Psychic medium creates a challenge to skeptics

[mind-energy]

Marcel Cairo, a psychic medium with his own podcast, has yesterday issued a challenge of his own to counter James Randi's Million Dollar challenge.

His main challenge premise is:
An intuitive (medium) and an Inquirer (control) travel to a public space in a randomly chosen city and each will approach 40 randomly chosen people (the subject), and each will conduct a spontaneous reading for this randomly chosen set of test subjects.

The objective of the experiment is to see if under the same test conditions, the intuitive (medium), can score higher across the 40 random readings than the inquirer (control) can.

The complete text of the challenge plus some first reaction can be read on:
Marcel Cairo's i2i Challenge on parapsychology forums.

Erin, or other mediums, if present on this board, what are your thoughts on this challenge. Would it be something you'd be willing to take?

[Brutha]

First of all that challenge doesn't prove that their is anything to psychic phenomens it just shows that one person has more cold reading skills than the other.
Most psychics have a lot more experience doing readings than the average sceptic so you would except that they are in average better than the sceptics.
Then there are people like Derren Brown who are really good at doing cold readings.
A duell between Derren and some psychic would be fun to watch.
But since Derren has something to lose, it would require some famous psychic that has also something to lose on the other site.

[mind-energy]

Yes, cold reading can be a problem in the challenge design, that's why other participants of that forum suggest eliminating this possibility in the experiment's design.

Of course, this is only a starting point for the challenge, and, hopefully, Marcel would address design concerns and finds a way to conduct this experiment in a well-controlled manner.

[mcairo]

Originally Posted by Brutha

First of all that challenge doesn't prove that their is anything to psychic phenomens it just shows that one person has more cold reading skills than the other.

With all due respect Brutha, I don't think you fully understood the challenge. In it, I set forth very specific rules about the type and order of the information that must be delivered in order to have the reading count. For instance, both the intuitive and the inquirer must first correctly identify the spiritual source (without a single mistake) from whom the information is being delivered. That identification must possess at least 2 genealogical identifiers (i.e. not acceptable="Uncle" Acceptable="Your Mother's older brother").

Keep in mind that all verbal and visual communication between the intuitive/inquirer and the subject is strictly forbidden. The only exception to this is that the intuitive/inquirer can look at a Polaroid picture of the subject's shoes.

There are also other parameters in place that prevent cold reading to be presented as a reason for the higher success rate of the intuitive over the inquirer. So many in fact, that I am 100% confident that a mentalist like Darren Brown can not score better than me in the i2i challenge.

Please explain to me how you can dismiss this challenge as proving cold reading, or not at least raising the question, how does the intuitive receive their information.

Thank you.

[Brutha]

I haven't read the your thread but mind-energy's descprition of the experiment.

From a sceptics perspective the chances of both persons should be 50:50, when both of you have no skill in getting information.
You shouldn't be able to win it by chance. The results of chance guess work shouldn't bring you to a more than 1:1000 chance of winning. 1:100 might also be okay but no sceptic would accept a 50:50 chance to lose in facing a psychic.

Polaroid picture

Is their a diffence between a polaroid picture and a digital picture?

[kickmoko]

Originally Posted by mind-energy

Marcel Cairo, a psychic medium with his own podcast, has yesterday issued a challenge of his own to counter James Randi's Million Dollar challenge.

His main challenge premise is:
An intuitive (medium) and an Inquirer (control) travel to a public space in a randomly chosen city and each will approach 40 randomly chosen people (the subject), and each will conduct a spontaneous reading for this randomly chosen set of test subjects.

The objective of the experiment is to see if under the same test conditions, the intuitive (medium), can score higher across the 40 random readings than the inquirer (control) can.

The complete text of the challenge plus some first reaction can be read on:
Marcel Cairo's i2i Challenge on parapsychology forums.

Erin, or other mediums, if present on this board, what are your thoughts on this challenge. Would it be something you'd be willing to take?

Aw..It depends on the psychic, for me i will take the challenge coz i trust myself!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by mind-energy

Yes, cold reading can be a problem in the challenge design, that's why other participants of that forum suggest eliminating this possibility in the experiment's design.

Looks like you may have overlooked the years of extensive effort to design a challenge that eliminates the possibility of cold-reading or other natural world phenomena, that both sides would agree is fair.

Randi's challenge has reached the point in a few cases where the psychic agrees, in writing, that the challenge is fair and acceptable, and then when (s)he fails, declares that it wasn't fair and acceptable after all.

The test suggested here is far less stringent in its protocol than what's been negotiated in the Randy challenge.

But it would be fun to watch Derren Brown do it -- I'm quite sure he would far outstrip anyone's results!

As Brutha suggested, the results should be better than even odds, so why not just go out and do the test sans skeptics? Just go out and see how many you get right, have as impartial a witness as you can find present, and document the results? If you get better results than would be expected by chance, and your protocols can stand up to scrutiny, then why would you need it to be a competition?

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Angela

As Brutha suggested, the results should be better than even odds, so why not just go out and do the test sans skeptics? Just go out and see how many you get right, have as impartial a witness as you can find present, and document the results? If you get better results than would be expected by chance, and your protocols can stand up to scrutiny, then why would you need it to be a competition?

That doesn't work for someone with something to prove, and most "psychics" who would accept these challenges have something to prove.

I don't say that to discourage people from doing the kind of thing you suggest. In fact, I love finding solid data which supports psychic phenomenon, I'm just saying (in regard to the challenge presented in this thread) that an attempt to appease skeptics is futile.

[bluedragon]

How would a mentalist be able to perform without seeing and talking to the subject ?

I know Derren Brown can tell you your pin number and cell phone number just by looking at you, but how could he do it without looking? How could anyone dismiss such an experiment, if it were indeed carried out?

I wonder if many mentalists simply don't know how psychics work, since they always say that psychics do nothing but cold reading, but in reality, many psychics work over the phone, so at least part of the cold reading would be impossible without seeing the person. What am I missing here? Cause some of them say that ALL psychics do cold reading...

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

I'm just saying (in regard to the challenge presented in this thread) that an attempt to appease skeptics is futile.

This way of thinking may not be really productive - think about what would have happened if Galilei would have settled with the Earth being the Center of the Universe, and if the inventor of the first airplane would have given up trying to convinge people that we can fly.

When you have found something powerful and useful to people, you can prove it to them. Sometimes it is difficult, but still, it is possible. Otherwise, we would still be in the stone age.

[carenkh]

tee - hee -

xkcd - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language - By Randall Munroe

[joyfulgrowth]

Originally Posted by bluedragon

I know Derren Brown can tell you your pin number and cell phone number just by looking at you

How does he do that?

[bluedragon]

Non-verbal cues - how you move your eyes, subtle face expressions.

YouTube - Derren Brown tells a guy his PIN number!!!

But I imagine you have to be really, really good as a mentalist.

[joyfulgrowth]

Do you believe that is real? I am sure you can do a lot with mental cues, but I have also read a lot about how fake so much is on TV.

[bluedragon]

I think he is for real, but I don't know. In any case, if I were a psychic, I would not rest until I convinced Derren Brown that psychic abilities work. For real...

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by bluedragon

Non-verbal cues - how you move your eyes, subtle face expressions.

YouTube - Derren Brown tells a guy his PIN number!!!

But I imagine you have to be really, really good as a mentalist.

Based on what you see in that clip and nothing else, there's no "mentalist" way he could know his PIN number.

There may have been something we weren't shown before the clip was recorded, or there were "stooges" involved, or the guy was in on it. A lot of "TV Magicians" nowadays cheat by using editing and TV trickery. Or there is also the possibility of "magician's miracle" in some situations.

What happens with "magician's miracle" is that there is also a random chance that a magician can guess something once. While performing a trick, a magician simply makes a guess that he couldn't possibly know. In most cases the magician will be wrong, but that's ok because him being wrong is part of the trick and built into the patter. BUT, once in a you fluke out as a magician and guess right and then people think you performed a "miracle". If that happens, you STOP right here and proclaim that was the trick.

I once did a trick where someone picked a card from a deck of cards they were holding, then put the card into the middle of the deck, then shuffled the deck over and over again, and then put it down on the table. I then asked them to flip the card on top. When they flipped it over, I asked them "Was that your card?" and their eyes got really big.

It wasn't supposed to be their card, and the trick was supposed to continue on, but since I fluked out and actually got them to shuffle their own card to the top of the deck, I realized I hit a 'magician's miracle' moment and milked it. That guy still has no idea how I made him shuffle the cards in such a way as to put his card on top.



I'm not saying that DB is using this method here, but TV does blur a lot of lines with what is mentalism and what is just setup TV trickery.

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Based on what you see in that clip and nothing else, there's no "mentalist" way he could know his PIN number.

I'm not saying that DB is using this method here, but TV does blur a lot of lines with what is mentalism and what is just setup TV trickery.

But couldn't he watch the person's tiny eye movements, while the person involuntarily describes the number with his eyes? Or am I just being silly?

I am really curious how mentalists operate, but I really don't think he uses stoodges, otherwise, the trick would have absolutely NO appeal at all. Anyone could perform the "trick" if he knew the PIN in advance. It's the fact that everyone agrees no stoodges were used, that makes his tricks so powerful. I don't know - some of the tricks are really great, such as when he can guess when someone is lying 99.8 % of the time - I don't think it is really impossible. But if you are a mentalist, I'd be more than interested in knowing what you think are the limits of what a master mentalist can do.

What happens with "magician's miracle" is that there is also a random chance that a magician can guess something once.

I agree. But it seems pretty unlikely in certain kind of tricks.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by bluedragon

But couldn't he watch the person's tiny eye movements, while the person involuntarily describes the number with his eyes? Or am I just being silly?

I am really curious how mentalists operate, but I really don't think he uses stoodges, otherwise, the trick would have absolutely NO appeal at all. Anyone could perform the "trick" if he knew the PIN in advance. It's the fact that everyone agrees no stoodges were used, that makes his tricks so powerful. I don't know - some of the tricks are really great, such as when he can guess when someone is lying 99.8 % of the time - I don't think it is really impossible. But if you are a mentalist, I'd be more than interested in knowing what you think are the limits of what a master mentalist can do.


I agree. But it seems pretty unlikely in certain kind of tricks.

When I'm referring to the word "mentalist" I'm talking about like a magician/illusionist. There are tricks involved and they can be anything from stooges to camera tricks.

Some shows on TV are now using the words "Mentalist" as a mind-reader who can hear people's thoughts. That's more like a psychic thing, not trickery.

Darren Brown is a magician/mentalist, not a psychic. I used to run an online magic shop and studied magic with a professional magician for a few years. I think I even have Darren's book here somewhere. Trust me, the stuff he's using is "trickery" and he admits it. Of course when he's performing it's a totally different thing.

Kind of like Copperfield. He makes a car appear in front of an audience. However, he doesn't really try to claim that he REALLY made a car appear.

It's for entertainment purposes only.

If you're interested, check out Penguin Magic - All Levels - Leading Internet Magic Shop. They have some video's there of different tricks you can do. You can find some in the mentalist section that will blow your socks off. Guessing people birthdays, phone numbers, etc.

It's all tricks though...very cool tricks, but still tricks. What psychics do is totally different.

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by impaul99

When I'm referring to the word "mentalist" I'm talking about like a magician/illusionist. There are tricks involved and they can be anything from stooges to camera tricks.

I understand, but by saying that, you dismiss the fact that the magician may have any genuine skills pertaining to his craft (camera tricks are not a magician's skill, but a charlatan's). When I say mentalist skills, I refer to tricks pertaining to the mind: NLP, hypnosis, reading body language and eye movements, the subtle tones in someone's voice. Not some lousy video editing done by a computer guy. Or using a stoodge or an actor. That would dismiss the very idea that the magician is the one performing the trick, not the guys handling the camera or the actors. And it says at the beginning of every show that no stoodges or actors were used, and no video editing.

[Sologretto]

If you watch that video again the first person had really obvious hand movements. From his finger position on the "ATM" pad you could watch his fingers twitch in automatic movements. 2-4-7-3 would be my guess from that angle.

It seems like this guy focuses on manipulating circumstances to lead toward persons thinking and acting in ways that help his presentation. That's pretty talented and a HUGE knowledge base of expected actions. If dude doesn't have a Doctorate in Psychology he should be granted an honorary... :-P

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by bluedragon

I understand, but by saying that, you dismiss the fact that the magician may have any genuine skills pertaining to his craft (camera tricks are not a magician's skill, but a charlatan's). When I say mentalist skills, I refer to tricks pertaining to the mind: NLP, hypnosis, reading body language and eye movements, the subtle tones in someone's voice. Not some lousy video editing done by a computer guy. Or using a stoodge or an actor. That would dismiss the very idea that the magician is the one performing the trick, not the guys handling the camera or the actors. And it says at the beginning of every show that no stoodges or actors were used, and no video editing.

Sorry, I explained what I meant to say wrong. I'm not saying Darren has no "skills" as a magician/mentalist. He's very talented. What I was trying to say is that on TV you don't see everything he does in person.

He doesn't have to use stooges or camera tricks. All he has to really do is just not show certain things. For example, let's say I hired a camera crew to follow me around a mall. I walked up to 200 people and I asked them:

"Think of a two digit number, that's odd and the first and second digits are not the same number."

Then, I look at the person and say "Was it thirty seven?". Now, two things can happen.

(1) The person says "YES! Holy crap, how did you do that!??!?!!" and I have that on camera... or

(2) The person says "Nope." in which case I say to him "Ok, I want you to take that number in your mind right down and add the number 37 to it..." and I proceed to transition into another trick totally unrelated to it.

Anyway, so at the end of the day lets say I have 8 hours of video recorded. Now I just go back and cut down the video footage into a 30 minute segment, highlighting only the times when I was 100% correct in guessing the number or any other tricks I did where the reaction I got was so amazing.

Then if I showed someone the footage, they would be pretty impressed only seeing all the "miracles" I've created and none of the blunders.

That's what I meant by "video tricks"...not really that he edits the video with special effects to make it look like magic.

Also, one thing I've learned by studying magic is that is almost every single case, the explanation you're being led to believe is the method how he does something is actually the opposite of how he actually does something.

Meaning, if he's asking the guy to put his hand on the table and imagine an ATM and imagine typing in his pin number, you're being led to believe that the guys hands are giving away the secret, or his eyes or something like that. This is classical misdirection. In reality I would be willing to bet he's using a totally different method of getting the PIN number that doesn't require the guys hand to be on the table or any of that.

I'm not sure if you've ever been to a Copperfield show, but he does something even more amazing.

Here's a quick description:

(1) There is a box, hanging from a chain about 30 feet above the stage.
(2) Copperfield throws a beachball around the audience and it randomly selects people based on who it lands on. The audience selection process is totally random as for one of the tricks he did my wife got picked.
(3) Each person tells him a letter or a number.
(4) Once I think 6 letters/numbers are picked, they lower the box that's been hanging there the whole time.
(5) The box is opened and inside is a bag. He pulls out the bag and inside the bag is a license plate.
(6) He pulls out the license plate and it's stamped with the letters/numbers that were just picked.

People freak out.

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Sorry, I explained what I meant to say wrong. I'm not saying Darren has no "skills" as a magician/mentalist. He's very talented. What I was trying to say is that on TV you don't see everything he does in person.

I understand, I know thing like that are done sometimes. More impressive are the live shows, exactly the kind of thing you described with Copperfield. There are really amazing things being done, but I think the NLP and hypnosis stuff is the most troubling (when these are really the techniques that are being employed) - like when a hypnotist makes someone's hand go numb or makes them become terrified for no reason - those things make you question the validity of anything you see. Nothing anyone can prove to you means anything, cause there is always the possibility that they are a mentalist. That's really ♥♥♥**** with my mind right now, cause I want to be a Qigong instructor and I want to believe psychics exist, and LoA works and stuff.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by bluedragon

I understand, I know thing like that are done sometimes. More impressive are the live shows, exactly the kind of thing you described with Copperfield. There are really amazing things being done, but I think the NLP and hypnosis stuff is the most troubling (when these are really the techniques that are being employed) - like when a hypnotist makes someone's hand go numb or makes them become terrified for no reason - those things make you question the validity of anything you see. Nothing anyone can prove to you means anything, cause there is always the possibility that they are a mentalist. That's really ♥♥♥**** with my mind right now, cause I want to be a Qigong instructor and I want to believe psychics exist, and LoA works and stuff.

You're absolutely right. And it's not just "mentalists" who are using this. We are bombarded with it everywhere.

Look at TV media. They have the power to spread false beliefs so easily. When the average American household watches like 40+ hours of TV each week and they are constantly and repetitively being bombarded with "marketing" messages, that sinks right into our minds and we are totally being "programmed".

Think about it this way... have a conversation with someone and ask them some questions about something like (1) elephants (2) Egyptian Pyramids (3) Hitler (4) Jesus (5) Nascar Racing, etc.

People will give you opinions on all kinds of things... yet, they may have never seen an elephant in real life, or the pyramids, nor have they met Hitler or Jesus, or been to a Nascar Racing event.

It's almost like 95% of all of our "understanding" of the world comes from third party biased opinions.