Charlatans and hustlers

I was just made aware of the fact that the self-proclaimed psychic and healer Lisa Williams is coming to Norway, and I find I'm getting aggravated at the very prospect of it. My problem, however, is not with Lisa Williams per se, but with any and all people that make a living by exploiting and hustling the gullible and the naive. No "psychic" has ever been able to replicate his/her abilities in rigid scientific studies, and most will never attend such studies obviously because they know the results would be negative. There is no way to quantify or measure "psychic ability", but neither is there any proof at all that such abilities exist.

Any and all "psychics" with their own TV-shows, book deals, performance tours and such are in it for one thing, and one thing only: money. To be able to do what they do they employ and perfect various techniques for various settings, and I will talk about the most common.

Cold Reading.
From Wikipedia: "Cold reading is a series of techniques used by mentalists, illusionists, fortune tellers, psychics, mediums and con artists to determine or express details about another person, often in order to convince them that the reader knows much more about a subject than they actually do."

An experienced cold reader is quickly able to deduce many things about a suject simply by observing the subject's facial expressions, hairstyle, style of clothing, jewelry and so on. The cold reader is forcing - or coercing - the subject to cooperate, and blatantly guessing with various questions of high-probability.

Example:

Reader: "Did your husband linger on in the hospital, or did he pass quickly?"

Subject: "Oh, he died almost immediately!"

Reader: "Yes, because he's saying to me, `I didn't suffer. I was spared any pain.'"

In the above example the reader is coercing the subject to believe that the reader knows something he/she didn't. The information was supplied by the subject to be verified by the reader. Why should the reader, for instance, have to aske the question he/she did in the above example?

And that's what cold reading is. The medium is throwing out suggestions and guesses while expecting (and usually getting) feedback from their subjects. "I get an older man here" is a question, a suggestion, and a guess by the "reader" who expects some reaction from the subject. And while the reaction may be very subtle, the reader has trained himself/herself to pick up even the most unnoticeable of changes in facial expressions. The reaction might just be a nod, or a subtle change in the subject's expression or body language (or the occasional gasp), but the affirmation is supplied by the subject, and not by the reader.

Then the reader might start throwing names out into the audience. "They're saying, John, or Johnny. Do you know this man?" is another wild guess, a question and a suggestion. If there was a John or Johnny the subject will affirm and strengthen the identification, but if there is none the reader will move on whilst brushing it off saying that John or Johnny is there, but was not immediately recognized. If, however, Johnny is remembered later, that will be integrated into the farce.

From James Randi Educational Foundation: "You should observe and listen to a video of a reading. In one such by Van Praagh, prepared by the "48 Hours" TV program, a reading that lasted 60 minutes, we found only TWO actual statements made, and 260 questions asked. Both actual statements--guesses--were wrong. Van Praagh was looking for the name of the woman's deceased husband, and he came up with it by asking, "Do you know anyone named, Jack?" The woman answered, "Yes! Jack, my husband!" But Van Praagh didn't identify "Jack" at all. He asked her if SHE would identify him. By that time, Van Praagh had already tried on her 26 other men's names--all wrong. But, the woman--the subject--forgot about those failures, because they were not important to her. "Jack" was important."

Unfortunately I couldn't find that exact video easily available online, but here is another one showing van Praagh failing during a cold-reading session: van Praagh.

Every psychic, medium or stage clairvoyant (Lisa Williams included) has been using the same set of techniques since time immemorial, and since time immemorial their audience has allowed themselves to be deceived in spite of the fact that common sense should tell them not to. Personally I don't understand why. Why this urge or interest in talking to dead relatives?

Now there are probably some that would argue that some people are just seeking some kind of closure after having their spouse unexpectedly and suddenly die, and that their closure is more important than the methods of achieving it. That makes it even worse. Then the so-called medium, or psychic, is not only preying on the gullible, but they're also exploiting someone else's pain and loss for their own gain. Make no mistake; the ones that make it to the big time with their own TV-shows, performance tours and books deals make millions this way.

So now you probably ask why I am so upset about what other people believe. It's their beliefs and I should just respect them right? Wrong. I see no reason why I should respect and condone a set of beliefs that allow some people to prey on the less fortunate, the emotionally scarred or the gullible in order to line their own pockets. I am a fervent supporter of rationality and logic and what constitutes provable reality, and as such I can not, and will not, respect a system of belief that relies on willful and blatant deception in order to be maintained.