Gordon Smith: psychic demonstration or Cold Reading?

[Admin]

Psychic medium Gordon Smith appears on the Irish TV show The Late Late Show.

Here's the clip: http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/av_200...99113,null,228 (I don't know how long it will be online for).

After the introduction and background chat, Gordon stands up and does a reading for the audience.

To me, it looks like classic cold reading. No one takes his opener so he forces it on the audience (the father becomes a father-in-law) and continues from there.

Is there anything in this reading that looks convincing or is it all simply cold reading?

I found it all to be rather vague and much of it inaccurate (although seemingly accepted) like the photo in the purse which turned into a photo on a mobile phone.

[Dubious Dick]

Cold reading but of a relatively high standard. Makes his excuses at the outset. Usual heart problems. The woman then says respiratory and Smith then talks about an oxygen mask. Most of the rest seems to be easy stuff. Just good odds guessing.

Would be good to transcribe and go through line by line, but in absence of that would also point out the references to Police/missing persons work in the interview. He looks down and briefly touches his nose which are classic signs of lying.

He then talks about how psychics have to be careful about working with the Police. I wonder why, if they can really be of help, wouldn't they?

He talks about a case about a year ago (prior to the show presumably) where he reads a woman whose son is missing, and advises her not to keep looking for the body, but she says she cannot give up. He then says his information leads to a thigh bone in a canal in France. Then about DNA testing, then that he received a letter thanking him. All very odd. Presumably by being so vague he knows it is difficult to check up.

He then says he helped Belgian Police with a paedophile ring but is very vague about this. Odd that he says psychics have to be careful about helping the Police but that he is happy to do so in Belgium. Again very vague and conveniently difficult to check. Suggest his fans ask him for more details. Claiming this sort of thing is so vile if it is untrue, and I know what odds I would give on it being legitimate.

He is definitely one of the best I have seen but still a fraud.

[Nasib]

Of course DD, you'd know all about 'making excuses'. You also must be aware by now of the restrictions involved surrounding psychics working with the Police (in this country). Further detail of those cases mentioned, and others, can be found in his books. If you're a betting man, I would suggest keeping your odds to yourself.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Of course DD, you'd know all about 'making excuses'. You also must be aware by now of the restrictions involved surrounding psychics working with the Police (in this country). Further detail of those cases mentioned, and others, can be found in his books. If you're a betting man, I would suggest keeping your odds to yourself.

Just what are these restrictions? Do they include denials by the police that they use psychics?

I think a Freedom of Information request is sounding like the next step.

Maybe Gordon will tell us which police force he works with or another example we can ask about.

[rainbows.]

He looks down and briefly touches his nose which are classic signs of lying.

DD,that is just a silly thing to say and proves nothing.

[Mulder]

A politician talking - that's a classic sign of lying ...

[Dubious Dick]

Of course DD, you'd know all about 'making excuses'. You also must be aware by now of the restrictions involved surrounding psychics working with the Police (in this country). Further detail of those cases mentioned, and others, can be found in his books. If you're a betting man, I would suggest keeping your odds to yourself.

Leaving aside the comment about me knowing all about making excuses, which I do not understand, perhaps you would be good enough to let us have the key facts of these cases which Gordon Smith claims to have solved?

And given that he was very clearly cold reading I'll keep the odds on that he is making it all up for now until we have some real verifiable unequivocal evidence thanks.

[Dubious Dick]

DD,that is just a silly thing to say and proves nothing.

Rainbows, you might like to check out the Michael Shermer piece on the Polygraph in which he also talks to and puts to the test a woman who is an expert in body language. She has a very high hit rate in spotting lies. Touching the nose and looking down and away searching for an answer are classic signs of this, so why do you think it is silly to say?

I agree it is not cast iron proof, but suggest that it is a strong indicator.

Also, have you any comments on the cold reading?

[Nasib]

It is also a sign (politician speak) of wariness, diplomacy and tact, being on guard and aware that a question may contain certain constraints.
In this case Gordon (in a live interview) was mindful of the delicacy of the subject (psychics and the Police) and the limitations and boundaries that should be adhered to. Not lying. Using discretion.

DD - read the books. You should find all the info you need there.

[Trinoc]

Not that I'm taking the psychics' side here, but using body language to try to tell whether someone is lying - i.e. to read their mind - is just as ridiculous as the psychic stuff that is being debunked. It is woo of the first order and has no place in a skeptical debate.

[Dubious Dick]

It is also a sign (politician speak) of wariness, diplomacy and tact, being on guard and aware that a question may contain certain constraints.
In this case Gordon (in a live interview) was mindful of the delicacy of the subject (psychics and the Police) and the limitations and boundaries that should be adhered to. Not lying. Using discretion.

DD - read the books. You should find all the info you need there.

Gordon Smith was obviously cold reading. Can you dissuade us of that conclusion? Where was the detailed, specific important information? What about the typical heart problems at the outset which he got wrong? Most people go in small groups, especially of women. Odds high that there is a baby/young child in the family somewhere and that one of them will have a picture of that child. Also that women of that age almost certainly considering having Botox, and who hasn't had passport muddles. Etc etc. So, perhaps you can point to where he could not, under any conceivable circumstances, have been cold reading.

I am not interested in reading his books based on the performance unless you can indeed show us that there is more to that reading than we have seen or heard. It is he who is making the claims that he has helped find a missing body and solved a paedophile ring, and you who are defending him. It is up to him, or you, to present the unequivocal evidence that can be checked. What were the cases? What authorities/Police forces were involved? When did they happen?If he can or you can then, as always, you and he would be in for a most sincere apology and my undying dedication to promoting him and his work.

You mentioned that there are limitations or restrictions on Police using psychics but have not specified what these are? Please do clarify? We are not aware of any legal restriction. As far as we know, experienced Police Officers never use psychics because they know that there is not a single case anywhere that a psychic has helped to solve and that the so called evidence they come up with is usually so vague as to be useless, or that if it is specific and checked it never ever proves true. Any suggestion that there is a cconspiracy of silence does not wash. If the Police anywhere had a genuine case then the information would not and could not be kept hidden for long, and of course, it would not in fact be such a rare event. That idea is just typical conspiracy theory type thinking and designed to divert the argument.

This blind devotion you have to Gordon Smith and others really is the issue. Evidence does not consist of the self serving stuff he writes about himself.

Please understand, I think Gordon Smith is quite good at what he does, but there is no way he is psychic or a medium on the evidence to date and you really would be doing yourself a major favour if instead of just believing you did start to examine this from a somewhat more detached position.

[filippo lippi]

Agree with that, people touch their nose for all sorts of reasons.

However, until their is some proper evidence for GS's powers, there remains only two options; lying or deluded.

[Dubious Dick]

Not that I'm taking the psychics' side here, but using body language to try to tell whether someone is lying - i.e. to read their mind - is just as ridiculous as the psychic stuff that is being debunked. It is woo of the first order and has no place in a skeptical debate.

Wrll, that is an interesting opinion but where is your evidence? It certainly seemed that the woman on the Shremer piece perfromed way better than chance in spotting the lies, and of course, we are all programmed in some ways to read body language.

There are undoubtedly signals that suggest someone is covering up or telling porkies. It may not be an exact science but it is certainly a useful contributory indicator. I think most skeptics would agree that so called mediums and psychics read peoples reactions as part of their cold reading techniques. Why should reading reactions of probable lying be any different?

Perhaps you can quote studies that show that body language is a completely and utterly unreliable indicator? As I say, it may not be the clincher but it is a useful indicator. Finally the challenge is really to provide the evidence that would irrefutably counter the suspicion that he is lying when making these claims, and so perhaps it would be best to focus on that aspect.

[Trinoc]

Wrll, that is an interesting opinion but where is your evidence? It certainly seemed that the woman on the Shremer piece perfromed way better than chance in spotting the lies, and of course, we are all programmed in some ways to read body language.

You're not getting away with that - that's exactly the sort of get-out the woos try to use! You are the one making the extraordinary claims - ability to tell someone's thoughts by looking at them - so you are the one who must supply the extraordinary evidence. And, no, an anecdote will not do, even when it is told by the estimable Michael Shermer!

[Nasib]

‘Blind devotion’, DD? ??? I shall dismiss that remark as being somewhat indicative of your now recognised customary over-zealous turn of phrase.

I defend his ‘methods’ of receiving and providing ‘evidence’ or information from the position of someone who experiences such in the same way – and that excludes cold/hot reading, ‘mind reading’, body reading or any other such assumed ‘trickery’.