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

[Erin Pavlina]

I feel like jumping in at this point simply to point out that while a lot of people out there do become psychic junkies, going from one psychic to another and who can't take action until they check their every move with their psychic, that these people are not the only ones who get readings.

99% of the people who sign up with me are highly aware, highly functioning individuals who seek greater clarity about issues in their lives for which they've become a little fogged or unclear. They use their time with me to get confirmation or a second opinion on issues that are important to them. I'm very lucky to attract these kinds of people.

I turn away people who try to book a reading with me every week or every month. I'm not going to feed their addiction. And my clients ask really wonderful questions, not "Am I going to win the lottery?" or "Is it true my soulmate is a third deacon Pisces who I used to live in Atlantis with?" And the like...

When my clients ask me when it's appropriate to book another reading I tell them "Only after you've totally exhausted all the advice you get from this reading, and then only if you can't figure it out on your own or you're really torn between two paths and you want more infomration about what's going to happen on those paths."

So while I agree that there are plenty of so-called psychics who prey upon people who love to give their power away, let's not forget those of us who seek to empower their clients and give them the tools to do their own readings. Please.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

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.

Well, then I think you're doing a good thing by speaking up about your concerns -- so that people who can hear you will think twice about how much power and responsibility they are bearing and giving away when the consult a psychic. And, there are plenty of people who won't hear you -- there are people who need to go to Hard Knocks School no matter what you say, which is fine.

[John Freestone]

Thanks, Erin, I'm glad an actual worker in this field could step in. I do appreciate that you and many other readers may practice with a certain degree of care. I am still concerned, however, that, to my understanding, the statements and opinions you share with clients are imaginary ones, since I don't believe in supernatural powers. I appreciate also that you will believe that you are psychic and that there is a sound basis for the advice you give clients, and an argument on the point would probably be rather fruitless.

It seems both generous of you to admit the facts I've highlighted in your text, and rather worrying that you don't say anything further about the people concerned, just passing on to the nice happy bits:

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

I feel like jumping in at this point simply to point out that while a lot of people out there do become psychic junkies, going from one psychic to another and who can't take action until they check their every move with their psychic, that these people are not the only ones who get readings.

99% of the people who sign up with me are highly aware, highly functioning individuals who seek greater clarity about issues in their lives for which they've become a little fogged or unclear. They use their time with me to get confirmation or a second opinion on issues that are important to them. I'm very lucky to attract these kinds of people.

I turn away people who try to book a reading with me every week or every month. I'm not going to feed their addiction. And my clients ask really wonderful questions, not "Am I going to win the lottery?" or "Is it true my soulmate is a third deacon Pisces who I used to live in Atlantis with?" And the like...

When my clients ask me when it's appropriate to book another reading I tell them "Only after you've totally exhausted all the advice you get from this reading, and then only if you can't figure it out on your own or you're really torn between two paths and you want more infomration about what's going to happen on those paths."

So while I agree that there are plenty of so-called psychics who prey upon people who love to give their power away, let's not forget those of us who seek to empower their clients and give them the tools to do their own readings. Please.

You end by asking us not to forget those who seek to empower their clients. The problem is you aren't forgotten; readers are presumably quite able to get clients, whether caring or a predator. The lucky clients aren't forgotten either, they're being taken care of by their caring readers. I'm shocked you should make this emotional appeal that we don't forget the good and the fortunate. Anybody been left out? After recognising that there are a lot of junkies and plenty of predators, is there anything that can be done about it? Do you have any recommendations? What went wrong in the case linked to in the OP? What goes wrong when someone becomes a junkie (or a predator, for that matter)?

I notice that you say that these predatorial so-called 'psychics' prey upon 'people who love to give their power away'. If they love to give their power away, maybe that means they're getting what they want? Don't you think there are at least some who want to keep their power, would love to be more empowered, but are vulnerable, perhaps by being rather dim?

If it was dentists who were preying on the vulnerable, and a lot of people bleeding at the mouth, and dentists were not regulated, perhaps you would find it less than completely pertinent if one nice dentist wrote that she looked after her clients very well, and please, spare a thought for the good ones.

Are you required to say that your services are for entertainment purposes only? What other restrictions and obligations are you under?

[Anna Conlan]

If it was dentists who were preying on the vulnerable, and a lot of people bleeding at the mouth, and dentists were not regulated, perhaps you would find it less than completely pertinent if one nice dentist wrote that she looked after her clients very well, and please, spare a thought for the good ones.

Are you required to say that your services are for entertainment purposes only? What other restrictions and obligations are you under?

It's not quite the same...

When you're in the dentist's chair, you're vulnerable and you have little control over what happens. When you're getting a reading, you are in control. If a psychic tells you that you were abused as a child and you know it's not true, then you discard it and you don't go back. You may feel disturbed or angry, but you don't come out with injuries.

You're overlooking the fact that clients ARE in control of their lives, even if they appear to be addicted. Everyone has free will and must take responsibility for their actions.

Yes, psychics can get regulated and can state on their website that their readings are for entertainment purposes. Psychics are required (at least in the UK) to state that they're not genuine, which is sad but is a necessary precaution to take. Those who consult psychics are usually believers in psychic phenomena and see past those legal disclaimers The client knows that readings are clearly not for entertainment purposes - after all they are consulting the psychic because they believe the guidance is genuine!

And yes, we want to regulate the crooks and get rid of them, but good psychics should not suffer in the process or take responsibility for people who are in the habit of giving away their power.

[newmark]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

It just makes me wonder, if readings are supposed to help - how come there's this out of control industry around it?

A great many people visit doctors every day. This does not mean that doctors don't benefit people. The psychic 'industry' has existed since ancient times because many people want this information.
I don't think more and more regulation is the answer. Regulation can go too far. We could regulate or increase regulations regarding fast food, gambling, alcohol, smoking and the health and safety aspects of just about everything. This is already happening.
Some regulation is useful, but too much stifles people. Children's playgrounds have been dismantled in the UK due to safety concerns; so now children in those areas have an opportunity to play taken away from them. With psychic readings, if you regulate and restrict it will take away, or reduce, the services which many people want.

[Erin Pavlina]

Hi John, I only asked that people not forget those who seek to empower their clients because it seemed like the assumption is that all psychics are out to enslave their clients by making them dependent on their advice. So I just wanted to clear that up.

As for other industries, you're going to find people who take advantage of their clients and people who don't. Whether it's a psychologist who prolongs a person's recovery so they can make a few extra bucks, a doctor who orders tests a patient doesn't need in order to earn more money, a lawyer who over bills his clients, or a mechanic who tells a woman she needs new brakes when she doesn't because he knows he can scare her into buying new ones through her ignorance. I don't think we need regulation. We need to raise our future generations not to swindle people, and we need to educate people today to beware of these things, and we need to empower people to take full responsibility for their choices.

But we definitely don't want to go around saying, "All psychologists are swindlers" or "All mechanics are crooks" or what not. That would not be aligned with truth. And then if we start drawing conclusions based on incorrect assumptions we lose.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

As for other industries, you're going to find people who take advantage of their clients and people who don't.

I think it’s a sign of the times. The market is there – supply and demand, like when there is a housing boom and loads of estate agents appear, many of whom are a bit dodgy. Then, when the boom recedes, the bad ones go out of business.

Many pro-psychic people say that being psychic is natural and that everyone has the ability. That may well be true and would explain why there are so many offering their services. Anyone who is a good communicator could become a successful psychic, or whatever the new, variant term is (intuitive consultant?).

If you are any good at listening, interpreting body language, emotional tones in the voice, etc., then maybe you should consider it as a career choice!

Might give it a go myself. I seem to be picking up a lot of emotional vibes from these posts!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Hi John, I only asked that people not forget those who seek to empower their clients because it seemed like the assumption is that all psychics are out to enslave their clients by making them dependent on their advice. So I just wanted to clear that up.

Sure, I see.

As for other industries, you're going to find people who take advantage of their clients and people who don't. Whether it's a psychologist who prolongs a person's recovery so they can make a few extra bucks, a doctor who orders tests a patient doesn't need in order to earn more money, a lawyer who over bills his clients, or a mechanic who tells a woman she needs new brakes when she doesn't because he knows he can scare her into buying new ones through her ignorance. I don't think we need regulation. We need to raise our future generations not to swindle people, and we need to educate people today to beware of these things, and we need to empower people to take full responsibility for their choices.

You know what, I agree. Before I retired from therapy I was actively arguing against the regulation of therapists in the UK, which will no doubt go ahead anyway, and for some of the same reasons, and a lot of people are arguing that of course we need to regulate therapists and it's a scandal that they aren't already (as they are in the USA). I'm a bit surprised at the difference of viewpoint, and can only put it down to bias, because I 'believe' in therapy and don't believe in psychic reading. It was a knee-jerk reaction and probably not helpful. As you said, regulate the proper ones and there will develop a worse (opps, sorry, you know what I mean) illegal industry.

I still have concerns that I was wrong about therapy and they need regulating as well (always did), but on balance I think it would increase the dangers, and I have argued long and passionately on the subject. It's maybe rather different, but the main reason in therapy, for me, is that if all therapists are government regulated, it only adds to the public conception of them as actively curing a person, rather than helping them use their own facilities and improve themselves. It's different, because I see directive advice as a mainstay of reading (I'm avoiding the p-word, you may have noticed), and therefore giving your power away as a client is more of a natural process and inherent in it, imho, whereas most therapy has autonomy pretty central in its aims. There is also a lot of training you are expected to have, though someone can practise with none at all.

I'm also concerned that in my arguments about therapy, and in yours here, the concerns about the vulnerable and crooks are offset by an appeal to general education and bringing up wiser children, yet these things don't seem to get taken on publicly. It would, of course, be difficult for us to agree on what education means in terms of p... readers, since I would advocate a much more sceptical, though still pluralistic, agenda. Part of what it means to raise wiser children, to me, is raising children who are not superstitious and less inclined to fall into the natural human errors of magical thinking, but I'm sure you can guess my views and won't labour the point here.

But we definitely don't want to go around saying, "All psychologists are swindlers" or "All mechanics are crooks" or what not. That would not be aligned with truth. And then if we start drawing conclusions based on incorrect assumptions we lose.

No, and I have no wish to wipe readers off the face of the planet or tie them up in red tape either, but I would have to say that all so-called 'psychics' are either swindlers or (probably much more commonly) wrong. You suggest that to say that you're all crooks 'would not be aligned with truth', and that if we draw 'conclusions based on incorrect assumptions we lose', but that raises the question of how we reach correct conclusions about things, and (to me and millions of intelligent people) science is one rather well established method (by which I mean a very broad process of public examination of propositions, experimentation and discussion, and not assuming that forces, entities and human abilities exist for which there is very little or no consistent evidence). I'm not sure, without this public comparison of personal experience, how we can ascertain what are and are not 'conclusions based on incorrect assumptions'.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Before I retired from therapy I was actively arguing against the regulation of therapists in the UK, which will no doubt go ahead anyway, and for some of the same reasons, and a lot of people are arguing that of course we need to regulate therapists and it's a scandal that they aren't already (as they are in the USA).

John, apparently some new laws have been implemented here. I don't know if anyone has successfully prosecuted a fortune teller for being misled. I imagine it would now be even more difficult, if they are now covered by the caveat, 'For entertainment only'.

From Times Online, 23/5/08:

The fortune-tellers, at least, must have seen it coming. The biggest overhaul of consumer laws for 40 years takes effect on Monday, tightening controls on everything from door-to-door salesmen to children’s advertising.

Fortune-tellers and astrologists will be bracketed with double-glazing salesmen under the new Consumer Protection Regulations. The changes, which implement an EU directive on unfair commercial practices, require businesses for the first time to act fairly towards consumers and will outlaw diresputable trading activities.

Fortune-tellers will have to tell customers that what they offer is “for entertainment only” and not “experimentally proven”. This means that a fortune-teller who sets up a tent at a funfair will have to put up a disclaimer on a board outside.

Similar disclaimers will need to be posted on the websites of faith healers, spiritualists or mediums where appropriate, as well as on invoices and at the top of any printed terms and conditions.

Andy Millmore, a partner at the law firm Harbottle & Lewis in London, said: “What is significant is the sweeping nature of the regulations. They will effectively criminalise actions that might in the past have escaped legal censure, even if they may perhaps have been covered by industry voluntary codes.

“Personalised services may also come under scrutiny. A tarot pack reader, for instance, cannot just pick one of several templates – it would have to be a proper reading designed for that person.”

Claims to secure good fortune, contact the dead or heal through the laying-on of hands are all services that will also have to carry disclaimers, other lawyers say. “You could argue that this is no different from promises given by the Church of Eternal Life, which people pay for, in the sense that they feel obliged to give to the collection,” one said. “It’s no more proven.”

Mr Millmore said that the changes created a lower test for prosecution. “Before, a prosecution had to show that there was a false or misleading trade description. Now the test is, is it an unfair commercial trade practice? So we are likely to see more prosecutions,” he said.

The new test would also take account of the context of the sale, he said. If the target were an elderly or vulnerable person, the courts would take a harsher view. “If my aged grandmother lets in a double-glazing seller, and he presses her to make a sale, that would probably constitute an ‘aggressive practice’ and be criminalised.”

The rules state that anyone offering a service must not engage in unfair commercial practice, misleading statement or omission or aggressive sales practice. This would criminalise practices such as “closing down” sales that aren’t, limited time offers that then last longer and false testimonials left on websites.

Those who break the new laws, which will be enforced by the Office of Fair Trading or trading standards officers, will face fines of up to £5,000 if their case is heard in a magistrates’ courts or a fine and up to two years in jail if the case is severe enough to be heard in the Crown Court.

The new regulations also include a blacklist of 31 activities, which include claiming falsely to have signed up to an approved code of conduct; advertising a product at a cheap price, knowing there is insufficient stock to meet demand, so-called bait advertising; making customers think that they cannot leave without signing; and suggesting in children’s advertising that not buying a product would leave a child disadvantaged.

The Spiritualist Workers’ Association attacked the changes, saying on its website: “We do not believe we are conducting a scientific experiment. To have to stand up and say so is a denial of our beliefs. It is also sending out a message that we do not believe what we are saying and doing.”

Lyn Guest de Swarte, a clairvoyant, said: “It’s like trying to regulate God.”

Mr Millmore’s view is that fortune-tellers will not be the main target. “The double-glazing sellers who go for elderly ladies – it’s in those areas that people would expect the new laws to bite,” he said.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Anna Conlan

It's not quite the same...

When you're in the dentist's chair, you're vulnerable and you have little control over what happens. When you're getting a reading, you are in control.

If only that were true. I'm not convinced at all.

If a psychic tells you that you were abused as a child and you know it's not true, then you discard it and you don't go back. You may feel disturbed or angry, but you don't come out with injuries.

Perhaps you didn't read the link in the OP? Perhaps also you don't know about the scandal in psychotherapy, from Freud onwards, regarding the false conclusions of child abuse that therapists divine from imaginary cues?

You're overlooking the fact that clients ARE in control of their lives, even if they appear to be addicted. Everyone has free will and must take responsibility for their actions.

We can dispute 'facts' if you like. Who must take responsibility for their own actions? Everyone? What about the very distressed and vulnerable, the intellectually challenged or whatever the pc term is these days, those with mental illness, children, people who have been brought up to be superstitious and don't know any science? I would bet that a significant number of clients of readers are vulnerable, superstitious, inexperienced in life, depressed, mentally ill, physically ill, stressed out, etc. The lack of boundaries of your argument seem to lead to strange conclusions, like the argument that people walk willingly into concentration camps and gas chambers. Discrimination is the beginning of wisdom. Bland principles chucked about are what causes half the bleedin problem.

Yes, psychics can get regulated and can state on their website that their readings are for entertainment purposes. Psychics are required (at least in the UK) to state that they're not genuine, which is sad but is a necessary precaution to take. Those who consult psychics are usually believers in psychic phenomena and see past those legal disclaimers The client knows that readings are clearly not for entertainment purposes - after all they are consulting the psychic because they believe the guidance is genuine!

Yes, I have changed my opinion about regulation and agree with you here. However, your last sentence sheds doubt on your insistence that clients are in control, as has been pointed out already. If you believe that you're talking to someone who has special insight into realities that you can't see, you tend NOT to remain in control and responsible for your actions. You move that person towards what is called your locus of control - the place where truth is decided. I'm not sure how you can't see how those things go together.

And yes, we want to regulate the crooks and get rid of them, but good psychics should not suffer in the process or take responsibility for people who are in the habit of giving away their power.

Regulate the crooks? Leave the 'genuine' psychics alone and just get rid of the crooks? I'm not sure you understand the idea of regulation. It means, in this case, that there would be some kind of register and people giving advice to others which they claim is of supernatural origin would have to give their details to that register. There would probably be some other requirements, too, such as signing a document concerning basic ethical practices, being required to give certain information to clients at the beginning of service provision, etc.. This, perhaps, could make it harder for people to practise dangerously or fraudulently. In some professions it is illegal to practise without registering, in others an additional title is granted, like 'Chartered', and the public are educated about the distinction, or pick up on it by word of mouth, and then know that a Chartered Whatever has more checks and balances behind him or her than a non-Chartered Whatever. There are lots of different models of regulation.

It isn't possible to just 'regulate the crooks'. Law and order would be a lot easier generally if we could just regulate crooks out of life without inconveniencing law-abiding folks.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Cantando

John, apparently some new laws have been implemented here. I don't know if anyone has successfully prosecuted a fortune teller for being misled. I imagine it would now be even more difficult, if they are now covered by the caveat, 'For entertainment only'.

<snip>

Thanks for that, Cantando. Sounds pretty good on the whole.

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

If you believe that you're talking to someone who has special insight into realities that you can't see, you tend NOT to remain in control and responsible for your actions. You move that person towards what is called your locus of control - the place where truth is decided. I'm not sure how you can't see how those things go together.

It seems you have a misunderstanding about what a psychic reading is. When I got a reading from Erin, it wasn't because she had insight into realities I can't see; it was because she could see a different perspective on the reality I'm living now. I gave away NONE of my control to her. What I got from her was a deeper understanding of where I was, and how I was stuck.

I've given a few readings here and there, as I'm moved to. I don't call it psychic, because once you do, people believe you can see the future, etc. I can't. What I offer is deeper insight into where people are right now. Here's an example: Someone contacted me to do a reading about her work situation. Here's what I saw: two ribbons that were being held down by a weight, which I knew represented her. If she left, the ribbons would unspool and be blown about. She had a choice about whether to get off of the ribbons or not. Either way, it would be fine. She was afraid to leave because the ribbons would unspool, but I told her things would unfold exactly as they were supposed to. She could stay, or not.

Now - to me, this actually seems unremarkable. In her e-mail, all she said was, "I need clarity on my work situation." I e-mailed back what I saw. I was reluctant to do so, because it made no sense to me. BUT - I committed to send her what I got, so I did.

Well - she was SO happy with her reading! Because it was a situation at work where it was a small company, just her and the two owners. (hence the two ribbons) They were not adept at running a company, and it was only through her efforts that the company had stayed afloat. On one hand, she didn't want to leave, because the company might well go under if she did. On the other, she was feeling weighed down with the responsibility she had there. (hence seeing her as a weight)

Seeing it this way gave her a clarity about her situation that she didn't have before. She may have been able to gain that clarity on her own, but - a minute to send an e-mail to me, a day's wait until I sent her my response, and there it was! She didn't give me any power. Her locus of control was still centered in herself.

[pianoperformer]

carenkh, that may be so, but what if you had told her that it would be better if she left, for example, and it actually is not? She follows your advice because, well, you're the "psychic," after all, and so she's given you her power.

[carenkh]

But I didn't. And wouldn't. I tend to not go into "what if" situations, because it's a pointless waste of time.

I have had a situation where I could see someone's path would be less complicated if they chose A rather than B - that's what I passed on. I didn't say, "You should take A"; I gave them the information I got. That's what reputable psychics do - they don't think for people.

[pianoperformer]

So, you tell them A is less complicated. Do you think they would really choose the more complicated path, if all else is equal?

There's no escaping the fact that many people will base decisions off of what you tell them, no matter how much you try not to tell them what to do.

[Erin Pavlina]

People base decisions on what friends and family tell them too, or a guidance counselor. The point is that people are always responsible for their lives even if they give up control of their lives to others. That is the same with the doctor/patient relationship as well as the psychic/client relationship. A good psychic will empower her clients, help them see options they didn't see before, and give them a heads up or a warning about something they cannot see coming but which their guides can.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

People base decisions on what friends and family tell them too, or a guidance counselor. The point is that people are always responsible for their lives even if they give up control of their lives to others. That is the same with the doctor/patient relationship as well as the psychic/client relationship. A good psychic will empower her clients, help them see options they didn't see before, and give them a heads up or a warning about something they cannot see coming but which their guides can.

I mean, it's never an exact science and much of it is reading the person and finding out what they really want and what is good for them, right?

[Erin Pavlina]

It's definitely not an exact science, you're right. But it's not about reading the person, at least not for me. I tune in to a person's spirit guides, who talk to me and show me things about the person and what they most need to know. I then convey what I'm told and shown. Sometimes I know in advance the sitter won't resonate with the information but I pass it on anyway because I feel honor bound to pass on whatever the guides give me. Most of the time what I tell them does resonate.

After the guides have had their say (and that sometiems take 15 minutes or longer) I then open it up for people to ask their own questions. But in the beginning I don't even let the sitter ask a question or tell me why they've called. I need to have no information when I start. That way when validating evidence comes through I know it's from the guides not my sitter.

If you haven't read this blog entry yet, now would be a good time. It contains some info relevant to this thread.

Psychics Are Like Doctors

[carenkh]

I forgot to say, in relation to the article originally posted by Sam - it wasn't the psychic that nearly destroyed a family. The psychic was passing on information, correct or incorrect. I believe the fault lies with the school administration, for having such a weak understanding of autism and its related manifestations and for going overboard in their reaction, based on the amount of information they had.

[Nicketas]

Originally Posted by Sam988

Ah ok, thanks for the semantics lesson, got careless this time, but you got what i meant

Distinctions != Semantics.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

People base decisions on what friends and family tell them too, or a guidance counselor. The point is that people are always responsible for their lives even if they give up control of their lives to others. That is the same with the doctor/patient relationship as well as the psychic/client relationship. A good psychic will empower her clients, help them see options they didn't see before, and give them a heads up or a warning about something they cannot see coming but which their guides can.

Hmm, seems like a bit of a dodge, this. You tell people that your spiritual guides (or is it theirs?) can see things in their future, you mean? And your conviction that you can genuinely see things in their future that they cannot does not represent a threat to their autonomy? I doubt that very much.

It seems seriously misleading to compare this with how a family member is seen generally. My sister is just my sister and I'm fairly likely to take a lot of what she says with a pinch of salt because of that. You have a better comparison with a doctor, who is all too often given power by patients, but they are bound by reams of legal requirements, the purpose of which, at least, is to protect the patient from harm.

EDIT: I'm sorry, the following - It seems the legal requirement of a disclaimer doesn't do anything, if you are required by law to state that your service is for entertainment purposes, but covertly you override this, telling the client that this is just red tape. That seems an interesting admission you made earlier. Doesn't it potentially mean you are at risk of being seen as unlawful in your practice, and/or lacking integrity?

...was my mistake, since I thought you were the one who said this: Yes, psychics can get regulated and can state on their website that their readings are for entertainment purposes. Psychics are required (at least in the UK) to state that they're not genuine, which is sad but is a necessary precaution to take. Those who consult psychics are usually believers in psychic phenomena and see past those legal disclaimers The client knows that readings are clearly not for entertainment purposes - after all they are consulting the psychic because they believe the guidance is genuine!

...which was really from Anna Conlan. I apologise. I see I misunderstood both of you, and realise that you, Erin, did not say you told your clients that the disclaimer was just red tape at all, and that Anna stated that clients are generally believers and so see past such a disclaimer. Still, it is in the nature of the claim and the title that the assumption of privileged information lies, and knowledge is power. I see that you don't use the disclaimer and are 'very serious'. How seriously are you taken, is my worry.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Hmm, seems like a bit of a dodge, this. You tell people that your spiritual guides (or is it theirs?) can see things in their future, you mean? And your conviction that you can genuinely see things in their future that they cannot does not represent a threat to their autonomy? I doubt that very much.

It seems seriously misleading to compare this with how a family member is seen generally. My sister is just my sister and I'm fairly likely to take a lot of what she says with a pinch of salt because of that. You have a better comparison with a doctor, who is all too often given power by patients, but they are bound by reams of legal requirements, the purpose of which, at least, is to protect the patient from harm.

It seems the legal requirement of a disclaimer doesn't do anything, if you are required by law to state that your service is for entertainment purposes, but covertly you override this, telling the client that this is just red tape. That seems an interesting admission you made earlier. Doesn't it potentially mean you are at risk of being seen as unlawful in your practice, and/or lacking integrity?

Exactly. Many people who go to a psychic believe that he has supernatural powers, like being able to predict the future. Holding someone else and someone else's advices in such a high, undoubtable esteem, can be harmful to the person accepting the "psychic's" every word, in case the "psychic" is wrong about his advices and predictions.

[Erin Pavlina]

When I hear people throw around words like "supernatural power" I know they don't understand what a real psychic is. To a real psychic these abilities are very natural.

I don't put "for entertainment purposes" on my site anywhere. I don't do this work to entertain and I won't put that on my site. I'm very serious.


We're really talking about two types of people here. People who are superstitious and believe psychics hold some supernatural ability that other people don't have. And people who understand that psychics are simply more attuned to the subtle energies of life and use them for guidance but not as the be all end all authority on their life.

No one should give their power to a psychic. I certainly don't encourage that. In fact, in many of the readings I do I begin training people on how to do this on their own.

My whole, and main point, is don't lump all psychics into the same group. We are not all the same.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

It's definitely not an exact science, you're right. But it's not about reading the person, at least not for me. I tune in to a person's spirit guides, who talk to me and show me things about the person and what they most need to know. I then convey what I'm told and shown. Sometimes I know in advance the sitter won't resonate with the information but I pass it on anyway because I feel honor bound to pass on whatever the guides give me. Most of the time what I tell them does resonate.

Do you know of the psychological research demonstrating what is going on, which you describe as resonating? Have you read and understood the theories about cold reading? Do you know that it is quite simple to write a spurious reading that will impress approximately 80-90% of people given it and told it is their 'psychic reading', even though it is identical? Do you understand the file drawer effect? What do you make of people who demonstrate fake psychic abilities that are highly convincing? Is there any doubt in your mind that you and your clients are not participating in these well-studied and proven processes of self- and mutual conflation of 'facts'?

After the guides have had their say (and that sometiems take 15 minutes or longer) I then open it up for people to ask their own questions. But in the beginning I don't even let the sitter ask a question or tell me why they've called. I need to have no information when I start. That way when validating evidence comes through I know it's from the guides not my sitter.

Well, not according to psychological research, you don't.

If you haven't read this blog entry yet, now would be a good time. It contains some info relevant to this thread.

Psychics Are Like Doctors

Yes, it lists an amazing number of things that you say psychics can do, none of which has any basis in scientific fact. If such abilities were real, they would have been proven, or at least would have a great body of evidence in their favour. If they worked and had just enough effect to be useful to people, they would be easy to demonstrate. EVERY time someone sets out to demonstrate them, they are proven wrong, time after time after time after time after time. The cellars of the scientific psychic investigation labs of the world are groaning with EVIDENCE AGAINST psychic phenomena being real. There are even full and completely rational explanations as to how these non-phenomena appear to be real. So, no, I don't believe there is a comparison with going to the doctor, whose diagnosis and treatment has to be based on fairly rigorously established fact.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

When I hear people throw around words like "supernatural power" I know they don't understand what a real psychic is. To a real psychic these abilities are very natural.

Strange. I wonder how you explain that:
a) almost anyone you ask will define psychic ability as a supernatural power, especially if it involves their 'spirit guides'
b) natural science seems utterly unable to detect either 'phenomenon'.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Strange. I wonder how you explain that:
a) almost anyone you ask will define psychic ability as a supernatural power, especially if it involves their 'spirit guides'
b) natural science seems utterly unable to detect either 'phenomenon'.

Erin and I talked about that during my recent reading. I told her that I don't believe that she (or anyone) is "psychic" in the meaning that she has access to something supernatural, but that what she did felt very much like what I do, which I call "intuition." Intuition, the way I see it and have it, is very much part of the natural world, but even so, it can't be sliced and diced by science. Or I should say, maybe it can be tested by science but not in any way, that I know of, that would satisfy or fulfill me. I think of it as "thin-slicing" as Malcolm Gladwell describes it in "Blink" and I think there probably are scientists who investigate this phenomenon. In "The Gift of Fear" ad "Protecting the Gift" Gavin de Becker talked about the natural world explanations for the kind of intuition that, if you listen to it, can lead you straight out of danger -- and also the mindsets and teachings we get in society that help us to ignore it, and get into trouble.

Sometimes Erin uses language that sounds supernatural to me, but that doesn't get in the way of my getting value out of what she has to say to me. Much like Marianne Williamson, who often talks about god (I don't beieve there's a personal interventionist god) but everything she says is so insightful, practical and helpful that I'm willing to practice being transparent to what sounds "supernatural."

For instance, what I picture when Erin says "guides" may be supernatural, but perhaps (from her recent post it looks like) she has something in the natural world in mind when she refers to her guides. Doesn't matter to me. I'm not going to get all hung up on that and miss the great stuff she has to offer.

[Erin Pavlina]

John, I think you and I are just living in two different realities. I don't agree with some of your assumptions so if we really wanted to get into this we'd have to take many steps back to find something we can both agree is true. Conclusions based on faulty assumptions are worthless.

Peace to you...

[Brutha]

Psychic Nearly Destroys Family | LiveScience
If there is any real psychic out there, i don't know. What i do know is that people should always give a second and a third thought when a "psychic" tells them something significant about them. People should never make important decisions in the lives based solely on "psychic's" advices.

You try to give advice based on a experiment with n=1 participants. That's pseudoscience.
Why don't you warn about the conclusions you draw from your week evidence?

It's always amazing how fast people can change their own standards. It's simply hypocritical.
Suddenly all standards change when it comes to psychics.
If you want to be sceptic you should be consistent.

The cellars of the scientific psychic investigation labs of the world are groaning with EVIDENCE AGAINST psychic phenomena being real.

That statement is simply objectivly wrong.
The absence of evidence for psychic phenomena being real is qualitivly different from evidence against the existence of real psychic phenomena.
Maybe you need to read a little bit of Popper.

Again I don't think that there is something wrong with being sceptic, but I think you should go the full way and have the same standards for different phenomens.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Brutha

That statement is simply objectivly wrong.

Nope.

The absence of evidence for psychic phenomena being real is qualitivly different from evidence against the existence of real psychic phenomena.

Yep. I meant what I said. Maybe google 'file drawer effect'.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

John, I think you and I are just living in two different realities. I don't agree with some of your assumptions so if we really wanted to get into this we'd have to take many steps back to find something we can both agree is true. Conclusions based on faulty assumptions are worthless.

Peace to you...

True. Oh look, you found it! Peace back atcha, Erin.