Psychics

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Of course they are perfectly entitled to remove the "entertainment only" disclaimer. All they have to do is substantiate their claims.

Oddly, none have even tried.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

midnitegremlin wrote: »

I'm sure at least some psychics FEEL they have a genuine power/talent. Charging people for a service isn't necessarily a bad thing especially if they hold it to be a bona fide service.

I don't think so. Even if you believed that the coincidences you did manage were due to some innate "talent", you'd have to realise that that "talent" was far too unpredictable and flaky to justify setting up sessions and charging people. I'm sure there are people who have convinced themselves they are psychic, but they certainly don't think that it is something they can switch on and rely on. Even they would admit that 80% of the time they'd have to say "Sorry, nothing" and give the person their money back.

While it might be plausible for someone on a course to start cold reading without really understanding what was going on, I genuinely don't believe you could cold read day in and day out and not know exactly what you were doing.

no1catman

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

And? I could tell bereaved people a pack of lies that would make them feel better.

You know when that becomes a bad thing? When I charge them for it.

So what happens, if they are happy that are not told any 'lies' but from the comments made, without feedback - apart from a 'yes' or a 'no', can accept what is said.
And, then walk away, after putting in the collection plate anything from 20p to a £1.00 - hardly a 'charge'.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

no1catman wrote: »

So what happens, if they are happy that are not told any 'lies' but from the comments made, without feedback - apart from a 'yes' or a 'no', can accept what is said.
And, then walk away, after putting in the collection plate anything from 20p to a £1.00 - hardly a 'charge'.

What are you talking about now?

Are you saying that all mediums work on this voluntary contribution basis? That's patently nonsense.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

The word shrink comes to mind. Like anyone who believes that inanimate objects actually exists, yet want to relieve you of your cash.
If they are real, we would had been flying with the fairies years ago!

MarkBargain

midnitegremlin wrote: »

I'm sure at least some psychics FEEL they have a genuine power/talent. Charging people for a service isn't necessarily a bad thing especially if they hold it to be a bona fide service.

I think someone charging for a service which is impossible (talking to the dead or predicting the future) is where it gets a bit sticky.

MarkBargain

Morglin wrote: »

I believe mediums etc., now have to advertise as 'providing a purely entertainment service' and are not allowed to make claims about anything.

I think you're right and this one does: https://www.epsomplayhouse.co.uk/4375/shows/psychic-sally-call-me-psychic.html

Just as well going from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0BfyqgdMNo

Malthusian

While it might be plausible for someone on a course to start cold reading without really understanding what was going on, I genuinely don't believe you could cold read day in and day out and not know exactly what you were doing.

You underestimate the power of the human mind for self delusion. There are people who genuinely believe they can heal broken bones and cancers by laying on hands, or turn water into wine - believing that cold reading is actually spirits talking to you is penny-ante stuff.

There seems to be an assumption here that a psychic who genuinely believes they are a psychic is less to blame than someone who knows they're running a scam. That someone who has conned both himself and their mark is less guilty than someone who has conned only the mark. I disagree. The cynical conman only has one victim, the self-delusionist has two.

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it... to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

ElefantEd

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

The word shrink comes to mind. Like anyone who believes that inanimate objects actually exists, yet want to relieve you of your cash.

I definitely believe in inanimate objects. The chair I'm sitting on, the coffee mug I'm drinking from, the slippers on my feet. All inanimate, I hope!

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Malthusian wrote: »

You underestimate the power of the human mind for self delusion. There are people who genuinely believe they can heal broken bones and cancers by laying on hands, or turn water into wine - believing that cold reading is actually spirits talking to you is penny-ante stuff.

What I question is that the people capable of deluding themselves into such a belief are the same people capable of making a business out of it. As I said before, the ones who believe it don't believe that they would be capable of coming up with something worth paying for EVERY time. If you come up with something about every one who sits down in front of you and never feel you should give their money back, you're a charlatan.