Do mediums bring comfort to the grieving or prolong the agony?

[Admin]

When looking into claims and beliefs, we as skeptics tend to focus on the validity of the claim. i.e. is it true or false. In this case, however, we don't need to focus on that. It doesn't matter whether mediums are really talking to the dead (passing messages, whatever), we just need to accept that the people who use them believe they are.

Probably the major justification that mediums use for doing what they do is that they bring 'comfort' to people: specifically the grieving.

One major objection that skeptics have about what mediums do is that they interfere with the grieving process - often prolonging it sometimes to the point that the grieving person develops what we call 'psychic dependency' (a sort of addiction to receiving messages from 'spirit') where they become trapped in the grieving process.

Of course it's always easy to find extremes in arguments such as people who were greatly helped/harmed by mediums, but is there any evidence or any studies that have been done on the general impact of psychics/mediums regarding their use with the grieving?

Do mediums fulfil a psychological need in those who believe anyway?

Is there any evidence which shows that those who use mediums to cope with loss and grief fair any better or worse than those who don't?

Do mediums give a short-term gain (comfort) at the expense of long-term pain (prolonging the grieving process)?

Any thoughts, experiences, or evidence?

[Matt]

When looking into claims and beliefs, we as skeptics tend to focus on the validity of the claim. i.e. is it true or false. In this case, however, we don't need to focus on that. It doesn't matter whether mediums are really talking to the dead (passing messages, whatever), we just need to accept that the people who use them believe they are.

Probably the major justification that mediums use for doing what they do is that they bring 'comfort' to people: specifically the grieving.

One major objection that skeptics have about what mediums do is that they interfere with the grieving process - often prolonging it sometimes to the point that the grieving person develops what we call 'psychic dependency' (a sort of addiction to receiving messages from 'spirit') where they become trapped in the grieving process.

Of course it's always easy to find extremes in arguments such as people who were greatly helped/harmed by mediums, but is there any evidence or any studies that have been done on the general impact of psychics/mediums regarding their use with the grieving?

Do mediums fulfil a psychological need in those who believe anyway?

Is there any evidence which shows that those who use mediums to cope with loss and grief fair any better or worse than those who don't?

Do mediums give a short-term gain (comfort) at the expense of long-term pain (prolonging the grieving process)?

Any thoughts, experiences, or evidence?

No evidence but I wouldn't be suprised if net comfort was possible, percieved benefit more frequent than actual benefit, and actual harm whilst possibly less frequent than actual benefit, more severe in such a way as to outweigh the less intense benefits.

I've also found that it's not only the grieving who can feel dependent on the validation of an afterlife that mediums provide. Those, such as the infirm, geriatric or termionally ill who are confronted with their own mortality also particularly vulnerable.

The new consumer legislation has provission for business that target vulnerable sections of society. I've heard that people goign for one on one readings are now being asked to sign a disclaimer saying that they're not mentally ill. I can see good reason for this and encourage practicing mediums to take this seriously rather than considering it a pointless legal impediment. Consider that bereavement can indeed be a form of psychological impairment and recomned that they advise sitters not to try to conatact anybody within a year of their bereavement.

[Mulder]

I KNOW you're not going to believe this but I was thinking of starting a thread on the same theme. Apart from coincidence as a reason, it's possible we both read the same thread!

Anyway, there are a number of questions to consider here. For instance, does the truth matter? I suspect almost everyone, if asked, would say they're interested in the truth but I'm not convinced. Those who invest their beliefs in religions, mediumship and other systems for which there is little or no evidence, are clearly not too worried about absolute truth. Certainly, in western society they can hardly claim not to know that religions are based on dodgy information. Perhaps, they're like smokers who all know perfectly well that it isn't doing them any good but carry on anyway. Perhaps, people NEED religions, mediums and the rest just like smokers NEED a fag. Religions, mediumship and so on may be providing a 'service' for people with certain psychological needs.

If that is so, are they doing harm, overall? I suspect it varies from case to case. Personally, I think the truth is better in all cases but that's just me and I know I'm not typical. It is possible that the truth may be 'bad' for some people, leading them to psychological and even physical pain.

Just like smokers, I think people relying on mediums should be provided with information to show them that all might not be as it seems. I think it is then up to them if they want to take advantage of that information or not.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I think ultimately it comes down to whether or not it is ethical to lie to someone.

Even if psychic powers do exist, and mediumship is possible, we already know that a number of mediums are con artists as they've been caught out misrepresenting or telling blatent lies. Also, you only have to look at a reading to see wilful participation in cold reading or retrofitting by the medium. So I don't feel using the word 'lie' is too strong.

How would someone feel if the comfort that they had received from a medium was shown to be complete fabrication? That would be devastaing I think. What are the chances of a believer getting to this situation? Probably not that great, because even if a psychic is shown to be fraudulent or a conman, there is still an instinct to believe.

We probably don't feel it is ok to heal people from imaginary conditions using lies to perpetrate the effectiveness of complimentary medicine - so I wonder if grief should be treated any differently?

[Matt]

I'm not so sure.

My mother ran a residential care home for the mentally handicapped. One evening they watched a TV program which regailed them with close up images of the sort of microscropic bugs and mites that live in a bed.

This caused some distress amongst the residents, refusing to sleep in their beds. My mothers solution was to turn the matresses over telling her charges that this would crush the bugs.

Of course it wouldn't do any such thing. Bed bugs will switfly repopulate the upper layers of the matress and continue to be as harmless as they ever were. The residents would forget about it long before any troubling questions worried their simple minds.

The truth was simply not as comforting as the little white lie, but it was something they found easier to understand. Dogamtic and slavish devotion to the truth is not always the best policy.

[chillzero]

Your mother did that with honest intent, and not for money either.

Editing
purely to add a few lines,
because the juxtaposition
with my sig poem was a bit weird!
:D

[Matt]

Your mother did that with honest intent, and not for money either.

Of course many spiritualist offer services for free. My mother was paid to do her job but of course she didn't get a bonus for the little white lie.

[chillzero]

Of course many spiritualist offer services for free. My mother was paid to do her job but of course she didn't get a bonus for the little white lie.

I know, and what I ment was that she didn't expect payment due to teh little white lie.

I'm a little conflicted in this matter. I don't think 'psychic's should be allowed to do this in the first place, however I can see harm in exposing them to someone who has received comfort from them.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Of course many spiritualist offer services for free. My mother was paid to do her job but of course she didn't get a bonus for the little white lie.

So maybe it is a degree of 'whiteness' of lie?

I too find it distasteful when someone is making a living from knowingly telling mistruths, however if they are doing it more out of the goodness of their heart (like your mother) then there is more of an element of kindness in it.

Of course you could argue grief counsellors expect to get paid (directly or indirectly) for their services. And it is also not unknown that you see a report questioning the effectiveness of a particular method of counselling, it's certainly not an exact science either.

[Mongrel]

So maybe it is a degree of 'whiteness' of lie?

I too find it distasteful when someone is making a living from knowingly telling mistruths, however if they are doing it more out of the goodness of their heart (like your mother) then there is more of an element of kindness in it.

I'd also say that part of Matt's mothers remit is keeping the clients healthy, both physically and mentally. Depending on the severity of handicaps presented in the home it may well have been impossible to explain normally about mites and bed bugs whereas 'crushing them', which is fairly easy for them to relate to, is a much more plausible scenario for them.

As for mediums, some people may find solace in them but I reckon (and I'm not a psychiatrist) that for most it's a roadblock in the grieving process.

[Matt]

Depending on the severity of handicaps presented in the home it may well have been impossible to explain normally about mites and bed bugs whereas 'crushing them', which is fairly easy for them to relate to, is a much more plausible scenario for them.

Is it not equally possible that for some of a mediums clients explaining normally about the cycle of life and people living on through the impact they made is simply not possible whereas "I can make it seem like you still got some level of contact with your deceased relative" is easier for them to relate to?

I'm just suggesting it. Whilst it may well be that for every one person who fits that description there's more than one being exploited, I just don't know if there's a relaible way to tell the differnece between the two scenarios. Except maybe ensuring the mourner gives the natural greiving process a chance to work through before turning to Mediums.

[Mongrel]

I see where you're coming from Matt and do agree to a point.

On the other hand the situations are different enough to give me pause. Your Mums clients were already diagnosed and evaluated as such and their carers all (hopefully) received training to deal with the clients situation.

All the medium knows is that the person believes their spiel or they got persuaded by a friend\colleague that it'd be a good idea. It's unlikely that they have any formal training in grief counselling, or any other counselling for that matter, all I would say is that they're probably good listeners though.

[Admin]

Well I like to break things down into a couple of aspects when dealing with claims like this.

1. Validity - is the claim true or false.
2. Utility - what use is made of the belief regardless of whether it's true or false.

In this instance I would say the validity is certainly not proven and highly likely to be false but nonetheless people can and do gain some emotional or psychological benefit from the belief.

I have done a search, including academic databases, and I cannot find one single study that has been done on the (actual or potential) harm that psychics/mediums can do to people who are in a state of grief.

I'm sure we've all seen or heard of instances of psychic dependency or hurt caused by psychics saying some really stupid things to people but without this ever being quantified all we're actually making is a qualitative argument based on what is probably a very limited and biased (cherry-picked) data set.

Of course, I'm just talking about the possibility of psychological harm by the grieving going to mediums and not taking account of other types of harm such as financial harm (where applicable) or with ethical issues like lying to someone to make them feel better (known as 'benign deception').

I doubt that when mediums cater to believers that much if any harm arises and of course non-believers won't be going to mediums anyway so is there a problem?

Well, the area of concern for me is with the uncritical promotion of this belief system on TV with the likes of 6th Sense with Colin Fry (a known cheat ) etc. Do programmes like this encourage people to seek out mediums as a real and viable resource when they're dealing with grief when they otherwise wouldn't have done? And if so, does that cause any harm (i.e. in people who were never really believers)?

I guess a prime source of information would be from grief counsellors.

The thing is, unless/until this sort of information comes to light, we skeptics ought to be aware that if we're going to make a 'mediums cause harm to the grieving' type argument, we'd have a lot of difficulty backing it up with evidence!




BTW, yes I saw this topic on another forum and it got me thinking about it. It also ties in with another topic I have been thinking about: the 'depth' or 'scope' of skepticism. i.e. should we only be concerning ourselves with validity or should we take a wider view and try to understand the use and application of what we may term 'weird' beliefs?

[tolman]

Fundamentally, I guess the difference between people the who are likely to help and those who aren't is who they are focussing on. Someone wrapped up in themselves and how great it is that they are gifted doesn't seem likely to be much use, except maybe by accident, nor do people focussed on financial gain from repeat business.
Someone working 1:1 for free and focussed purely on helping the bereaved person grieve and get on with their life seems much more likely to say helpful things.

There was a bloke from a spiritualist church on a Radio4 programme earlier in the year who seemed to fit perfectly into the second category - basically like a good bereavement counsellor who happened to believe in an afterlife (as presumably people who sought him out also did).

I dare say there may be many of that kind of person around, but generally not blowing their own trumpet, unlike the frauds and deluded obsessives, who, after all, are the ones who attract the great bulk of criticism and skepticism.
Personally, I suspect that many of the quiet believers may be more disgusted with the money-grabbing frauds than the average skeptics is.

[Sarama]

The new consumer legislation has provission for business that target vulnerable sections of society. I've heard that people goign for one on one readings are now being asked to sign a disclaimer saying that they're not mentally ill. I can see good reason for this and encourage practicing mediums to take this seriously rather than considering it a pointless legal impediment.

Personally I am relieved that stricter regulations are coming in.

Well, the area of concern for me is with the uncritical promotion of this belief system on TV with the likes of 6th Sense with Colin Fry (a known cheat ) etc. Do programmes like this encourage people to seek out mediums as a real and viable resource when they're dealing with grief when they otherwise wouldn't have done? And if so, does that cause any harm (i.e. in people who were never really believers)?

I believe such programmes do encourage people to seek out mediums, psychics, astrologers and the lot much more simply due to the sheer number of people that such media reaches. We have also seen a sudden rise in the popularity of these programmes over recent years so much so that it's very nearly considered 'mainstream' by some. Various forms of media seem to be embracing such things and therefore bringing it into peoples homes in the evenings when the tele is on, and their Sunday papers in one form or another at the breakfast table etc. It's now reaching mass and that's what concerns me, where as before one would have to actively seek them out, which would not only take time, but also perhaps a healthy dose of research. It's become 'acceptable' for some without question and I do think that is harmful.

I'm a little conflicted in this matter. I don't think 'psychic's should be allowed to do this in the first place, however I can see harm in exposing them to someone who has received comfort from them.

Agreed. I think that psychic's generally prey on people's vulnerability, lack of education, or often their own need for verification of their beliefs and therefore feed into people's delusions. Some of the very best practitioners or teachers I have ever met are those who have turned me on my heels and encouraged me to seek my own answers, saying "Don't take my word for it, find out what works for you."

I've also found that it's not only the grieving who can feel dependent on the validation of an afterlife that mediums provide. Those, such as the infirm, geriatric or termionally ill who are confronted with their own mortality also particularly vulnerable.

This is where I run into conflict as well. When someone is confronted with mortality, and all the operations, medications, and psychiatry has run it's course, they inevitably turn to "god" in what ever form that takes for them, and who is going to take that away at that point?

I am sure some mediums might bring comfort to some individuals, but more often than not I would have to say they prolong or completely derail the grieving process.

Do mediums fulfil a psychological need in those who believe anyway?

What I would want to know is how or why people have deveoloped such a need, if it is indeed a need, to be basically well... lied to, in the first place?