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

[Mewwy]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

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.

There are comparisons between going to a doctor and going to a psychic.

I found this website, whereas the url is provided by the article provided in the first post. What's The Harm?

Somehow medical damages and non-physical harms are comparable since their fatality are equally proven by facts.

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Nope.

Yep.

I meant what I said.

Then you are objectively wrong. I suggest going back to college and taking some introductory math and/or philosophy classes.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Mewwy

There are comparisons between going to a doctor and going to a psychic.

I found this website, whereas the url is provided by the article provided in the first post. What's The Harm?

Somehow medical damages and non-physical harms are comparable since their fatality are equally proven by facts.

That's an interesting website, but I don't see 'facts' relating to scientific medicine, which is what I compared 'psychic' reading with. There is a group of pages headed 'Medical' there, which is a bit misleading, since it describes pseudo-scientific or unscientific medicine, alternative medicine, unless I've misunderstood you or the site. It seems to be a sceptic site listing some of the harm done by alternative medicine, magical thinking, conspiracy theories and including 'psychics'. To support the claim that "medical damages [as I meant them - ones based on mainstream scientifically verified medicine] and non-physical harms [ones caused by psuedo-science and woo] are comparable since their fatality are equally proven by facts" we would have to gather some facts about the medical damages.

I'm sure we'll find some, and it would be quite easy to conclude the balance went one way or the other - interestingly - without doing some scientific comparison! Or we could ask a psychic which won I suppose and base our reality on that!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

Yep.

Then you are objectively wrong. I suggest going back to college and taking some introductory math and/or philosophy classes.

Maybe we can actually discuss this now that we've established that we disagree. What I am saying is that negative results in research are often filed away, forgotten or deliberately hidden (actually in a lot of areas, but, from what I understand, it is a particular problem in psychic research when it is done under less than scientific, double blind randomised trial (DBRT), circumstances with some checks and balances). The typical scenario is that some believers in psi set up an experiment or a whole institute and begin to gather data. Let's say they're checking whether Adam is psychic or not. Adam prepares and sits to do his test of his abilities. The study begins. He has agreed that predicting the cards that will be drawn from a pack should demonstrate his abilities, since he has done it casually with a few people and was convinced he was doing it more than chance would predict, although he accepted that sometimes the spirit guides were distracted and he got some wrong.

His test is not bad. He did get more than chance might predict (although, by the nature of chance, this is not a simple matter - getting more than the mathematical probability suggests does not actually prove anything at all, and evidence must accumulate over time or be particularly significantly in excess of the chance prediction or the control). It's noted down for the report, but it's not convincing enough for the sceptics yet. There are more trials.

The next one seems to be going badly. It's not a DBRT, and he's getting some feedback about whether each prediction is right or not. He's having an off day. He asks the examiners if he can stop, since clearly his guides are busy with some other pressing business. Sure. Let's all have a cup of tea and try later.

Later, things are going much better. The guide has finished with Silvia Browne or whoever, and can focus on telling him what's on the other side of cards. Those results are 'promising' and get noted in the record. No-one mentions the stopping and starting or records the negative data.

Finally, the report is published, showing a small degree of significance and adding to the pile of small significant differences that will later be swept up by someone doing meta-studies, amplifying the effect. Thus, to save time, I said that the basements were groaning with negative evidence. I didn't say that the basements were groaning with Objective Proof.

The phenomenon happens at all stages. Even when we try to influence the tossing of a coin with mind power, it is very common experience for people to start to wonder whether they can do it, just toss heads, for instance, and the less scientific and objective they are, the more they will shrug and forget the tails and remember the heads. Every tail, I am arguing, is evidence against psychic ability, but they get ignored in the search for 'success'. A hard view would even say that a single tail result proves that someone is not psychic. This happens in playgrounds all over the world. Some kid says they can tell you something that's hidden, like the result of a coin you toss while their eyes are closed, they get it wrong and just do it again. This is a serious point. We seem to give psi such a benefit of the doubt that it always has to have another go when it fails to prove that has any basis in fact. It happens all the way up to the cultural level, clearly, since we're still arguing about it and people are still doing research trying to establish it.

Now, I'm prepared to be educated. I think I'm a fair philosopher and mathematician, but please, do explain why I'm objectively wrong. No, let me do a bit of divining myself and see if I can guess. I'll seal the reason you're going to tell me in an envelope...

BTW, that site is a very good resource generally, explaining a lot of similar effects that add to the strong suggestion that psychic abilities and other forms of woo are complex illusions we create by poor thinking and desire. I've only mentioned one or two. Perhaps you could read some of it while I go and do Math 101. BTW, I've been programming in BASIC, 6502 Assembly and one or two other languages for about 25 years and studied geology at Oxford.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

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

Even if you make 1.000.000 tests of persons who claim to be psychic and none of them actually is psychic you still have no evidence for the theory that no psychics exist.
It's a big error to confuse the two things.

For millenia people in the western world only observed white Swans. They even used "Seeing a black Swan" similar to we use "When pigs fly" today.
Once Australia got discovered people finally saw Black Swans and the theory that there every Swan is white got refuted.
Lack of evidence for a theory "there are black Swans" is qualitivly different from evidence for the opposite "there are no black Swans". I took the Black Swan example from Nassim Taleb. If you want to learn more about the real world implications of it I highly recommand his talk.

Similarly lack of evidence for the theory "there are psychics" is qualitivly different from evidence for the opposite "there are no psychics".

If you come to your conclusion based on faulty reasoning that's pseudoscience.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Every tail, I am arguing, is evidence against psychic ability, but they get ignored in the search for 'success'. A hard view would even say that a single tail result proves that someone is not psychic..

Every tail may be evidence that that particular person is either not psychic (or not skilled at using his psychic talent), but it's not evidence that psychic phenomenon does not exist.

Oh, Brutha just said that, too!

[nightdiamond]

Hi Everyone....


I can sympathize with Sam988 and pianoperformer and their positions. It's simply not easy to believe in psychics, and the 'bad ones' don't help make it any easier. No psychic, especially a fake one, will promote themselves as, ' I'm not really reliable, becareful', but more like "I can help you change your life based on my gifts'....

Dentists make mistakes, but on the average their work, skill, and techniques can be observed and so can the results. Dentists have invented gadgets that definetly aided toothcare so that many ailments can be treated quickly and reduce pain.

They're monitered, must have licenses to practice. We've come to trust them. I know there are negligent ones out there, but if you know most people who ever went to a dentist, they'll usually say they are glad they did to get rid of the pain, or to fix a problem. And dentists get their skills from scientific understanding of pain treatment, surgery and tissue healing. Not from the other side....

Psychics-- are a little different... .. there is such a big variety one is almost certain to come across the scam artist, the self deluded one, the way over the new age types...

They may not give full names, but only initials, give bad advice, predict things that never happen (and get caught) , or miss the big ones you know?

So I can't blame sam and pianoperformer for their views. There's always going to be skeptics for psychics.

On the other hand, to be fair to psychics, and be open minded, I'll remind myself of the psychics I've seen that at the moment seem to be genuine, like the ones who help the police and the police actually refer to them on difficult cases. Some refused to accept payment and spent long hours on their own pursuing the case. It impressed me despite any skepticism I might have had.

Or maybe the skepticism in this thread is directed towards professional psychics only.

Either way, I liked the discussion this thread caused..take care everyone...

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Even if you make 1.000.000 tests of persons who claim to be psychic and none of them actually is psychic you still have no evidence for the theory that no psychics exist.
It's a big error to confuse the two things.

Yes, I understand the argument. It is a kind of philosophical argument of an extreme nature, though, and those are not always very useful in making practical decisions and assessing evidence. It is extreme in the sense that we could test, as you say, a million claims, not have any positive result, and number 1 000 001 could be psychic. However, I can cancel the extreme argument by use of another. How many possible phenomena could we test for in investigating life? Let's start at A - Aliens, Buddhism, Catholicism, Dendritic Superlativism (that is a name I just made up off the top of my head; it means that the trees are superconscious organisms on planet earth)...Zen....now, let's go through the alphabet again, since we've forgotten the Akashic Record, Abraham (various), Abracadabra (well, it might work)... So in a mathematical sense, you're right, but there are other considerations. In order to decide whether something exists (or rather, to form some kind of working knowledge of an answer - we don't even have to decide), we need to be a bit smarter than just keep throwing our line out in the same direction forever, never getting a fish. It would be a very foolish person who ignored this principle.

For millenia people in the western world only observed white Swans. They even used "Seeing a black Swan" similar to we use "When pigs fly" today.
Once Australia got discovered people finally saw Black Swans and the theory that there every Swan is white got refuted.
Lack of evidence for a theory "there are black Swans" is qualitivly different from evidence for the opposite "there are no black Swans". I took the Black Swan example from Nassim Taleb. If you want to learn more about the real world implications of it I highly recommand his talk.

I wonder why, other than his argument that long odds are more unpredictable than short odds, and that history can show surprising turns, he is a skeptic, and many of the things he talks about in that lecture are reminders of what happens in belief systems like psi. He criticised religion. He talked about the error of people seeing pattern in random events. Personally, I also found him very difficult to follow, a poor speaker, and thought some of his points were ridiculous and others self-contradictory, but nowhere in that lecture did he say that because the future is more unpredictable than we tend to think (and he was talking mostly about wars, recessions and the like, although he did mention computers as a 'black swan') we can have a bit more faith that after decades of psychic research, the really good evidence is just around the corner.

Similarly lack of evidence for the theory "there are psychics" is qualitivly different from evidence for the opposite "there are no psychics".

Agreed. However, every time you look for a black swan and fail to find one, it is still evidence that there are no black swans. There is a difference between having built up a body of evidence and not having disproved. Only a fool reads about a confident 'psychic' failing to demonstrate their abilities and completely ignores that in their thinking, just shrugs and goes, it'll be the next one!

If you come to your conclusion based on faulty reasoning that's pseudoscience.

Well, there's something else we agree on then. Science doesn't prove things. That might be one of your mistaken ideas, that we're seeking proof for things. It builds evidence for theories, and they always remain probabilistic. Science has never proved anything. It talks about proof a lot, but in reality it is a bit like a court of law - beyond reasonable doubt. After thousands of failed experiments, and none that are beyond reasonable doubt, it is reasonable to assume that psychic ability is an illusion.

That is one half of the evidence, however; the other is that science has meanwhile built up a confident body of real evidence for the alternative theories, as mentioned earlier. Put the two things together and it seems crazy to insist that just because we can't see every eventuality, pigs still might fly tomorrow. Ok. They might, but big deal! THEY NEVER DO!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

Every tail may be evidence that that particular person is either not psychic (or not skilled at using his psychic talent), but it's not evidence that psychic phenomenon does not exist.

It is. You're confusing evidence with proof.

Or to put it another way, so what? Every time someone blows their head off with a shotgun and doesn't survive, by your thinking, it's not evidence that you can't survive blowing your head off with a shotgun.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

It is. You're confusing evidence with proof.

Or to put it another way, so what? Every time someone blows their head off with a shotgun and doesn't survive, by your thinking, it's not evidence that you can't survive blowing your head off with a shotgun.

You're right, I should have said that it's not proof that psychic phenomona does not exist. (I also got the plural vs. single wrong, but you kindly let that slide.)

And changing those "evidence"s to "proof"s, you are right, too, in saying that if a person were to die from blowing their head off with a shotgun, that is not proof that it is impossible to survive blowing their head off with a shotgun. There are very convincing proofs that are good enough for me not to blow my head off with a shotgun, not that I'm tempted, but one person dying of it as proof that it's impossible does not logically follow. That's a terrible comparison, John!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

That's a terrible comparison, John!

I know. I'm evil!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I know. I'm evil!

But cute.

You know, I believe there is no personal, interventionist god, and I think the likelihood of the existence of one is so small as to be insignificant, but it would only take one convincing piece of evidence (I've described what that might entail in other threads) for me to believe that indeed, there is a personal interventionist god. It's still possible that I might be being delusional or I'm being punk'd or there is some natural explanation, but I think that I am pretty clear in myself about what would convince me and what would not. None of what would convince me, I don't think, could be proven by science as objectively, inarguably true; but it would convince me (much like I'm convinced I would not survive having my head blown off by a shotgun. ).

I think that psychic phenomena is the same way, and as long as it's not used in an interventionist manner, it deserves the same treatment. That is, if people want to consult psychics, and even if they want to become addicted to consulting psychics and run clean through their inheritance on it, that is fine with me. Just like people believing in a p.i.g. No skin off my nose, as long as they remain non-interventionist. (Which is funny, huh? It's not god who intervenes in my life, it's some of his believers. If god himself were to intervene in my life, I would make him some tea.) And sometimes, psychics don't remain non-interventionist -- like the ones who behave badly that you object to. And I think you are right to object to them, and expose them.

But other than that little interventionist clause, just like belief and investment in religion, I think belief and investment in psychicism is well left to the discretion of the believer/investor, regardless of how dumb or smart I might think they're being. I can't see a helpful way of "regulating" either one -- except keep 'em all out of my reproductive rights!

[Brutha]

we can have a bit more faith that after decades of psychic research, the really good evidence is just around the corner.

I never argued that claim. I just argue that

I wonder why, other than his argument that long odds are more unpredictable than short odds, and that history can show surprising turns, he is a skeptic, and many of the things he talks about in that lecture are reminders of what happens in belief systems like psi. He criticised religion.

He is a praticing Christian.

Or to put it another way, so what? Every time someone blows their head off with a shotgun and doesn't survive, by your thinking, it's not evidence that you can't survive blowing your head off with a shotgun.

That reminds me of the fact that there are no peer revied studies which show that, wearning a parachute when you jump out of planes will increae your likelyhood of living after you land on the ground.
After all there are some documented cases of people who have survied without a parachute.

In cases where you have incomplete information it's best to choice with a lesser amount of risk.
Don't hold the shotgun at your head or jump out of the plane without parachut but it doesn't matter much when you listen to a psychic and make decision that are within your normal range of action (that don't contain much additional risk).

[Mewwy]

Not trying to debate against anyone, but medical damages are statistically present.

So the What's The Harm? website lists these medical methods which have caused injuries and deaths...acupuncture, alphabiotics, chiropractic, colloidal silver, colon cleansing, and so on...which I believe many on the list are meant to be scientific techniques used by medical doctors.

And according to mainstream database...Medical error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John,

I'm not trying to advocate psychics abilities. And yes, I feel doctors are more essential than psychics. But these (medical or so called supernatural powers) are comparable when people give in their power to let someone interpret and solve their problems, physically or mentally.

Also, thoughts, memories, emotions, willpower, motivation - how solid and physical are they? Do they not "exist"? Do they not have positive impacts on human lives?

Under the most rigorous investigations we have confirmed some physical association with these mental capabilities - adrenaline produces excitement, serotonin stabilizes negative emotions, the left hemisphere of the brain is more responsible than the right for artistic abilities...but inform me if your thoughts, emotions, or imagination can literally be seen.

I'm not sure how would you define the "unseen," but there are plentiful ways to realize that certain "existing" things don't entirely operate upon rigorously, proven, scientific ways. All are prone to mistakes.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I never argued that claim. I just argue that

Uh?

He is a praticing Christian.

Well, like I said, he's not a very good speaker! I listened doggedly to the whole hour and a half of the damn thing because you recommended it, and he said specifically that he was a skeptic. He seemed to suggest that people see patterns where there are none, in the same mumbled 'sentence' as religious people - but it was full of you knows and ers and ums, and I certainly got the impression that he was not supporting the idea of psychics, God, or, as far as I could tell, anything whatsoever. He said that people often ask him in his lectures "So, what should we do" and he says his message is what not to do - and the main bit is not to trust experts and never take advice from someone wearing a tie. It was perhaps one of the least important hour and a halfs of my entire life.

That reminds me of the fact that there are no peer revied studies which show that, wearning a parachute when you jump out of planes will increae your likelyhood of living after you land on the ground.
After all there are some documented cases of people who have survied without a parachute.

Yes. That's why I chose blowing your head off with a shotgun for comparison, and specifically didn't say 'shoot yourself in the head', which is also not always fatal.

In cases where you have incomplete information it's best to choice with a lesser amount of risk.
Don't hold the shotgun at your head or jump out of the plane without parachut but it doesn't matter much when you listen to a psychic and make decision that are within your normal range of action (that don't contain much additional risk).

Whatever.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Mewwy

Not trying to debate against anyone, but medical damages are statistically present.

So the What's The Harm? website lists these medical methods which have caused injuries and deaths...acupuncture, alphabiotics, chiropractic, colloidal silver, colon cleansing, and so on...which I believe many on the list are meant to be scientific techniques used by medical doctors.

And according to mainstream database...Medical error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think we're at cross purposes here. I was trying to distinguish between the work of a doctor and the imagined facts told clients by fortune tellers and so-called psychics, because Erin or someone suggested that they were similar. The list beginning 'acupuncture' that you mention on the WTH website are listed under a heading 'Medical', but they are not the practices I meant. I was refering to scientifically verified medical practice, which unfortunately isn't listed there. There certainly are risks and failures of mainstream medical practice, too, but I was contrasting the research process, peer-review and professionalism of allopathic, orthodox medicine with the cottage industry of 'mediumship'.

John,

I'm not trying to advocate psychics abilities. And yes, I feel doctors are more essential than psychics. But these (medical or so called supernatural powers) are comparable when people give in their power to let someone interpret and solve their problems, physically or mentally.

Yes, there is truth in that. Really, however, the problems doctors cause would be for another thread. The comparison just takes our attention away from what the OP is about. Certainly, medical doctors do harm, and I'm no fan of allopathic medicine, certainly not powerful, isolated chemicals. I sometimes use my GP for her diagnostic knowledge, then reject the prescription she'd like to give me and find other ways of healing. This has almost nothing to do with taking advice from a person who professes to listen to your spiritual guides and has special insight into what is going on for you and what is going to happen to you.

Also, thoughts, memories, emotions, willpower, motivation - how solid and physical are they? Do they not "exist"? Do they not have positive impacts on human lives?

Under the most rigorous investigations we have confirmed some physical association with these mental capabilities - adrenaline produces excitement, serotonin stabilizes negative emotions, the left hemisphere of the brain is more responsible than the right for artistic abilities...but inform me if your thoughts, emotions, or imagination can literally be seen.

I'm not sure how would you define the "unseen," but there are plentiful ways to realize that certain "existing" things don't entirely operate upon rigorously, proven, scientific ways. All are prone to mistakes.

I really don't understand what you're talking about. Maybe English isn't your first language, or you need to learn how to structure your thoughts more. This seems quite unrelated to the question (much of this thread is, though). Are thoughts invisible, can they be positive, aren't there some existing things that aren't proven?... Yes.

[Brutha]

Uh?

There a huge difference between: Don't hold the belief "psychics exist" and holding the belief "psychics don't exist".

Back to your shotgun example. Say someone called the ambulance:
"Hey here is someone who got shut in the head with a shotgun but still lives, you should come fast."
According to your argument the ambulance shouldn't become because the caller is clearly lying and maybe sent the catafalque.
Especially is you come to your conclusion by based on past data where people didn't survive a hit with a shotgun the logical conclusion of your belief could get the ambulance sued because of negligence.

Well, like I said, he's not a very good speaker! I listened doggedly to the whole hour and a half of the damn thing because you recommended it, and he said specifically that he was a skeptic.

The first skeptics believed in God and while most skeptics don't today, there no inherent conflict. Everybody has some existential beliefs. The belief in time is a similar unproven belief that a lot of people (even skeptics) hold today.
He is at the border of the Zeitgeist, so it's difficult to understand the ideas.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

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?

I think what can happen is people can get emotionally overwhelmed and if they haven't built up a support system of people in real life, they may turn to the psychic business. And this happens to people that are usually rather smart. In hind sight people that go through psychic addiction, look back and can't imagine how it took them over, looking at a maxed out credit card or worse. It's a quick hook when it happens, because someone is already emotionally drained looking for answers.

It may not even be psychics are preying on them. It can be just the sitter grasping for anything that they think will help. The sitters can find "good" psychics and the readers know nothing about how many other readers they have tried out. It's the industry that spins it up and allows the "need" to be filled. I think most psychics are trying to do the best they can and think they are doing good.

Also, yes, the sitters that give their power away are seeking to continue doing that, as in a habitual behavior that is unhealthy now. Those people that are like that, used to giving their power away, and get into a life situation that gets them into emotional overwhelm for which they can't find support will rest on their dominate habitual behavior and feel comfort in being habitual. So then, if they get readings, it's a match for that. and a game and a set for becoming addicted to readings.

[wolfgang]

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.

This is not true. Plenty of people get readings and are out of control of their lives completely.

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.

People that give out advice also need to remind the client that it's up to them to take control of their lives. But, as John Freestone pointed out, the client can nod their head saying yes it's up to me but internally be wanting to be told what to do and end up making decisions based on who knows what.

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!

interesting.

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.

good psychics are not the problem. And yet I would say good psychics don't do readings or at least are completely and solely about making sure the clients aren't giving away their power - that should be the prim directive with good psychics.

Any kind of advice should be about empowering the client more. It almost sounds like you want readers to have no responsibility for their clients. Is that a good thing to have? Readers that don't care about their clients' well being?

[ns123]

Originally Posted by Sam988

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.

Sam988: I read the story at the link. The family was not destroyed, the headline is very misleading.

I would not consider this dangerous and harmful. Yes, it is annoying and yes, the teacher turned out to be a total idiot. But that has nothing to do at all with the psychic. It has everything to do with the teacher and school administration being idiots to jump the gun.

To say the family was destroyed is an entire over exaggeration.

[wolfgang]

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.

When people base their decisions on others - that can be a form of giving power away. Or of being unsure and not trusting yourself. I used to be that way. I would ask everybody and their brothers to try to decide something and then not even decide. I tried many readers and for the lot, I was getting deeper and deeper into this advice seeking habit.

Sure I was responsible for that - no one was pointing a gun to my head. Most of the readers should have not taken my request for a reading to snap me into relying on myself more (then I think all psychics should do that). Nor did they give me a reading that said you are getting too many readings. I don't think any of them noticed what was up for me in this way. Some of them, well intentioned, would think nothing of repeating readings weekly (if not even more frequent). They think it's ok to read that often for sitters. They weren't crooks either, they weren't thinking they were swindling anybody. And in terms of the industry they weren't.

I also think people that make a business of giving advice, are putting their selves on the line to be an authority with clients. It is more accentuated with psychics because there's this idea that there is extra information available that the sitter can't get on their own. This automatically sets up a hierarchy where the sitter is placing themselves in a lower position. The sitter is telling themselves that they can't get the information that will help them but a psychic can. It's a bit like when people used to think the only way to connect with God is through a priest. Wasn't this part of what Jesus was all about? The kingdom of God is within.

There seems to be a contradiction. Readers will say the info is to empower you. They will say, you can connect to God yourself. Then why is it that readers give readings if people are able to get what they need anyway?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

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?

NO!!! psychics are not counselors!! not at all. Counselors are trained (hopefully) to avoid being an authority and try to have their clients process their issues - without giving them information that the client can't access themselves. In fact counselors will try hard to help you find that information you need to face your issues. Good counselors are really just the best really super good listeners (in theory) - good psychics are more about coming up with other information from somewhere else.

There is a HUGE difference.

Psychics try to tell you a bunch of information, counselors try to listen and help you through realizing your own decisions.

If someone gets a reading and gets no information, you would think you got a bad psychic - but a counselor tries not give you any extra information and tries to guide you into your own thoughts to help you see yourself and know yourself better. A counselor will not give you a future "reading" or "this is what that choice will bring" in most aspects. Sure a counselor would tell you not to smoke crack. But if you ask a counselor about that job you are looking at - the counselor will not come up with unseen world information about that job being a good fit or not.

[wolfgang]

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.

Natural abilities that a psychic is able to provide for someone that can't access this information still gives the connotation of a supernatural power, in being beyond the sitter's ability.

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.

What's the difference in understanding psychics are more attuned and believing psychics hold supernatural ability? Wouldn't thinking someone is more attuned also be believing they have extra ability that they themselves don't have?

I think there is a third type, btw. Those that see psychics as more attuned and think they can also do that (but haven't developed it), but somehow also give their power away with the readings.

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.

glad to hear that, why not just do that and stop the readings?

Why give readings if the end product is to help people do it on their own?

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

But there is a whole big industry built on this psychics business. I think most of this thread is based on looking at the whole of the industry and effects on people.

I'm glad some people are able to find results with readings, if it works for them.

I just keep wondering why it works, or if it is indeed a form of entertainment that readers and sitters are playing a game of some kind.

[Erin Pavlina]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

glad to hear that, why not just do that and stop the readings?

Why give readings if the end product is to help people do it on their own?


I just keep wondering why it works, or if it is indeed a form of entertainment that readers and sitters are playing a game of some kind.

I would love to be out of business someday because everyone can tune in to their guides on their own. That would be great. I wrote about this in a blog entry. Everyone is psychic but not everyone wants to spend hours a day developing it, just as everyone has muscles but not everyone wants to spend 3 hours in the gym every day becoming a body builder or personal trainer. I don't want to call a plumber when my pipes burst but I also don't want to learn how to be a plumber for those odd times when my pipes burst. I don't want to become a doctor, a mechanic, a mover, a therapist, etc. So when I need someone, I call a professional who's been working in their field for a long time.

Why does it work? It's not some form of entertainment, at least not for me, and other legitimate psychics. It's the product of long hours, hard work, and learning to develop a skill that normally lies dormant in others.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think that psychic phenomena is the same way, and as long as it's not used in an interventionist manner, it deserves the same treatment. That is, if people want to consult psychics, and even if they want to become addicted to consulting psychics and run clean through their inheritance on it, that is fine with me.

What would make consulting psychics not interventionist? Isn't a reading actually bringing information into your life that you thought you didn't have? Isn't that intervening with your life?

But other than that little interventionist clause, just like belief and investment in religion, I think belief and investment in psychicism is well left to the discretion of the believer/investor, regardless of how dumb or smart I might think they're being.

so if you knew something possibly hurts someone, that you see it as dumb - what do you do? allow it to their discretion?

What about "hey you might no want to do that"?

or am I not following?

[lasti]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Why give readings if the end product is to help people do it on their own?

Cause that's help. Helping somebody to help themselves. That's why forums like these exists and Erin's and Steve's blogs. What else do you suggest? Do a brain surgery to cut everything out that is "wrong" and put new brain cells in in order to get a perfect person? Personal development is about changing oneself and not somebody else.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I never argued that claim. I just argue that
He is a praticing Christian.

That reminds me of the fact that there are no peer revied studies which show that, wearning a parachute when you jump out of planes will increae your likelyhood of living after you land on the ground.
After all there are some documented cases of people who have survied without a parachute.

In cases where you have incomplete information it's best to choice with a lesser amount of risk.
Don't hold the shotgun at your head or jump out of the plane without parachut but it doesn't matter much when you listen to a psychic and make decision that are within your normal range of action (that don't contain much additional risk).

people turn to psychics for some serious life situations. many are looking for information to base their direction on, they feel they have incomplete information and go looking for it outside of their selves. maybe it works for some people ok. or maybe it's just entertaining since people make up their own minds anyway.

I mean, why do people get readings if it's just for little stuff? seems like it's either for big stuff or they are just having fun. so then if it's just for fun - what kind of use of your $$ is that? is it as fun as a movie?

[lasti]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

people turn to psychics for some serious life situations. many are looking for information to base their direction on, they feel they have incomplete information and go looking for it outside of their selves.

It's not outside of them. They are just not conscious enogh.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

I would love to be out of business someday because everyone can tune in to their guides on their own. That would be great. I wrote about this in a blog entry.

glad you see that as a cool possible future of human kind.

Everyone is psychic but not everyone wants to spend hours a day developing it, just as everyone has muscles but not everyone wants to spend 3 hours in the gym every day becoming a body builder or personal trainer. I don't want to call a plumber when my pipes burst but I also don't want to learn how to be a plumber for those odd times when my pipes burst. I don't want to become a doctor, a mechanic, a mover, a therapist, etc. So when I need someone, I call a professional who's been working in their field for a long time.

In these analogies there would be a comparable life situation that requires having psychic information, right? In other words, having your pipes burst and not knowing what to do about it has a similar circumstance that would require going to a psychic. Is that true?

Is that the view of what a reading is for - that eventually everyone needs some psychic info and since no one spends time being intuitive they need to go get a reading?

Or if you look at fitness as an example one could conclude getting readings actually atrophies one's latent psychic abilities.

Why does it work? It's not some form of entertainment, at least not for me, and other legitimate psychics. It's the product of long hours, hard work, and learning to develop a skill that normally lies dormant in others.

Well it's more a question of how to make it work for me. I used to think, ok if I could just get a good reading I'll know what to do. That there's extra information that a psychic could look up that would help me. Like looking for a short cut or loop hole or advantage to better myself. I don't think there is something like that now. One still has to work internally to change. Getting a bunch of information does not change you. And I'm not sure how much it points you either. Aren't most readings just - "oh yeah that's what I thought and was going to do"

I don't know, maybe it's me, but even if I hear different perspectives or info like "if you do that you will have this experience", I still was left with my own life to decide about and take actions. Or make a decision based on this info in faith, which is a giving away power.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by lasti

Cause that's help. Helping somebody to help themselves. That's why forums like these exists and Erin's and Steve's blogs. What else do you suggest? Do a brain surgery to cut everything out that is "wrong" and put new brain cells in in order to get a perfect person? Personal development is about changing oneself and not somebody else.

It's like just giving people fish over and over instead of teaching them to fish. In one case you feed them once, in the other they can feed themselves forever, right?

I don't get your analogy with brain surgery. I'm for integrating the self, not finding parts of you that are thought of as wrong and trying to deny that.