Talk:Cold reading/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Procedure

The "Basic Procedure" section was tagged with the "weasel words" warning, this section does not contain any statements of this type, so I removed it 65.33.181.67 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 65.33.181.67 12:37 EST 30 March 2007

Psychologists

I removed "psychologists" from the list of people using cold-reading. It's both wrong and unfair to claim that psychologists in general use cold-reading. Psychologists are trained scientists who use scientific methods. Actually, many psychologists have tried to encourage people to critical thinking about could-reading and other forms of pseudo-psychology. See for instance Stanovich's book "How to think straight about psychology" or Michael Shermer's book "Why people believe in weird things". If one still claims that psychologists in general use cold-reading, I urge them to show some documentation for such claims.

~ Not all people acting as psychologists are scientists. At least in the Netherlands people applying psychotherapy. Arakrys 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

POV check

In my opinion this article (if it could be called so) does not have a neutral point of view. The information contained in this page has no foundation, directly attacks the psychics mentioned and insults the people that believe in them and what they do. I think that anything published in Wikipedia should be limited to facts and provable data. It is unfair to publish the kinds of things that the author of "Cold Reading" article did. There are a lot of facts to tell about cold reading, where they use it (facts: like in a performance), etc. I hope you take this into consideration... Thankyou. --201.133.72.108 18:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Drayfus (10/Jan/2006 - 12:30 GMT -06:00).

I added a link to Ian Rowland (ianrowland.com). It's presently a broken web page, but his work "the full facts on cold reading" is worth reading in this context. I think you may want to make a separation more based on verified facts vs entertainment. This has as advantage that you can easily weed the bias out of the factual component, but state clearly that the entertainment use is named such because claims cannot be scientifically proven. Ian refers to this in his book by stating that he doesn't mean disrespect to religion or anyone's belief in mythical powers, he stays with the facts. A belief is a personal POV, facts are independent. Cheros (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

cold reading is also used by palmists, graphologists, horoscopes, etc. It's not necessarily done to defraud. Is it actually a "criminal technique"? AFAIK, it's like prestidigitation -- it can be used to harmlessly entertain or to defraud. -- Tarquin 12:26 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

I've rephrased for NPOV and generality. Could use some filling-in, though, since I'm no expert. -- Wapcaplet

Good rewrite :-) I'll pick my dad's brains next time I see him. My grandfather used to dress up as a gypsy for school fetes and do fortune-telling; I'll ponder how to phrase the "just for laughs" aspect of it. -- Tarquin

Hmm since the pseudo-psychic technique "Cold Reading" is such a big topic and very different from the theatrical technique, I think we should put a disambiguation page here and split the two out. Only problem is I have no good idea what the second title would be. What do you think?

Apparently the pretend-psychics listed in this article have already been blacklisted by a way-too-serious Magicians group who noticed this very Wikipedia entry, and hate these Skeptics for publicising "their" trick of cold reading. Zuytdorp Survivor 07:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since the most "popular" use of the term "Cold Reading" seems to be the second on the page, am considering going for a "type C" disambiguation where that meaning remains on the page, with a link to Cold Reading (theatrical) listed at the top. Am seeking guidance on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation . Zuytdorp Survivor 00:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Have split out cold reading (theatrical). If that topic becomes equally popular with the pseudo-psychic technique, we can form a full disambiguation page. Zuytdorp Survivor 12:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Merge "Shotgunning (cold reading)" Into "Cold reading"

The subject is identical but the content in Shotgunning (cold reading) is much shorter. Hence I propose merging "Shotgunning (cold reading)" into Cold reading. --Maikel 19:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Martin Gardner cites an example of a Cayce reading from when Cayce's wife had tuberculosis:

... from the head, pains along through the body from the second, fifth and sixth dorsals, and from the first and second lumbar...tie-ups here, floating lesions, or lateral lesions, in the muscular and nerve fibers which supply the lower end of the lung and the diaphragm...in conjunction with the sympathetic nerve of the solar plexus, coming in conjunction with the solar plexus at the end of the stomach....

Cayce used the word lung, and this his followers take as a correct diagnosis; i.e., a psychic "hit."

Should this quote from shotgunning be put into this article or Edgar Cayce? --CDN99 03:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

The article is perfectly fine as it is. Though I will admit it could use more discussion. It's a common misunderstanding that cold reading is somehow a psychic ability. It isn't. It can't be. Cold reading is ONLY a theatrical tool to pretend to read minds. If someone wishes to believe in "real" psychic ability, they are welcome to it but there is no "real" cold reading. I've written several books on how to cold read people and I assure everyone that is only a series of tools…NOT any special ability. NYCmentalist 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

I have added the neutrality disputed tag as this page is horribly POV. Sentances like "The television psychic John Edward is famous for [cold reading]." do not belong on Wikipedia; they are not based in fact. Allthesestars 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems like some actual editing, disputation, and an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate consensus language should come before we apply the "POV Disputed" tag. Maybe you could make a few edits (not a complete rewrite) and see how they are received. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Better now? --Hob Gadling 23:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes (imo). The article now reads as a definition of Cold Reading. Here's my vote to remove the bias mark.
--Wurblzap 22:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the page is fine the way it is right now. But then again, I'm a skeptic. Cool user name, Hob. :-) PragmaticallyWyrd 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

Okay, I'm a skeptic, but it does seem to me that given that listening to John Edward is indistinguishable from listening to an admitted cold reader, it doesn't seem unreasonable to describe what he does as cold reading. To successfully accuse this piece as biased, I think it would be necessary to attack that statement - in other words demonstrate where the observable differences between what admittedly fake psychics do and what John Edward and his like do. It is also worth pointing out that the nature of a television show makes "warm" or "hot" reading possible also. The Amazing Kreskin (an earlier television psychic) would go for long walks before a show to clear his head. It is alleged that he was noting the contents of the audience's cars in the car park and using the clues found therein to get some very startling "hits" once the show started. Tomsalinsky 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Changed a grammatical error:
In general, while ~~most~~ some of the words come from the reader, most of the information comes from the subject.--Tcwolf 05:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Shotgunning vs. Barnum

In the Shotgunning section it gives a list of typical statements. These statements all seem to be Barnum statements. But doesn't Shotgunning also include much more specific statements, given in rapid succession, so that any wildly incaccurate statments are quickly forgotten? If so, I think the Barnum statements should be removed from the Shotgunning section to avoid confusion between the two techniques.

Ideally, a transcript of someone shotgunning would be the best example. Ashmoo 05:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Shotgunning and purported psychics

...often used by purported psychics and mediums

The shotgunning section seems to imply that many psychics actually use shotgunning rather then real psychic ability and are thus engaging in deceit or fraud. If this statement was really just trying to point out the many fraud psychics use this technique then maybe it could be rewritten to specifically limit it to known fraudulent psychics. --Cab88 13:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought 'purported' was for. What wording would you prefer? Ashmoo 23:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypnotists? Shamans and witch doctors?

Hypnosis is, as ar as I am aware, planting suggestions. What does the hypnotist read from the person who's being hypnotised? Yes, he can suggest they saw things (see e.g. the Satanic Abuse scare), but what does cold reading have to do with it? Secondly, I don't think shamans and witch doctors in the traditional sense would have a need for cold reading either. The customer or patient comes to them, tells them what's wrong, and they perform a ritual. Maybe during the ritual they tell the questioner their problem has to do with a far uncle who passed away or somesuch, but is cold reading among their repertoire? Do they go 'I see a box with unsorted photos, what does that mean to you?' etc?

Nichiran 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. 'Shamans and 'witch doctors' covers such a broad range of religious/magical figures from so many different cultures that it would be unVerifiable to include it here. Saying that hypnotists use cold reading is also OR. I'm going to chop them. Ashmoo 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

shamans definitely don't do cold readings, they do peyote and salvia

List of Cold Readers

After separating the list with an "alleged" section, I've decided to eliminate the list altogether. The fact is that the list seems to exist purely so that it can include people like Sylvia Brown in the same list as "conmen." While I certainly agree that Browne is a conwoman 100%, that sort of accusation isn't relevant to wikipedia, and the list is not at all necessary to describe what cold reading is. Allegations within the article in one or two places are good enough. If someone wants to work in a section about the controversy over who is doing cold reading and who isn't, I think that would work, but for now, that list is out.

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes could be a candidate for expert cold reader in fiction. Anyone agree with this? - [ Redmess 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Any of us agreeing upon that isn't enough. We must find a respectable source to support this, or it is just Original Research. I have removed the sentence for now, also because it was in the wrong section. — Mütze (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

www.unt.edu/behv/hyten/3200/Cold%20Reading.doc www.psychicandclairvoyant.co.uk/HotAndColdReading.html http://www.skepdic.com/subjectivevalidation.html over 6000 results for ("sherlock holmes" "cold reading") in google, there's bound to be plenty of usable sources if anyone can be bothered digging through them Bitplane 05:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitplane (talk • contribs)

Sherlock employed deductive reasoning. LamontCranston (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wizard of Oz

In the movie the professor sneaks a photograph from Dorothy's purse- wouldn't this be a better example oh hot reading? 130.101.100.100 13:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Subject Verb Agreement

The initial paragraph of this article seems, to me, to have errors. In the opening line the author writes:

Cold reading is a technique often used by mentalists, fortune tellers, and others posing as psychics and mediums to determine details about a subject through analysis of their body language, appearance and responses to questioning.

This is, correctly, written in the present tense, However, the succeeding line reads:

Even without prior knowledge of a person, a practiced cold reader could obtain a great deal of information about the subject by carefully analyzing that person's body language, clothing, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc.

I believe it should either read '...a practiced cold reader can...' or '...a practiced cold reader is able to...' to make the paragraph gramatically correct. MUGZ85 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Biast Viewpoint

It seems to me that there are several pages on wikipedia which are very biased towards skeptics who are actually the ones who employ cold reading to disprove psychics along with some but not all psychologists. The fact of the matter is most psychics and mediums develop their mediumship in spiritualist church's or in home circles and they do NOT employ cold reading techniques. For the majority its mental mediumship and they may work on feelings, symbolism or mentally hear voices, very few people physically see or hear spirit. If any one of you skeptics took the time to go along to a spiritualist church and join a good development circle you would see a very different picture. People like Derren Brown (a psychologist, entertainer, skeptic) use cold reading to disprove mediumship. Admitedly there are some awful psychics and a few may employ cold reading tactics but the majority are sincere about what they do.(YinYangChing (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

I have removed Edgar Cayce from this article. Cayce never had a "stage and television show", worked in private, for free, with only the name and address of the subject, who usually was not present. His extremely specific readings and recommendations (such as the above mentioned example) cannot be considered shotgunning. There also is no Reliable Source for the inclusion of his name. HorusFlight (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediums, etc

If you want to claim that most of these are real, as the revised text claims, and that we thus have to make explicit exceptions explicitly saying that it's possible all of them are real, and treating the belief they aren't as a fringe theory, then it's necessary to provide sources. End of story. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof that all mediums etc, or even most, are cold readers, so calling them such is a claim, and is even biased and POV to state that they cold read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phallicmonkey (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The above comment was from me by the way, Phallicmonkey (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SH above, and note that the excessive verbiage supported by PM says essentially the same thing, but gives undue weight to the existence of paranormal phenomena. This is against guideline. Verbal chat

While this isn't a great article - sourcing needs work - one of the things that is sourced is mediums, etc, using cold reading. So, you know, it's not like it's an unsourced claim. The only thing that could be disputed (in theory) is whether all mediums use it, but we don't phrase it in such a way to specifically claim all. Phallic monkeys changes, however, completely discount the sources we have, which specifically say they DO use it, and replace this with an original research claim of his own. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we find a wording that states that it is used by some? While I won't dispute that it is indeed sourced, the wording makes the implication that it is used by all mediums etc, which evidently cannot be proved, and is biased. Phallicmonkey (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So you want us to specifically rule out the possibility that no mediums are real? I don't see how that could possibly work under WP:FRINGE. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No i want it to be specifically said that it is not proven that they all use cold reading Phallicmonkey (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is undue weight. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. You have not provided a single reliable source. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not undue weight the current version implies that all mediums are fake, which is ludicrous considering this has not been proven. This is why I included the 'claim' in my version, the accusations against mediums are claims. Phallicmonkey (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to have gotten the point of SH's comment. You (and mediums) are making an unusual claim - that they possess paranormal powers. Until proven otherwise with unusually strong evidence, we have to assume they are fakes or deluded. If you can provide such evidence, we'll just go where the evidence takes us, and so far it leads to the logical conclusion that they must be using cold reading, since that explains their methodology and results. Mentalists and magicians can duplicate their results using cold reading. Whatever the case, at the present time we can't leave the impression that they actually possess such abilities (since they don't exist). -- Fyslee (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not disproven either, which means that it is not conclusively proven that they use cold reading, and indeed the above comment states that such abilities do not exist, which cannot be said within the article, and you are obviously against injecting a little NPOV into the article Phallicmonkey (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are asking for negative proof, a logical fallacy. The one making the unusual claim (that paranormal powers exist and are possessed by mediums) has the burden of proof, and since it's an extraordinary claim, the burden of evidence is also extraordinary. A few anecdotes or a few thousand years of belief by believers won't do. We are following WP:FRINGE guidelines. We can't leave the impression that an unproven fringe belief is a fact. We can cite sources that claim it is fact, and sources that claim it isn't fact, but we as editors cannot leave the impression it is fact without proof. We have to go with the evidence, and there is no conclusive evidence that it is true.

BTW, please use the edit summary for comments that describe your edit. That would be more helpful than just repeating that you have "added to talk", which is obvious, but unhelpful. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point of what I am saying. I'm not saying to exclude mediums etc, but to put in the 'claim'. This isn't about history or abilities of mediums, but the accusations against them. Even if they are fake, you assume they are using cold reading, when a fake medium could use a variety of techniques. The statement 'innocent until proven guilty' springs to mind. They are being accused of being frauds, yet the accusations of cold reading are claims, in the same way that to actually have the ability is a claim, it works both ways. Phallicmonkey (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with the basics: Are you actually able to bring to the table a reliable source for your view? Otherwise, we can close his discussion right now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here we go, a source that shows that mediums etc can provide guessing results over the ordinary, hardly a result of cold reading: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20040328/ai_n12587805 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phallicmonkey (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's actually almost a classic example of cold reading. Cold reading includes the use of statements true for a wide variety of people. And it's not like the experiment was controlled (for instance, by not letting the subjects know which person the statements were meant to apply to, nor letting the psychic know who was sitting at which number, and seeing if they did better for the specific people than the audience as a whole). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a relevant study that does not imply the use of cold reading, you are merely applying your own bias to it's interpretation. Whether you pass judgement on it or not, the study gives results that infer that the mediums can produce better results than are statistically expected. This study was carried out by a body with expertise, they undoubtedly took relevant precautions to exclude cheating. Phallicmonkey (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It has no peer review, no control, and no blinding. The results are meaningless, and the statistical expectation appears to be pulled out of their arse, since it lacks any baseline tests to get the expected number. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And how do you know this? It's an article on the experiment, not an in-depth evaluation. You asked me to provide a source, which i have clearly done, unless you were merely posing a challenge to strengthen your point, not to actually resolve the issue and meet an appropriate middle ground. Phallicmonkey (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Show me the original research write-up, then, and that it disproves the descriptions I made based on a detailed description. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

<-- James Randi has numerous times performed well-controlled tests of mediums, psychics, etc. and his institute has had a million dollar prize for anyone who could prove they had paranormal abilities. No one has claimed the prize, even though the tests were always designed in cooperation with the testee. That's the kind of tests we are asking for, not tests made by psychics themselves, who are obviously not critical thinkers enough to realize that they are fooling themselves. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No psychic is going to take part in tests evidently aimed at disproving them, especially when the tests are designed etc by somebody who has a lot of money on the line, skeptics and psychics alike will give biased results, so many studies that show psychic abilities in a negative light have about as much validity as those that show it in a positive light. And i repeat, you asked me to provide a source, and I have done this. However, as a skeptic (Fyslee And SH), you will ignore anything i put forward, as your own beliefs and expectations, or even prejudices, will make you deny anything that you disagree with. Phallicmonkey (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You apparently aren't familiar with Randi's million dollar challenge. You need to read up on it. The test is developed in cooperation with the testee, IOW they have plenty of input. That way everyone knows the test is being done in a fair and proper manner.

Who takes it and who doesn't? Professional psychics don't usually take the test because they risk getting exposed and ruining their careers, which is what has happened to the few who have taken it. The ones who normally take it are those who really believe they have paranormal abilities. They too end up disappointed, but usually don't change their minds, since they are true believers and likely also immune to cognitive dissonance. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an objection to saying that mediums use cold reading - if they are not using cold reading, then what do you suggest they are doing instead to get those results? --Minderbinder (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Being a Spiritualist, my views must be fairly evident Phallicmonkey (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't help us edit the article. If you have objections, make specific ones, not general ones. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My objection is the generalisation of mediums and you are dealing with the religious beliefs of people, you can't justinsult their beliefs, or hint at doing so. Phallicmonkey (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We aren't allowed to use censorship and editorial bias in order to protect the sensibilities of readers, and especially the subjects of articles. You are apparently here to protect their feelings and to prevent readers from reading the truth about mediumship, but that's not how it works here. That's very unwikipedian. This is an encyclopedia, not a private website. We have other standards here. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so, if you'll forgive me saying so, we cannot rewrite well-sourced descriptions of reality to remove criticism and information that some people object to on religious grounds. The article on Muhammed contains an image of Muhammed which some consider blasphemous (as depictions of the prophet are forbidden in modern-day Islam (but not when it was drawn). This is not an attempt to insult your religion, it is a description of information found in reliable sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Information that is there for the sole purpose of advocating the opposite viewpoint. I'm all for freedom of speech and print etc, but not when it infringes on the rights of others, when the article seems to serve the sole purpose of insulting mediums. Phallicmonkey (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is out to insult anyone, here, especially not in a way that would interfere with building an encyclopedia. So long as use by mediums is notable in the context of cold reading, we should describe such use here. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And your edits are for what purpose? "For the sole purpose of advocating the opposite viewpoint"! Read WP:POT. Your edits seem to be for the sole purpose of advocating fringe POV as if they were true, which is forbidden here. None of the edits here infringe on the rights of anyone, and Wikipedia couldn't care less who it insults. If their feelings are hurt so easily that they can't tolerate free speech and hearing the truth, then something's wrong. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I trying to remove the outright accusations that are made against mediums, stated as though they are fact. I am simply trying to make an allowance for a seperate point of view. And if cold reading is so easy, who cares to give me a written 'reading' right here on the talk page? Phallicmonkey (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This grows dull. If you're just going to go back to your original points over and over, and then ask us to demonstrate a trained skill that depends on the complicity of the person being read, which you have no intention to be willing to be complicit in, I really don't see any point in continuing this conversation. There's so many more productive things to do with my time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, then you won't complain if I try and make an allowance for the fact that the use of cold reading by mediums is an accusation. And the fact that you have something better to do is a surprise, I thought that religious intolerance was becoming something of a hobby of yours Phallicmonkey (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and that is a wilful misinterpretation. I too see little further point in discussing this here. THe current consensus of this page is that the edits supported by Phallicmonkey should not be made. Verbal chat 13:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A consensus met by atheist/skeptics with a biased viewpoint, i wasn't aware that this was what wikipedia is about. I wanted to make some edits, so discussed it on this page, and i would be happy to meet a middle ground. Evidently, the views of the other people involved in the discussion are too biased to make an edit that all are happy with unlikely Phallicmonkey (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You're out of luck here. Go push your obviously religious agenda somewhere other than Wikipedia. You can use Wikimedia software to start your own wiki. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As an evident skeptic and probable atheist, you really are one to talk. I just cannot see how accusations such as those in this article can be justified Phallicmonkey (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1