|
|
Post by romany on Nov 17, 2008 19:07:25 GMT
I understand the theory of cold reading and I accept it, but I don't understand how a 'psychic' can come out with very specific and accurate information. I was watching (dare I say it) Colin Fry earlier this evening. He told someone that the relative who had passed over used to refer to a neighbour's garden as being like the Steptoe and Son yard, which turned out to be correct.
Obtaining facts such as marriage, sex, age etc from cold reading I can understand, but how did he get this kind of info?
I suppose what I am asking is, to what extent can cold reading detect information and how?
|
|
|
|
Post by farsideofthemoon on Nov 17, 2008 19:14:29 GMT
That's not specific - notice use of the word 'like'. So he described a neighbours garden as a mess, how likely is it that someone has a messy garden nearby? He doesn't actually say he used the term 'steptoe and son', that's just there to make it sound more specific than it actually is.
Does he mean a garden full of junk? Does he mean a garden like a scrapyard? Does he mean just an overgrown garden? A psychic would take any of these and more as a hit.
It's just another cold read to be honest.
Cold reading has become a phrase used to describe a whole host of techniques. In this instance, it is an educated guess that a deceased relative thought his garden tidier than a neighbours.
Also, the person receiving the message often does all they can to get the statement to fit, or sometimes just nods and says yes even if it is meaningless.
To most of the regulars on here, this is just run of the mill stuff, but I understand how people see it as more impressive than it actually is. Remember also on Fry's shows, you'll not see lots of statements he makes that can't be made sense of at all by the receiver.
|
|
|
|
Post by romany on Nov 17, 2008 19:29:52 GMT
I wasn't necessarily impresed, but I was curious as to how he made that connection as it were.
I accept your explanation however - it's interesting to note how subtle and deceptive the use of language can be.
I am aware the shows are edited and they only show the best bits!
Thank you for your reply.
Romany.
|
|
|
|
Post by farsideofthemoon on Nov 17, 2008 19:39:59 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2008 20:37:46 GMT
What you have to remember with tv shows like Colin Frys show is that for each hit he gets, there are dozens of misses.
|
|
|
|
Post by julia on Nov 17, 2008 20:42:32 GMT
What you have to remember with tv shows like Colin Frys show is that for each hit he gets, there are dozens of misses. Most of which end up on the cutting room floor (or the digital equivalent thereof). |
|
|
|
Post by Riding With The Angels on Nov 17, 2008 22:07:13 GMT
What you have to remember with tv shows like Colin Frys show is that for each hit he gets, there are dozens of misses. Most of which end up on the cutting room floor (or the digital equivalent thereof). Whilst the show and others like it are clearly edited - do we know this for sure? |
|
|
|
Post by Kim on Nov 17, 2008 22:21:10 GMT
It's Colin Fry! Need I go on??  |
|
|
|
Post by hilarysinclair on Nov 17, 2008 22:21:54 GMT
I can tell you how Derek Acrah and Gordon Smith work it. On Pyschic Lifetime Derek gets the people in the Green room before hand and pumps them for information then he just relays it back to them. Also the presenters are always refering to their 'briefing notes'. If they know then it wouldn't be too difficult for Derek to find stuff out.
If you want a reading from Gordon Brown you just need to go to his website and fill in a form saying why you want a reading. He knows all about you before you get there.
Cold readers are very clever. They will chuck out stuff like i'm sensing you've got problems at work or are you worrying about money etc. Stuff that applies to practically everyone. If they come out with something very specific then they've probably cheated.
|
|
|
|
Post by O.M.S. on Nov 17, 2008 22:24:22 GMT
If it hadn't have been a hit then we would not have seen it at all.
The best way to experience a medium is to go and see them live. Obviously if you do it via a theatre you're lining their pockets but some, including Colin, occasionally do free (or donations) demonstrations at spiritualist churches. That's where I went to see Colin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Riding With The Angels on Nov 17, 2008 22:35:52 GMT
If it hadn't have been a hit then we would not have seen it at all. The best way to experience a medium is to go and see them live. Obviously if you do it via a theatre you're lining their pockets but some, including Colin, occasionally do free (or donations) demonstrations at spiritualist churches. That's where I went to see Colin. And how did you find that OMS? |
|
|
|
Post by farsideofthemoon on Nov 17, 2008 23:00:18 GMT
Most of which end up on the cutting room floor (or the digital equivalent thereof). Whilst the show and others like it are clearly edited - do we know this for sure? I think you can assume it. It's standard practice in any TV recording that what is shown is edited highlights. I've also seen various reports from people on JREF who have been to recordings, mainly Sylvia Browne ones, where a lot has been left out. Kensington can give his experiences of the One in Australia where apparantly 80-90% of the readings were ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by Riding With The Angels on Nov 18, 2008 1:53:32 GMT
Apologies I think I actually quoted the wrong post there and should have quoted the previous one.
I am just intrigued to know whether anyone has sat in an audience at such a recording and actually added up the hits and misses and compared with what was later broadcast. I think it would make an interesting comparison.
What I am, perhaps badly, trying to say is that despite our assertions that all the misses end up in the bin can we actually quantify that - i mean do they really? Or is what you see and edited version of correct hits with no misses that actually took place.
Slightly off topic really sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by traceyg on Nov 18, 2008 9:18:07 GMT
Yes, but even if you watch CF on his show Sixth Sense you still blatantly see it is the person having the reading telling most of the story especially at the end when they interview them, CF really didn't know anything. The person at the end goes into more detail about the deseased person, CF is just fishing and asking questions and saying ambiguous statements. I really can't understand how anyone cannot see this...edited or not
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 18, 2008 11:13:14 GMT
If you want a reading from Gordon Brown you just need to go to his website and fill in a form saying why you want a reading. He knows all about you before you get there. I didnt know the prime minister was a psychic? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 18, 2008 11:13:26 GMT
Apologies I think I actually quoted the wrong post there and should have quoted the previous one. I am just intrigued to know whether anyone has sat in an audience at such a recording and actually added up the hits and misses and compared with what was later broadcast. I think it would make an interesting comparison. What I am, perhaps badly, trying to say is that despite our assertions that all the misses end up in the bin can we actually quantify that - i mean do they really? Or is what you see and edited version of correct hits with no misses that actually took place. Slightly off topic really sorry. William did just that! Speak to Kensington on this forum, he sat in the audience of Australias search for a psychic show, THE ONE. |
|
|
|
Post by julia on Nov 18, 2008 11:15:35 GMT
;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaris on Nov 18, 2008 13:33:28 GMT
Just to pick up the point made about editing....I was reading the other day about a newspaper columnist who'd been on the show 8 Out Of 10 Cats with Jimmy Carr, he said that they recorded two hours of stuff but it was edited down to the 20 odd minutes actually used in the programme. So I would say that any show which isn't going out live must edit to ensure there is enough content to make the show 
And of course if you are making a showcase for a medium you surely would only put in the best bits to show their "abilities"  edited to remove a word I repeated twice 
|
|
|
|
Post by romany on Nov 18, 2008 14:32:48 GMT
Thanks all.
I went to see Colin Fry once, with work, just out of curiosity. He 'appeared' to have been pretty good but as you say, who really knows for sure.
He impressed one woman with information about a walking stick that used to belong to her father which was still hanging on a hook on her back door. He asserted that she was afraid to throw it away since he had died. I thought that was impressive initially, but on reflection, perhaps not so!
Thanks for all your thoughts,
Romany.
|
|
|
|
Post by Riding With The Angels on Nov 18, 2008 18:53:54 GMT
Apologies I think I actually quoted the wrong post there and should have quoted the previous one. I am just intrigued to know whether anyone has sat in an audience at such a recording and actually added up the hits and misses and compared with what was later broadcast. I think it would make an interesting comparison. What I am, perhaps badly, trying to say is that despite our assertions that all the misses end up in the bin can we actually quantify that - i mean do they really? Or is what you see and edited version of correct hits with no misses that actually took place. Slightly off topic really sorry. William did just that! Speak to Kensington on this forum, he sat in the audience of Australias search for a psychic show, THE ONE. Cheers |
|
