"Believing in the unseen" can be dangerous and harmful.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Well, if you ask a psychic how would it go to pursue a career in blah blah? the answer will be something about how that would go. It's not so much yes/no but what it would be like if you did. Then you still have to decide on your own. And if you are using that information, you are basing your decision on believing in the unseen or totally giving up your power and think the psychic knows better than you.

True. I was thinking more of something like, if you ask what you should do, and the psychic brings up another possibility you've not thought of, but you say "hey, I've not thought of that but I can see the validity in it." It points out things you might have missed otherwise.

But I agree, you do have to be really careful with it and definitely not use it as a crutch.

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

He linked to an article that told of what can happen if you blindly believe what a psychic says, or base decisions on it. He said that he doesn't know if psychics are real, but that it is dangerous to base your decisions on them. It was a warning, with a very valid point.

What exactly do you find wrong with the above? If it was someone who believed in psychic ability, who made a similar post, I'm sure you would thank him/her for the warning and move along. But since it is a skeptic posting such a warning, suddenly they are trying to attack your beliefs?

First off, I'd like to apologize. My post was highly dismissive, and I probably should have explicated a bit more before writing you off.

Second, my problem is that both he and you are conflating two ideas. Yes it is dangerous to base decisions on what some random psychic off the street might tell you. But isn't it also dangerous to base decisions on what some random PERSON off the street might tell you?

What exactly does belief in the non-material have to do with this particular situation? As I've stated in my previous post, just as there have been people who have fought and killed because "Gold told them to," there have been people who have fought and killed in the name of "enlightening" societies. What difference does it make what belief set these people espouse if they are still killing?

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

First off, I'd like to apologize. My post was highly dismissive, and I probably should have explicated a bit more before writing you off.

Second, my problem is that both he and you are conflating two ideas. Yes it is dangerous to base decisions on what some random psychic off the street might tell you. But isn't it also dangerous to base decisions on what some random PERSON off the street might tell you?

What exactly does belief in the non-material have to do with this particular situation? As I've stated in my previous post, just as there have been people who have fought and killed because "Gold told them to," there have been people who have fought and killed in the name of "enlightening" societies. What difference does it make what belief set these people espouse if they are still killing?

I do agree with you.

Actually, my whole point was that people were being rather defensive just because someone questioned the reality of psychic abilities, and not even in an offensive manner. Just as people here say it is not good to be totally closed to everything, it is also not good to blindly accept anything as true, and then to attack those who are less willing to do the same.

But yes, in general, don't accept some random person's advice before researching it for yourself.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

Second, my problem is that both he and you are conflating two ideas. Yes it is dangerous to base decisions on what some random psychic off the street might tell you. But isn't it also dangerous to base decisions on what some random PERSON off the street might tell you?

The biggest difference is that you won't expect a random person on the street to know the right answers. Many people, when they go to psychics, will take what the psychic says very seriously, and they may even take life changing decisions based on what the psychic advises, thinking that he "has the answers" because of his supposed supernatural power. Same goes with religion gurus.

When you believe in someone so much that you think that if you follow all of his advices you will end up well, that's when things can get dangerous.

[coLLege kid07]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

So you must believe it is true before you can see it to be true? I.e., you are deluding yourself. You have no proof for this, I think. Further, because of the very nature of what you just said, it is unfalsifiable, because if it doesn't work, you could just say he didn't believe in it. Therefore this belief is mostly inapplicable in this context.

The above isn't to say I don't think psychics are real, nor to attack those who believe such. However, I do find it odd, and rather frightening, that people should react with anger at someone questioning something that, frankly, has no reason not to be questioned. If you believe in it, please state your evidence. If you have none, and still choose to believe in it, that is your prerogative, but don't attack those who choose not to believe things for which there is no proof. Doing so reveals that you are probably unsure of its reality yourself and/or are scared of it being proved wrong.

If you don't allow yourself for the possibility, there isn't much of a chance for another circumstance.

[coLLege kid07]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Christianity must be true, then. And Islam, and every other religion out there. The Nazis must have been right, too. Following this logic, we would still believe the earth is flat.

Yes you are right. There is some truth in alot of religions. Point was not necessarly saying that believing blindly in absolutely anything is a good idea but if you've never experienced it yourself or attempted to...why doubt it?

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by Sam988

The biggest difference is that you won't expect a random person on the street to know the right answers. Many people, when they go to psychics, will take what the psychic says very seriously, and they may even take life changing decisions based on what the psychic advises, thinking that he "has the answers" because of his supposed supernatural power. Same goes with religion gurus.

When you believe in someone so much that you think that if you follow all of his advices you will end up well, that's when things can get dangerous.

Let me pose a hypothetical situation: let's say that I am a world leader who, miraculously, comes up with proof based on careful logic and deduction that God cannot exist. I then state to all the atheists of the world that we must therefore purge the world of all non-atheists, as we cannot afford to have a world filled with people living their lives based on delusions. Some people, who think that I "have all the answers" due to my supernatural intellect, actually go through with my advice and begin to murder and ravage non-atheists.

Soon after, a man known as Dan889 posts a message on a popular internet message board, "Atheism can be dangerous and harmful" in which he points out how people who trusted me due to my superior intellect actually went through with actions that did much more harm than good. This Dan889 character then also states, "People should never make important decisions in the lives based solely on atheists' advices."

Is Dan889 misguided in his criticism of atheism?

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by coLLege kid07

If you don't allow yourself for the possibility, there isn't much of a chance for another circumstance.

Of course there is. All anyone is asking for is proof. Skeptics will accept something if there is scientific proof to back it up.

Originally Posted by coLLege kid07

Yes you are right. There is some truth in alot of religions.

How do you know? Is there some truth in the earth being flat?

Originally Posted by coLLege kid07

Point was not necessarly saying that believing blindly in absolutely anything is a good idea but if you've never experienced it yourself or attempted to...why doubt it?

why not? That's exactly what skeptics are doing. They say that it's foolish to believe in something unless there is observable, impirical, measureable evidence of it. You apparently say that you may as well believe in it, because, there's no reason not to? I say, the reason is because it probably isn't true, and can't be said to be true until it is backed up with evidence.

Let's say that I tell you the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Would you believe me? Why doubt it, right?

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

Let me pose a hypothetical situation: let's say that I am a world leader who, miraculously, comes up with proof based on careful logic and deduction that God cannot exist. I then state to all the atheists of the world that we must therefore purge the world of all non-atheists, as we cannot afford to have a world filled with people living their lives based on delusions. Some people, who think that I "have all the answers" due to my supernatural intellect, actually go through with my advice and begin to murder and ravage non-atheists.

Soon after, a man known as Dan889 posts a message on a popular internet message board, "Atheism can be dangerous and harmful" in which he points out how people who trusted me due to my superior intellect actually went through with actions that did much more harm than good. This Dan889 character then also states, "People should never make important decisions in the lives based solely on atheists' advices."

Is Dan889 misguided in his criticism of atheism?

There's quite a difference. Psychics are giving advice based on supernatural abilities that are not proven. Imagine if I came up to you and said that an alien told me last night that you should look for a new job. Would you believe me? I certainly hope not. You'd ask for proof of this meeting. Now if I told you about a specific job, you might say "hey, that's an interesting choice," and perhaps consider it, just because it was brought to your attention, but you would not say, "the guy who talked to the alien said I should go into this field, so I definitely should."

It's the same in this case. Of course, accepting random advice from anyone you don't know is foolish, but people especially seem to trust psychics because of their supposed supernatural source, and so there is a higher chance of someone trusting them than someone they just meet on the street.

That's not to say no psychic should be trusted. I think the admonition here is to take anything they say with a grain of salt, and look into it yourself and decide which is the best path for you. It may be the path they suggested, but only after you did the requisite research and found it to likely be the best path.

[coLLege kid07]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Of course there is. All anyone is asking for is proof. Skeptics will accept something if there is scientific proof to back it up.



How do you know? Is there some truth in the earth being flat?



why not? That's exactly what skeptics are doing. They say that it's foolish to believe in something unless there is observable, impirical, measureable evidence of it. You apparently say that you may as well believe in it, because, there's no reason not to? I say, the reason is because it probably isn't true, and can't be said to be true until it is backed up with evidence.

Let's say that I tell you the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Would you believe me? Why doubt it, right?



There's quite a difference. Psychics are giving advice based on supernatural abilities that are not proven. Imagine if I came up to you and said that an alien told me last night that you should look for a new job. Would you believe me? I certainly hope not. You'd ask for proof of this meeting. Now if I told you about a specific job, you might say "hey, that's an interesting choice," and perhaps consider it, just because it was brought to your attention, but you would not say, "the guy who talked to the alien said I should go into this field, so I definitely should."

It's the same in this case. Of course, accepting random advice from anyone you don't know is foolish, but people especially seem to trust psychics because of their supposed supernatural source, and so there is a higher chance of someone trusting them than someone they just meet on the street.

That's not to say no psychic should be trusted. I think the admonition here is to take anything they say with a grain of salt, and look into it yourself and decide which is the best path for you. It may be the path they suggested, but only after you did the requisite research and found it to likely be the best path.

Alright agree to disagree.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

It's really no different than any other profession in the sense of mistakes. It's safe to say that doctors do a lot more damage than psychics do when they misread a serious problem (which happens quite often).

Hello Steve,

I don't know much about the legal situation concerning psychics. I assume that doctors (if, by that you mean medical doctors trained in scientifically-based medicine with a peer-reviewed and publicly vetted structure) in your country are liable to prosecution for their mistakes. How does that compare if I get advice from a 'psychic', take it, and then try to sue them when everything turns pear shaped?

Besides which, let's rewind a moment - all that scientific study into the causes and cures of disease and so on - all the peer review process requiring strict adherence to scientific principles that something is effective (on the one hand), someone with presumably no formal training, possibly working in isolation or just backed up by their 'psychic' mates at informal get-togethers (on the other). I don't know in what sense you are using the words "really no difference".

Furthermore, could you tell me whether you think it is possible for someone to have a psychiatric dissorder or other mental confusion, and whether such a person could, theoretically, practice as a psychic? Because if we put this possibility together with the lack of scrutiny and peer accreditation - oh, did I mention the several years of hard study and exam qualifications - then I think the OP's concern is even more reasonable. While one could argue that it is possible for a doctor to be mad, all that testing and feedback in the medical system is likely to weed those people out.

As a last point, perhaps you would like to tell me how one can distinguish between a fact and a hallucination, if you have time.

[wolfgang]

ok, first assume a belief that there are spirits/guides and that people can contact them. just go with that. now, how do we know these spirits/guides know better? they could be just jerking us around too. we get a message from them and then if we take the info into our decision making we make it work by our own volition. self fulfilling prophecy. or self non-fulfilling in the case you decide based on spiritual info that doesn't really help you.

I always wonder how much power people give up when they use psychic advice. It's can be a form of not trusting yourself to feel out the situation or make a decision. Are readings thought of as a way to find a short cut or something? Or a form of trying to know something that maybe no one knows?

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

ok, first assume a belief that there are spirits/guides and that people can contact them. just go with that. now, how do we know these spirits/guides know better? they could be just jerking us around too. we get a message from them and then if we take the info into our decision making we make it work by our own volition. self fulfilling prophecy. or self non-fulfilling in the case you decide based on spiritual info that doesn't really help you.

I always wonder how much power people give up when they use psychic advice. It's can be a form of not trusting yourself to feel out the situation or make a decision. Are readings thought of as a way to find a short cut or something? Or a form of trying to know something that maybe no one knows?

I totally agree with you. That's why I think that, at most, it should be an interesting new perspective, but it shouldn't be given anymore credibility just because it is from a psychic.

[coLLege kid07]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

ok, first assume a belief that there are spirits/guides and that people can contact them. just go with that. now, how do we know these spirits/guides know better? they could be just jerking us around too. we get a message from them and then if we take the info into our decision making we make it work by our own volition. self fulfilling prophecy. or self non-fulfilling in the case you decide based on spiritual info that doesn't really help you.

I always wonder how much power people give up when they use psychic advice. It's can be a form of not trusting yourself to feel out the situation or make a decision. Are readings thought of as a way to find a short cut or something? Or a form of trying to know something that maybe no one knows?

How much power do you give away?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by coLLege kid07

How much power do you give away?

why too much
used to get lots of readings
got sick of it

[Angela]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I always wonder how much power people give up when they use psychic advice. It's can be a form of not trusting yourself to feel out the situation or make a decision.

I can only speak for myself, but my guess is that there are others in my same boat.

I've had two psychic readings in my life. One was when I was very young and I knew there was a move I had to make, but I was scared to make it, and I had a reading with someone who had gotten good reviews with the intent of shoring up my courage to make this move. She did actually give me a new perspective on the move: one of contribution rather than *getting.* What she told me could certainly have been cold reading, but in any case, it did "come true" and I was glad for the boost in my resolve to do what I already knew to do. If she had told me it was a bad idea, it wouldn't have dissuaded me from going. It might have made me more nervous about it, and that might have ended up being a good thing, who knows? It might have made me stronger. No power given away, either way.

The second was my recent reading with Erin. Curiosity and a certain affection for the psychic, along with a sense of fun experimentation and growing sense of Trust in the Universe (Trust that I am supported), led me to book this reading. I didn't know what to expect, but it was very much like talking over tea with a friend whom I've come to know as highly intuitive, loving, and supportive; someone I new would do her best to give me insight as to what's behind my head, where my eyes can't see. And sure enough, what she gave me was information and guidance that I wouldn't have even known to ask for. (I didn't have any specific questions to ask in this reading, just general impressions about a few areas in my life with nothing offered up to cold read on -- just a dry list: contribution, relationship, mom.) It's likely that Erin is absolutely able to do a cold reading on me based on what she knows of me here, which is substantial. And if she is doing that, that's alright with me, because as I mentioned, I trust her to treat me with love and support. It doesn't rob me of power to ask for and receive love and support from a highly intuitive person, even if I am willing to fork over cold hard cash for it. In a way, paying her sort of helps -- it takes her out a little further, perspective-wise, so that she can provide an even broader and less biased view than what my close friends might give me.

So, where's the danger? I just don't see it. Maybe the fear is that people are stupid sheep who will follow a psychic's evil instructions for nefarious purpose? Probably. But I reckon anyone who falls into the stupid sheep evil-instruction following nefarious purposeful people will find someone to fall into the hands of, if an evil psychic doesn't show up. And I think most people have better sense than that. It's a good idea to be careful about whose advice you follow, but that doesn't mean people who offer advice are inherently dangerous.

Plus, a little Darwinism never hurt anybody!

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

So, where's the danger? I just don't see it.

It’s fine getting love and support from someone you already know and trust, and being strong enough inside to know what you’re getting into, but if you have some emotional problem, such as anxiety, would you trust a complete stranger and give them your money?

I have once or twice out of curiosity and I wasn’t impressed. I would have got a better 'reading' talking to the postman.

The ‘danger’ is – it’s the emotionally vulnerable who are more likely to be searching for a psychic, and thus more likely to find an unscrupulous or inexperienced one.

Are there any controls in place? Where is the come-back if things go wrong and you are left in a worse state than before?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

So, where's the danger? I just don't see it. Maybe the fear is that people are stupid sheep who will follow a psychic's evil instructions for nefarious purpose? Probably. But I reckon anyone who falls into the stupid sheep evil-instruction following nefarious purposeful people will find someone to fall into the hands of, if an evil psychic doesn't show up.

Ah, the defense on the grounds that if this person isn't damaging or dangerous, somebody else will destroy the stupid people anyway.

And I think most people have better sense than that.

Good. And we'll just ignore the fate of those who are vulnerable, perhaps through not being too bright. Stupid people are just stupid and there's no point in education or protection for people who can't be educated to the point where they can look after themselves, I suppose?

It's a good idea to be careful about whose advice you follow, but that doesn't mean people who offer advice are inherently dangerous.

The first statement, I think, is the same proposition as the OP. The second was never implied, but presumably must already be known by the OP, or they would not have given advice.

Plus, a little Darwinism never hurt anybody!

I expected better of you than this. I can picture you now standing on a railway platform somewhere in western europe in the early 1940s, discussing the benefit to the human gene pool of ridding itself of 6 million people who were too weak or stupid to defend themselves from genocide. Despite the clearly dangerous political implications, it would be a rational and scientific proposition, and an interesting sociological one that no doubt some have discussed, but neither does it preclude the business of looking at the perpetrator's role and working to understand and avoid how people like Hitler come to power and 'inspire' (for definite want of a better word) thousands of people to hatred and murder - the active side of the causal relationship.

Now, I know I'm taking an extreme example, but I don't quite know how else to understand this 'Darwinist' point (unless it was just a regrettable flight of humour, and you know, it is kind of funny how stupidly some people kill themselves, if you like that kind of humour). Relating it to the discussion, it seems to back up your other point and in summary is: to hell with the stupid people. Why should I give a crap if they're conned?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

I can only speak for myself, but my guess is that there are others in my same boat.

I've had two psychic readings in my life. One was when I was very young and I knew there was a move I had to make, but I was scared to make it, and I had a reading with someone who had gotten good reviews with the intent of shoring up my courage to make this move. She did actually give me a new perspective on the move: one of contribution rather than *getting.* What she told me could certainly have been cold reading, but in any case, it did "come true" and I was glad for the boost in my resolve to do what I already knew to do. If she had told me it was a bad idea, it wouldn't have dissuaded me from going. It might have made me more nervous about it, and that might have ended up being a good thing, who knows? It might have made me stronger. No power given away, either way.

No power given away either way? This is what I wonder. How did it give you courage? You had to believe the new perspective on the move. You got stronger how? By having the psychic say something to you. Now, if you were one to want more courage and continued to get readings, that would be different. Imagine doing that for everything you didn't have enough courage for. Would that feel like not giving power away? Then, you aren't one that got tons of readings. However, there are many that do jump from psychic to psychic.

The second was my recent reading with Erin. Curiosity and a certain affection for the psychic, along with a sense of fun experimentation and growing sense of Trust in the Universe (Trust that I am supported), led me to book this reading. I didn't know what to expect, but it was very much like talking over tea with a friend whom I've come to know as highly intuitive, loving, and supportive; someone I new would do her best to give me insight as to what's behind my head, where my eyes can't see. And sure enough, what she gave me was information and guidance that I wouldn't have even known to ask for. (I didn't have any specific questions to ask in this reading, just general impressions about a few areas in my life with nothing offered up to cold read on -- just a dry list: contribution, relationship, mom.) It's likely that Erin is absolutely able to do a cold reading on me based on what she knows of me here, which is substantial. And if she is doing that, that's alright with me, because as I mentioned, I trust her to treat me with love and support. It doesn't rob me of power to ask for and receive love and support from a highly intuitive person, even if I am willing to fork over cold hard cash for it. In a way, paying her sort of helps -- it takes her out a little further, perspective-wise, so that she can provide an even broader and less biased view than what my close friends might give me.

Sounds harmless, ha? Curiosity killed the cat. just kidding. I know some people can make readings work for them. I couldn't. She must have a disclaimer somewhere that it's for entertainment purposes, as many do. But then, the connotation is that getting information or a perspective is going to help you. but there is no guarantee.

So, where's the danger? I just don't see it. Maybe the fear is that people are stupid sheep who will follow a psychic's evil instructions for nefarious purpose? Probably. But I reckon anyone who falls into the stupid sheep evil-instruction following nefarious purposeful people will find someone to fall into the hands of, if an evil psychic doesn't show up. And I think most people have better sense than that. It's a good idea to be careful about whose advice you follow, but that doesn't mean people who offer advice are inherently dangerous.

of coarse it's down to the individual to trust themselves more - but getting readings might be a way to put trust into another person to tell you some perspective that you didn't have on your own. I think the trap is when the individual is chasing something that getting readings seem to provide. And when there are too many readings being done - and this can even be with a person doing I-Ching or tarot on their own. It comes from not trusting yourself to know what to do, I think. Then these types of people place their trust in tools or readings instead of just deciding and taking actions. However, I wonder that even one or two readings is a partial delving into trusting something/someone else.

Plus, a little Darwinism never hurt anybody!

there are people that are struggling to get out the trap of excessive psychic readings. they believed something and then spent way too much money getting readings almost hourly. I was partially down that road, so I write from that perspective. there is a danger, glad you don't see it. I wonder how many readings Erin takes from people that are already in some mode of excessive readings. She might not know. Or her readings might actually show up as a message to the sitter - "stop getting readings" and shut them out. But they just find another psychic to read for them.

There are sites that pool tons of readers that can be contacted immediately with some sort of call back or on line chats. Instant gratifications. It is literally insane that side of the business. People use those lines as a way to have somebody to talk to while tossing money out the window and eroding their ability to trust their own instincts or to let go of something or to find their own intuitions. Which is kind of ironic, because it is typically thought that getting readings make you stronger. They can make one get more stuck. that happened to me.

It's like the LoA when you keep badgering psychics with the same questions of "issues" that is the focus and generates the same state from the universe. Although, sometimes I think I needed all those readings to vent a bunch of junk I was going through - but maybe should have been talking to a therapist instead. That could be part of the trap, people unknowingly using psychics are therapists, when they aren't. but if that psychic business wasn't there, I probably would have let go and started trusting myself sooner.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

No power given away either way? This is what I wonder. How did it give you courage? You had to believe the new perspective on the move. You got stronger how? By having the psychic say something to you. Now, if you were one to want more courage and continued to get readings, that would be different. Imagine doing that for everything you didn't have enough courage for. Would that feel like not giving power away? Then, you aren't one that got tons of readings. However, there are many that do jump from psychic to psychic.

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't go to this psychic so that she would *give* me courage; I went to shore up my courage (in part. also for fun.) I knew even then that generating things like courage was 100% my responsibility. It's not that I didn't have enough courage to do what I knew I had to do; as I mentioned, I was going to do it regardless of anything she said.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't go to this psychic so that she would *give* me courage; I went to shore up my courage (in part. also for fun.) I knew even then that generating things like courage was 100% my responsibility. It's not that I didn't have enough courage to do what I knew I had to do; as I mentioned, I was going to do it regardless of anything she said.

What's the difference between "to shore up my courage" and "she would *give* me courage"?

Also, you were going to do it no matter what she said - so why get the reading? OK, for entertainment or fun, right? That seems harmless. I'm glad you know how to approach having readings. You maybe an exception. I don't know. Maybe statistically there are more people like I was - that didn't know how to use readings properly. And I have a biased viewpoint, because I view any kind of "reading" with a filter of my experience of spinning out of control with getting tons of readings. There's a demand for customers like that. That's why psychics can charge so much.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Ah, the defense on the grounds that if this person isn't damaging or dangerous, somebody else will destroy the stupid people anyway.

Yes. Something will get everybody, in the end.

Good. And we'll just ignore the fate of those who are vulnerable, perhaps through not being too bright. Stupid people are just stupid and there's no point in education or protection for people who can't be educated to the point where they can look after themselves, I suppose?

Well, I will, anyway. I am resting assured that you are looking out for them, and I trust you to be diligent and unstoppable in that.

I expected better of you than this. Now, I know I'm taking an extreme example, but I don't quite know how else to understand this 'Darwinist' point (unless it was just a regrettable flight of humour, and you know, it is kind of funny how stupidly some people kill themselves, if you like that kind of humour).

Yes, the little winky smiley indicates that it is indeed a regrettable flight of humor (except I don't regret it ). I do find the that kind of humor very funny. Part of the reason I find it funny in this context is that I am amused by the indefatigable commitment on some people's part to taking everything extremely seriously, and that everyone else should do the same.

But wait -- doesn't your Bhuddist practice mean letting go of expectations?

Relating it to the discussion, it seems to back up your other point and in summary is: to hell with the stupid people. Why should I give a crap if they're conned?

People learn what they're ready to learn when they're ready to learn it, as I see it, and I am willing to grant them the freedom to be conned, if that's what's there for them.

Anyway, I think maybe you think people are far more stupid than I do. So I will leave the fretting to you.

And once again, thanks for quoting me!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

What's the difference between "to shore up my courage" and "she would *give* me courage"?.

One is me internally generating it, using a tool or resource, and the other is seeking or expecting to extract it from an external source.

As a parallel, I go to a party with the intention of generating connection and fun; I don't go there to *get* connection and fun. Or, I am in my relationship with Danger Man with the commitment to generating growth, love, sexiness, freedom, and some other stuff, not to get those things from him. Both of these -- the party or the relationship -- are tools, not sources. I can still generate the ways of being in other ways, if the party or the relationship were not available.

Same with being conned, I suppose. If what someone needs to learn is something related to being conned or taken advantage of (like: trust, strength, focus, etc.), then if a con-artist-psychic is not available, then they'll find another tool () for their purpose. And for people whose lesson involves outrage or protest, then they won't be limited to outrage and protest about the c.a.p.'s -- there's always something around to be outraged about and to protest against.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

She must have a disclaimer somewhere that it's for entertainment purposes, as many do.

Hmmm. Anyone know the answer to that?

It's like the LoA when you keep badgering psychics with the same questions of "issues" that is the focus and generates the same state from the universe. Although, sometimes I think I needed all those readings to vent a bunch of junk I was going through - but maybe should have been talking to a therapist instead. That could be part of the trap, people unknowingly using psychics are therapists, when they aren't. but if that psychic business wasn't there, I probably would have let go and started trusting myself sooner.

As an ex-therapist, I can tell you that the question of dependence on therapists and how to avoid clients giving their power away are big ones at the moment. The Person Centred Approach is intended to put the emphasis on listening, and many PC Therapists would refuse to give any advice at all, just trying to help clients identify and work through issues in their own way. Even so, there is great controversy about how able we are to do this, since we tend to give away our hopes and wishes for the client in subtle ways, like when we ask a question, what questions we might ask, and whether we let issues just slide or react to them and follow those lines of thinking. A psychic seems almost like the opposite - almost everything they say I would expect would be a statement, mostly directive or at least suggesting directions, decisions and so on, though I have to admit to little experience of them personally.

I could also speak in favour of them if their statements were taken without trust and were vague enough, since we as clients can do the same thing (this is our part in cold reading) - choose how we are going to interpret a statement and whether we're going to follow that line of thought. If a reader says "You're really quite creative, but you don't seem to be making the most of your creativity at the moment", it can be very helpful practically. It is vague enough to fit most people, and the client might well say "Yeah, I've often thought I should do some more painting". That can improve their life. They could also ignore it if they're not at all bothered about being creative or any more creative than they already are, and wait for something else. I guarantee that absolutely random statements taken from a list (preferably fairly positive and vague) could help believers and non-believers alike. I've used the 'random selection' process myself with clients in purely therapeutic ways: someone is stuck for what they need to talk about or how they want to change. "Say a word at random", I say, and in 5 minutes they're off, using a relatively random seed to grow ideas from. They could of course be deeply unconscious messages, but I'm pretty sure that's not the operative point.

So I don't have any problem with psychic readings often being useful to people, it's just that there are other problems, as you point out. The OP link demonstrates that there are seriously dangerous problems. If that girl's life had not been monitored audibly, the random statement (in this case very negative, an allegation of child abuse of a person whose name began with V) could have been elaborated to who knows what lengths.

I would be happy for a psychic to advertise her/his services as therapy, rather than entertainment, if they also said that they could just be making their ideas up, hitting upon them at random or with a certain amount of cues from the client, and genuinely helped the client to recognise their own responsibility for how they use those ideas (which also depends on a reasonable assessment of their autonomy generally*). Of course, they don't. Most of them, I imagine, believe that they are psychic and are obtaining valid information from 'other realms' or 'spirit guides' or whatever. Since there is no evidence whatsoever of other realms or spirits, perhaps as modern societies we should put more legal requirements on faith healers, psychic readers and the like. After all, in the USA, your therapists have had to be accredited for a long time, and have to abide by codes of ethics. Are there any for psychics and mediums?

*In my experience, I have had many clients who nodded in all the right places when I talked about their autonomy and making their own decisions, carefully pointing out that my observations were just that, designed to help them think and discuss issues, not advice, pronouncements, etc., but still amazed me by how they absorbed my view of them and modeled themselves on it. It is not uncommon for a therapist to go through a session in this careful way, the client apparently making their own decisions, only to have them return the next week to say something like "Well, I tried what you suggested and it didn't work at all/ worked wonders!"

[newmark]

John; are your objections to psychic readings due to your belief that they can't possibly be true, 'because all of this stuff is nonsense'?
Or do you just object to the lack of certified training courses, licensing etc?
And do you really think any amount of regulation will protect those without any commonsense from being conned by others?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by newmark

John; are your objections to psychic readings due to your belief that they can't possibly be true, 'because all of this stuff is nonsense'?
Or do you just object to the lack of certified training courses, licensing etc?
And do you really think any amount of regulation will protect those without any commonsense from being conned by others?

Good questions. I don't think they can't possibly be true. I think they're a lot of old twaddle. I believe there is absolutely no valid evidence for psychic powers and a great deal of evidence that their appearance is persuasive to people unless they know how to recognise how that happens.

I don't know how to answer the regulation point. I think it's a matter for democratic decision how we regulate doctors, healers, conjurors, stage hypnotists, etc., and I don't know what's in place already. I'm sure in some cases the law can be useful retrospectively, but considering how many 'psychics' there are and how many people use them, they ought to be regulated in how they present themselves. I can't get into details without the background. These days, our political decisions on such matters are more often informed by the scientific viewpoint than they used to be, and there are sometimes great strengths in that. I'm not saying that we should make all our policies according to that, and we should also try to protect the freedom of people to believe different things, like magick, LoA, spirits and so on, and to go to alternative practitioners of many kinds. There need to be some distinctions made about what we accept as a society and what we don't, in any field, and how to protect vulnerable people from harm is part of that.

Just to say that people aren't stupid or that something's going to get them in the end, sorry Angela, seems irresponsible to me, and I'll accept the accusation of being too serious if it just means wanting to discuss these issues and having a moral opinion.

It's a bit like if someone were selling 'miracle cure' medicine on the street. You'd have to look into the rights and responsibilities and freedoms of the seller, the buyer and the general public, but might want to check what's actually in the bottle, whether all reasonable means of detection turn up anything healing in there or not, or whether the guy is just filling his bottles up from a muddly puddle.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Just to say that people aren't stupid or that something's going to get them in the end, sorry Angela, seems irresponsible to me, and I'll accept the accusation of being too serious if it just means wanting to discuss these issues and having a moral opinion.

Yes, I understand that having a moral opinion is very important to you, and that you feel mine is irresponsible.

It's not "just" that people aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are, though, and it's not "just" that something's going to get them in the end, regardless of your moral opinion or mine. Other factors include (but are not limited to) the idea that you morally equate the need for some kind of governmental oversight of "psychics" as the same as it would be for doctors or therapists, and I equate it more with going to a Reiki healer or Pat Collins, the Hip Hypnotist or the Free Will Astrologer. I don't need my Reiki healer or my hip hypnotist or the free will astrologer to meet any government standards, but apparently you do. Like you say, if there was some democratic call for government supervision of these things, I'm fine with that. But I don't need it, and I find it very funny that anyone would. I would find it amusing, I think, to watch them try, and then to watch people going to "underground" non-certified psychics, and to watch those outlaws and their johns get led away to jail in handcuffs. But I understand that you take it very seriously, and you would prefer it if everyone else did, too. Oh, well.

Good for you, though, and best wishes in protecting the hapless!

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yes, I understand that having a moral opinion is very important to you, and that you feel mine is irresponsible.

Like you say, if there was some democratic call for government supervision of these things, I'm fine with that. But I don't need it, and I find it very funny that anyone would. I would find it amusing, I think, to watch them try, and then to watch people going to "underground" non-certified psychics, and to watch those outlaws and their johns get led away to jail in handcuffs. But I understand that you take it very seriously, and you would prefer it if everyone else did, too. Oh, well.

Good for you, though, and best wishes in protecting the hapless!

There's a whole psychic reading industry that is out of control. There are tons of people losing their shirt while unknowingly thinking getting readings will help. The industry exists because people want readings while they are in a low point in their life and end up needing continuous readings to try to get out of their low. But instead of coming out of the low, the readings seal in a downward spiral. It's a particular type of person that ends up in this trap. It is an addiction. People fall prey to it as the industry chews them up. The service of this industry is in high demand and readers get to charge a lot of $$. It just makes me wonder, if readings are supposed to help - how come there's this out of control industry around it?

[Angela]

There's a whole "out-of-control" industry around gambling, too, and many people lose all kinds of money with their gambling addiction. What kind of supervision could be put in place that would protect people from their own gambling addiction? Maybe whatever you come up with, you would want to impose the same sort of restriction on the "psychic industry."

Personally, I don't feel the need to intercede or put restrictions on gambling companies or psychics (or fast food, for that matter). My feeling is that individuals can choose whether or not to partake, and if they must experience a lesson that yields consequences they perceive as harsh, I don't begrudge them that. And if the lesson includes someone being active for social regulation, that's fine, too -- as John mentioned, we've got this democracy that will consider the pros and cons and take the right action. I don't see anyone around here doing that yet, but I'll follow it with interest if I ever do!

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Angela

There's a whole "out-of-control" industry around gambling, too, and many people lose all kinds of money with their gambling addiction.

You're right to equate the psychic industry with gambling (not sure if you intended that however). Going to a psychic is certainly a gamble. Not only do you risk losing your shirt, but your marbles as well!

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

There's a whole "out-of-control" industry around gambling, too, and many people lose all kinds of money with their gambling addiction. What kind of supervision could be put in place that would protect people from their own gambling addiction? Maybe whatever you come up with, you would want to impose the same sort of restriction on the "psychic industry."

I think it is more about awareness that getting readings under certain stresses might lead to a flaring up of addictive behavior. It is not normally known this is the case.

Personally, I don't feel the need to intercede or put restrictions on gambling companies or psychics (or fast food, for that matter). My feeling is that individuals can choose whether or not to partake, and if they must experience a lesson that yields consequences they perceive as harsh, I don't begrudge them that. And if the lesson includes someone being active for social regulation, that's fine, too -- as John mentioned, we've got this democracy that will consider the pros and cons and take the right action. I don't see anyone around here doing that yet, but I'll follow it with interest if I ever do!

I guess I'm thinking individuals should be aware that gambling can be addictive and also getting readings. People can do what they want but sometimes knowing what it can lead to makes for better choices for them, and less "school of hard knocks" lessons. Like cigarettes. Public knowledge of health issues is very high and that probably has helped people decide not to smoke.

If it was more public knowledge that people get addicted to readings then, if you know you have some addictive behavior - watch out for getting readings that get you all excited and thinking about when to get another reading, especially after some sort of high about the reading wares off.