Gordon Smith: psychic demonstration or Cold Reading?

[Dubious Dick]

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!

Nope. Not trying to claim to tell someones thoughts by this aspect alone. Just an indicator as part of the overall picture.

BUT..

O.K. O.K. I'll drop it for the sake of not diverting the discussion away from the main point. Might be an interesting one for another thread though?

[Matt]

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.

I think the danger with body language as an indicator of truthfullness is that it's a very complicated art where one or two indicators have been popularised. Often people look at such indicators in isolation and build an opinion from them when what they should be looking at is the wider picture. Even then it is by no means highly reliable.

I trust and respect you enough to take you on your word that a specific individual trained in the art of the varied techniques of lie detection displayed above chance results. If it were her saying that Gordon was lying then her track record is relavent. However her track record is vindication of her personal mastery of a variety of techniques, not a specific indicator in isolation. That alone coming from someone who as far as I know doesn't have the same level of experience or proven track record is not good enough on it's own to count Gordons statement as a lie.

That said its still possible that he's lying and given the implausibility of his statement I wouldn't be in the slightest bit suprised if he was.

[Dubious Dick]

‘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’.

Since neither he nor you has produced any credible evidence, then blind faith and devotion are appropriate.

What method do you defend? A 'method' is a way of doing something. Usually with some sort of logical progression. What is the method by which you suggest you and Gordon Smith claim you can communicate with spirits?

You have again avoided questions about what in that reading Gordon Smith produces that is anything other than cold reading. Why are you avoiding the question? Is there anything?

Presumably if Gordon has nothing to hide and is confident in his claims on the cases of the missing person/body find, and the paedophile ring then he would have no problem coming here and stating the evidence and allowing it to be tested?

[rainbows.]

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?

I see we've moved away from noses,at least for now ,so i'll answer your last question.
I have not listened to the reading yet and will report back when i have done so.It does irk me when psychics claim to have worked with the police yet refuse to name which police force they have worked for.They may well be telling the truth but i will not assume they are.I do not understand,if true, why it should be kept secret,it is totally unacceptable.

[rainbows.]

I have had 'experiences' similar to Gordon Smith and i am not very good at explaining them or even at understanding all of them.Some of the methods he claims that help him gain information , ie,seeing pictures in your mind and 'psychic' body sensations relating to a passed person , i have had the same.So that is why people like me are not so quick to jump in with 'cold-reading'.We think , if it can happen to us it can happen to them.

[Trinoc]

I have had 'experiences' similar to Gordon Smith and i am not very good at explaining them or even at understanding all of them.Some of the methods he claims that help him gain information , ie,seeing pictures in your mind and 'psychic' body sensations relating to a passed person , i have had the same.So that is why people like me are not so quick to jump in with 'cold-reading'.We think , if it can happen to us it can happen to them.

Why assume that any "experience" you have in your mind is anything other than that - in your mind? You have no way of testing the things you have experienced against any external reality. I might as well assume that whatever fantastic location I occupied in last night's dreams was a real location (as of course a lot of people did not so long ago).

[Dubious Dick]

I have had 'experiences' similar to Gordon Smith and i am not very good at explaining them or even at understanding all of them.Some of the methods he claims that help him gain information , ie,seeing pictures in your mind and 'psychic' body sensations relating to a passed person , i have had the same.So that is why people like me are not so quick to jump in with 'cold-reading'.We think , if it can happen to us it can happen to them.

What is a "psychic body" sensation? I could describe a shiver passing through me when in a 'spooky' place. Is that a 'psychic body' sensation? Or is it more likely to be the fact that the environment is cold, dark and perhaps damp, and my natural instinct is to be ready for flight in circumstances where I am not sure what is around the next corner?

When I see someone about to slip or fall, I get a really powerful surge in the my stomach area. My mind is both wanting to help prevent the accident, but often being unable to do so, and also deeply empathising. If I didn't know that this surge was a combination of a massive release of adrenaline then I might ascribe it to some sort of 'psychic' connection with the person.

Just go back, forgetting what Smith describes in his self publicity books and what you say you have experienced but cannot explain, and tell us if there is anything in that reading that could not be put down to pure cold reading? That's the essence of the issue here. Rather than keep returning to his anecdote and yours, stick to the evidence and try to start from a position assuming he is neither 'psychic' or not psychic. Just look,and listen carefully to what is said. Does it not conform to the ususal cliches, generalisations, and 'educated' guessing that we see in classic cold reading, however slick, or is there anything there that could only be a result of him communicating with the 'spirits' of dead people?

[chillzero]

I have had 'experiences' similar to Gordon Smith and i am not very good at explaining them or even at understanding all of them.Some of the methods he claims that help him gain information , ie,seeing pictures in your mind and 'psychic' body sensations relating to a passed person , i have had the same.So that is why people like me are not so quick to jump in with 'cold-reading'.We think , if it can happen to us it can happen to them.

How many of those 'experiences' have you folllowed through to a conclusion?

By that I mean if you are talking to someone and have a sudden mental image of a person, have you checked that it correlates with anything they know anything about? I'd suspect not, or that there is confirmation bias at work for those you do.

These images you mention are incredibly vague and can usually be applied to most people, or the more specific the 'image', the more likely you have known something about the person and filed it away under subconcious memory.

How do I know this? I used to read tarot, and also had many 'psychic experiences'. When I started tracking and monitoring what I was doing, it turned out not to be as mysterious as I had thought. Cold reading as demonstrated by Gordon Smith is not always a concious activity, however, when a person starts making a career of it, they need to be intentionally ignoring certain aspects of what they do.

[rainbows.]

A lot to answer here and i'll do so later tonight.

[Dubious Dick]

I have had 'experiences' similar to Gordon Smith and i am not very good at explaining them or even at understanding all of them.Some of the methods he claims that help him gain information , ie,seeing pictures in your mind and 'psychic' body sensations relating to a passed person , i have had the same.So that is why people like me are not so quick to jump in with 'cold-reading'.We think , if it can happen to us it can happen to them.

First may I say that it is very good of you to engage in this discussion in the way that you are. It appears that you are genuinely exploring rather than simply saying you believe and that is good enough for you.

Because there is a lot to answer may I suggest that you just concentrate to begin with on analysing the GS reading for anything that might not be cold reading.

Most people have 'freaky' experiences that we cannot explain thoroughly, but what we do not do is assume is that they are something external to us as Trinoc explains.

It is not a question of jumping to cold reading explanations. It is what we think is the most likely explanation based on looking at considerable evidence of cold reading. The point is that the most likely explanation is cold reading and then to see if there is any evidence of it not being. If there is specific, detailed information that is apparently impossible for the 'psychic' to have known in advance, as opposed to guesswork, then we have to look at the possibility that hot reading is involved. Only when those have been absolutely eliminated is there a reason to start to seek a 'psychic' explanation.

[rainbows.]

I agree with you.But the difficulty i'm having is i can't explain some of my 'experiences' despite delving deep.But..that is what i intend to work on,i have to know if i have explored properly.All too often i see the flaws in psychics,i see unproven ability time and time again, so just as i think these psychics claim the same experiences as myself i have to ask the question 'if i think they haven't proven it', have i?'

Because i am interested in my experiences,the processes,the reasons why i came to the conclusions i did.It is just as interesting to me if i'm wrong,i have no fear in being wrong.

I have now listened to Gordon Smiths' reading.All i know is , if that was me giving that reading , i'd be thinking 'i didn't do it'.[prove psychic ability].

[Trinoc]

But the difficulty i'm having is i can't explain some of my 'experiences' despite delving deep.

I think we have a fundamental issue here ... the progression from "unexplained" to "unexplainable" to "paranormal explanation". The skeptic (in my experience) is comfortable to stop at "unexplained", with the proviso that an explanation may well come along some time, but in many cases there just isn't enough information to be certain.

The confusion between "unexplained" and "unexplainable" is all too common - just listen to almost any news broadcast. If "scientists" (that nebulous group) can't come up with an instant explanation, they are "baffled" and it is assumed no rational explanation is possible.

Then, having accepted "unexplainable", many people find a conflict with their conviction that everything must have an explanation, and, falling back on something like the Sherlock Holmes fallacy*, they assume that this means that paranormal phenomena must exist and must be the explanation for what was observed.

The boring truth, though, is that there are a lot of things for which we don't have explanations and some for which we may never have explanations (though we have no way of knowing this for sure). Knowledge is incomplete - no paranormal assumptions are necessary.

[* "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" ... if he'd said "must include the truth" it would be correct, but as it stands it is misleading nonsense.]

[Mulder]

But the difficulty i'm having is i can't explain some of my 'experiences' despite delving deep.

Don't bother trying to explain your experiences, just describe them. Say exactly what happens, what conclusions you draw and why.

[Dubious Dick]

I have now listened to Gordon Smiths' reading.All i know is , if that was me giving that reading , i'd be thinking 'i didn't do it'.[prove psychic ability].

To clarify, are you saying if you gave that reading you would believe it had come from outside of you i.e. potentially from the spiritworld?

When I watched/listened to it (twice), it had all the hallmarks of coldreading, starting with a thinly veiled get out excuse at the beginning, followed by the old heart problems chestnut, which was wrong. The target said it was respiratory problems and GS then threw in breathing mask which was a pretty good guess after the target gave the information.

From there on in the reading is a series of what look to me like good guesses. Again, can you point to anything you think is not a probable guess based on the what anybody who has practised for a long time might deduce from the appearance and reactions of he target and those with her? Something very specific and personal?

In order to do this you will perhaps need to go through it again, discarding any preconceptions you may have that GS is a genuine medium and just focusing on what he actually says and what information he gives.

[rainbows.]

Why assume that any "experience" you have in your mind is anything other than that - in your mind? You have no way of testing the things you have experienced against any external reality. I might as well assume that whatever fantastic location I occupied in last night's dreams was a real location (as of course a lot of people did not so long ago).

I do try hard not to assume anything.I'm happy to settle with 'i don't know 'and realise i may not and definately will not find some of the answers i'm looking for.If i find out i've been deluded and misguided by my own mind ,that scenario as i've said earlier will intrigue me just as much as my current views.As it stands now , i believe many of my experiences do not fit in with hot/cold reading or trickery.