trying to make a career out of something that you need to review your success rate, and also your methods for enhancing your results. When you do this for a living - your sole living - you have to engage in dishonest tactics, because otherwise these shows wouldn't sell. They are submitted to significant editing, and that is a problem. There are no ethics among these people.

Absolutely. I agree 100% with you, but the type of psychic I have in mind is denial that his or her practices are fraudulent. They would say, "Well there's nothing wrong with getting a bit of help, is there?" or, "I need to warm up with some good hits before I turn on the magic..."

They would use fraudulent techniques, but they wouldn't consider them fraudulent. Or if they did -- if forced to admit it -- then they would claim to be using them in the cause of the greater good.

[chillzero]

Absolutely. I agree 100% with you, but the type of psychic I have in mind is denial that his or her practices are fraudulent. They would say, "Well there's nothing wrong with getting a bit of help, is there?" or, "I need to warm up with some good hits before I turn on the magic..."

They would use fraudulent techniques, but they wouldn't consider them fraudulent. Or if they did -- if forced to admit it -- then they would claim to be using them in the cause of the greater good.

I'm not sure why you think that absolves them of being frauds.
If a guy got caught robbing a bank, and said he just needed the help to get his business off the ground, and that it would in the end - once his business is established - be for the greater good .... does that make him less of a criminal?

[Trinoc]

I always thought "fraud" implied deliberate deception (I'm sure that's the way Jack of Kent has described it), so I don't see how anyone can be said to be fraudulent without realising it.

[Cradle Cap]

I'm not sure why you think that absolves them of being frauds.


It doesn't absolve them of being frauds.

I think they're frauds.

They don't, because they're in denial.

[Ryoden]

I believe that most psychics are knowingly fraudulent, especially those who make a living out of it.

I suspect that those who do it as a sideline may actually believe that they have a gift as they are less likely to be confronted as a fake by friends and thereby possibly challenge their own belief, there may of course be those who actualy suffer from some metal delusion and wont be shifted by any arguement to the contrary.

[Cradle Cap]

I believe that most psychics are knowingly fraudulent, especially those who make a living out of it.

.

Can you expand on that? Do you think they know that they have no ability, yet deliberately set out to deceive their audience / clients?

Or are there other factors in play?

[Dr B]

The problem is, no one is really studying such questions.

Ahem.....thats not quite true :cheesy:. You might be surprised to see how many academic papers there are on aspects which touch upon this topic and indeed the central core of it (ranging from attributional style, biases in causal reasoning, to semantic disinhibition, thought disorder).

There could certainly be more, and what does exist could have a higher profile. Although most of the serious research is not on YouTube, nor necessarily the net i can tell you, it exists.

There is, amongst believers and skeptics, a large misunderstanding about this area and the work that is available - but that does not mean it does not exist O0 I am often amazed at how little many wannabe skeptics really know about some of the areas they like to spout about (some even famous TV skeptics ::)).

[Dubious Dick]

Ahem.....thats not quite true :cheesy:. You might be surprised to see how many academic papers there are on aspects which touch upon this topic and indeed the central core of it (ranging from attributional style, biases in causal reasoning, to semantic disinhibition, thought disorder).

There could certainly be more, and what does exist could have a higher profile. Although most of the serious research is not on YouTube, nor necessarily the net i can tell you, it exists.

There is, amongst believers and skeptics, a large misunderstanding about this area and the work that is available - but that does not mean it does not exist O0 I am often amazed at how little many wannabe skeptics really know about some of the areas they like to spout about (some even famous TV skeptics ::)).

This is a bit like the chiropractors saying we have loads of papers to prove it but we're not showing you.

Suppose you point us in the direction of one or two of the more interesting research you have encountered or undertaken. Maybe a synopsis of a couple of examples?

It's not that I doubt you. Just that a bit more susbtance might help.

[dalriada]

Full text of an article available

Here (www.em-online.org/LawrencePeters.pdf)


Reasoning in Believers in the Paranormal

Emma Lawrence & Emmanuelle Peters

Abstract: Reasoning biases have been identified in deluded patients,
delusion-prone individuals, and believers in the paranormal. This
study examined content-specific reasoning and delusional ideation
in believers in the paranormal. A total of 174 members of the
Society for Psychical Research completed a delusional ideation
questionnaire and a deductive reasoning task. The reasoning statements
were manipulated for congruency with paranormal beliefs. As
predicted, individuals who reported a strong belief in the paranormal
made more errors and displayed more delusional ideation than
skeptical individuals. However, no differences were found with
statements that were congruent with their belief system, confirming
the domain-specificity of reasoning. This reasoning bias was limited
to people who reported a belief in, rather than experience of,
paranormal phenomena. These results suggest that reasoning abnormalities
may have a causal role in the formation of unusual beliefs.
The dissociation between experiences and beliefs implies that such
abnormalities operate at the evaluative, rather than the perceptual,
stage of processing.

Key Words: Reasoning, delusion-prone, schizotypy, paranormal.
(J Nerv Ment Dis 2004;192: 727–733


Dr B would know waaaaay more about this than me, but there's a lot of work in this area done by those in the parapsychology field- although in recent years from that quarter I seem to detect a tendency towards epistemiological burble and the re-packaging of unusual thinking styles or "paranormal belief" (aka "being mistaken" ) as some sort of set of magical virtues ( eg being " psi-conducive" or "creative") . There's method in this madness as it means a person can maintain a research career by doing questionnaire surveys (as psychologists are wont to do) showing that Paranormal belief is a wonderful thing without any necessity of having to prove that the paranormal is "real".

Christine Mohr one of our conference speakers has done interesting work on magical thinking and Kerry Schofield (one of her PhD students) also does research on paranormal belief (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4PBG18T-4&_user=126978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000010438&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=126978&md5=16d0d501571df13abc8a8b9b600fa126)

It's so worth Googling Robin Wooffitt a sociologist from York who's written widely on the language of psychics and mediums. (Interesting stuff)

[Mulder]

This paper lends support to the idea that it is belief that is central to abnormal experience.

[Nasib]

Robin Wooffit ? A fitting name for the subject. Is that his real name? Seriously?


:-X Sorry... just couldn't resist.

[dalriada]

Robin Wooffit ? A fitting name for the subject. Is that his real name? Seriously?


:-X Sorry... just couldn't resist.

'Tis True! (http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/soci/about/s_woof.htm)

Always amuses me too.

(and I once knew a Dr Sik...) ::)

[Nasib]

(and I once knew a Dr Sik...) ::)
ha ha - A firm of solicitors I know called 'Stephens Innocent' would be well recommended to anyone on the wrong side of the law called Stephen.

　
Back to the article 'Reasoning in Believers in the Paranormal'


First, an anonymous postal survey was conducted rather than testing participants in a scientific laboratory. Second, literature demonstrating an open mind toward paranormal belief was enclosed with the survey, helping to dispel the perception of the experimenters as necessarily skeptical psychologists.
Surely the results of a random anonymous postal survey cannot be taken into account as a serious conclusive study? How were the participants/recipients chosen? Did they all respond? Was there any follow-up?

Before I added my address to the Postal Preference scheme, which means I no longer receive annoying and wasteful piles of junk mail - I got so sick of the countless and mindless 'surveys' coming through the door (fill one in and you're added to 10 more mailing lists) so I took to completing the 'surveys' deliberately filling in randomly picked answers or obscure unintelligible answers and returning to sender just to 'throw them off the scent'. They were obviously taken seriously by some pen-pushing person because further 'related' literature would follow.

[Trinoc]

(and I once knew a Dr Sik...) ::)

Dentist: Dr Phang.
Butchers: Badham & Gristle.
Urologists: Drs Weedon & Splatt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism

Edit: Apparently it's Badham & Grizzell ... http://www.ugoto.com/blog_77257.html

[Mulder]

In the paper Dalraida linked to, they think that 'reasoning abnormalities' form and/or maintain beliefs in the paranormal. I think it is the other way round.

We know humans are genetically programmed towards belief in supranormal agencies (religion, paranormal, etc) and, no doubt, there is a natural variation in this parameter among the population. I suspect some individuals will always strongly believe in a religion, the paranormal, conspiracies, whatever (or a combination). I think it is the strong belief that comes first which then affects their reasoning.

Even 'strong' believers still require evidence to support their beliefs. However, they tend to be uncritical of the standard of that evidence, unlike other members of the general population. I think it is strong belief that skews their reasoning processes to accept evidence supporting their beliefs and reject anything contradictory. So they do not reject the idea that evidence decides issues, they just need a lot of it to shift prior beliefs. I'd be interested to know of any evidence suggesting it is the other way round.