|
|
Go to page 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Indyfan Regular user Calgary, Alberta, Canada 173 Posts |
Now that I'm becoming a little more versed in mentalism, spoon bending, etc, I've learned that just because *you* can't explain something, does not mean that that something cannot be explained. In other words, never believe everything you hear, or see, for that matter.
Now, when I talk to someone about mind-reading, or psychic powers, I'm obviously more informed than most people I speak to. I definitely don't explain the how's, but I do try to persuade them to realize that there ARE ways to do it. Achem's Razor (sp?)comes to mind..... What SHOULD you say to someone who truly believes that, for example, John Edwards is legit? Or any mentalist/psychic for that matter. I personally don't believe it's right to let them go on their merry way, especially if they're considering paying money to see such people, and basing their decisions on what they hear/see. Here is where I'm coming from....the other day, a guy at work was asking me about spoon bending (he knew I was learning how to do it), and I basically made the comment that there are ways......so he goes on to say he truly believes in telepathy and all that jazz, for the simple fact that science has said humans only use 10% of our brains. What about the other 90%? I couldn't answer him. What SHOULD you say to these people. Or maybe nothing at all?
Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
|
|||||||||
johne Special user 960 Posts |
Do a simple mindreading demo with him that is unexplainable by a layperson, then tell him the other 90% doesn't even matter...you've just "fooled" him with 5%.
John Eddington |
|||||||||
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts |
Believers will still believe even if you showed them methods. If they really want to believe they will continue.....
|
|||||||||
Scott Xavier Inner circle 3672 Posts |
Im the boogieman, believe in me?
|
|||||||||
jlibby Inner circle 1044 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-01-07 12:45, Dr_Zodiac wrote: Yes. Yes I do. This is an interesting topic. I do believe in the existence of certain types of ESP (there have been a couple of times where I dreamed things that happened later). But I don't believe we can harness this power at will. And anyone who says he can is a fraud... maybe. See ya! Joe L.
My new FREE ebook on the classic Mismade Bill trick is ready for you:
https://funnybirthdayshow.com/mismadebill/ |
|||||||||
Indyfan Regular user Calgary, Alberta, Canada 173 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-01-07 14:19, jlibby wrote: Actually, jlibby, that's exactly what my friend was going on about. He says that he truly believes that has happened to him, but after listening to his explanation of his dream, it sounded rather vague, similar to a horoscope type prediction. That's when I started 'preaching'. My roommates girlfriend had brought up the John Edwards "Crossing Over" issue, to which I just rolled my eyes. She didn't really take offense, just started questioning me as to why I rolled my eyes. I emailed her later, with a link to Banachek's site, to the Fakes & Frauds section. She said she spent the entire day reading that site & now has a new outlook on those kinds of topics.
Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
|
|||||||||
Brash Regular user 149 Posts |
First of all the "fact" about only using 10% of our brain is a myth. We use all of our brain (how well is another story). Andy Leviss has written something about this at Online Visions.
As for John Edward, or other types. Outright attacks tend to be ineffective. I prefer to merely question the manner in which the dead "cross over" and the vagueness which Edward sometimes shows. I suggest he "may" use other means, such as psychology, clever language, or perhaps even some "natural intuition". Then leave it at that. It is good to question, and good to encourage others to do so, but let them make their own conclusions. |
|||||||||
Jim Reynolds Elite user Special Guest 431 Posts |
First off, the name is John Edward. Not Edwards with an 's'. Magicians give away their ignorance when the call him Edwards.
Quote:
What SHOULD you say to someone who truly believes that, for example, John Edwards is legit? Or any mentalist/psychic for that matter. I personally don't believe it's right to let them go on their merry way, especially if they're considering paying money to see such people, and basing their decisions on what they hear/see. And how do you base your decision that he is fake? From a website? Something you heard or saw? A religious belief? Quote:
What about the other 90%? I couldn't answer him. Why does this bother you? There is a great deal that we do not know about the mind. I am not defending John Edward (and others like him). For all I know, he could very well be a phenomenal cold reader with a huge staff of secret assistants. But I do know that I have yet to see a magician/mentalist come close to what he can do. Dismissing it all as a just a form of cold/warm/hot reading is a weak argument. People have their own religious/spiritual/political beliefs that work for them. It's not our jobs to 'save' these people by converting them to our way of thinking. I see nothing wrong with explaining to others that you can replicate psychic powers using your 5% (good one johne), but ‘preaching’ about it strikes me as arrogant. Ian Rowland exposed some of his cold reading techniques on American television to a group of people who thought he was a real psychic. Even after explaining to them that what he did was not real, the audience members did not change their core beliefs. Only that Ian was able to fool them (see post by shrink). As an old Zen saying goes: “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear”. No need to force it. JR |
|||||||||
ALEXANDRE Inner circle 3024 Posts |
Good post, Brash, I agree.
For those who truly believe no explanation will suffice. And Jim, are you serious? You haven't seen anyone come close to what John Edward does? He's good but I've seen more convincing performances. James Randi for one has done very acurate demonstrations of this nature ... but you probably don't like him much.... :firedevil:
HERE'S A SECRET ...
http://www.lybrary.com/mystic-alexandre-m-354.html |
|||||||||
Indyfan Regular user Calgary, Alberta, Canada 173 Posts |
Thanks Brash!! I went and found the article you spoke of by Andy. (http://www.online-visions.com/sharedthoughts/0305andy.html)
Wow, that even surprised me! You learn something new every day!!! You make a good point about letting others form their own conclusions. Thanks for your reply.
Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
|
|||||||||
Jim Reynolds Elite user Special Guest 431 Posts |
First off, the name is John Edward. Not Edwards with an 's'. Magicians give away their ignorance when the call him Edwards.
Quote:
What SHOULD you say to someone who truly believes that, for example, John Edwards is legit? Or any mentalist/psychic for that matter. I personally don't believe it's right to let them go on their merry way, especially if they're considering paying money to see such people, and basing their decisions on what they hear/see. And how do you base your decision that he is fake? From a website? Something you heard or saw? A religious belief? Quote:
What about the other 90%? I couldn't answer him. Why does this bother you? There is a great deal that we do not know about the mind. I am not defending John Edward (and others like him). For all I know, he could very well be a phenomenal cold reader with a huge staff of secret assistants. But I do know that I have yet to see a magician/mentalist come close to what he can do. Dismissing it all as a just a form of cold/warm/hot reading is a weak argument. People have their own religious/spiritual/political beliefs that work for them. It's not our jobs to 'save' these people by converting them to our way of thinking. I see nothing wrong with explaining to others that you can replicate psychic powers using your 5% (good one johne), but ‘preaching’ about it strikes me as arrogant. Ian Rowland exposed some of his cold reading techniques on American television to a group of people who thought he was a real psychic. Even after explaining to them that what he did was not real, the audience members did not change their core beliefs. Only that Ian was able to fool them (see post by shrink). As an old Zen saying goes: “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear”. No need to force it. JR |
|||||||||
Dr Xavier New user Portland OR 2 Posts |
Right on, JR.
I think it's great to give those "on the fence" the knowlege to make an informed decision, but messing with someone's beliefs can be tricky. Many come to these beliefs from personal experience and not pure "facts". I prefer to embrace the idea that humans can have experiences outside of normal reality: dreams, trance, hypnosis, getting 'lost' in a book or movie, etc. To the dreamer the dream is as real as any conscious experience is. Scientist say to beware of "magical thinking". But on the other hand, magical thinkers lead magical lives. Science (and Randi) be ***ed. Click here to view attached image. |
|||||||||
Indyfan Regular user Calgary, Alberta, Canada 173 Posts |
Jim,
You're right...I apologize for not getting the name right. Where do I base my decision he's a fake? Honestly, from a rather trusted source...Banachek (well, his website anyways). No, not religion. And my use of the word 'preaching' was poor. I should've chosen a different word. I should've simply stated "that's when I began explaining that there ARE ways to perform these things" I like your quote, though. Okay, just to stir the pot, I found a link regarding the "10% of our brain" myth. This goes against what Andy Leviss wrote. http://www.h2net.net/p/nslade/Papers/how.html I realize "how much of our brain" can be relative, but it's an interesting topic!
Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
|
|||||||||
jlibby Inner circle 1044 Posts |
Here's something to think about: If John Edward was a genuine psychic, would his TV show be on THE SCI-FI NETWORK??
Thank you. I'll collect my reward now. See ya! Joe L.
My new FREE ebook on the classic Mismade Bill trick is ready for you:
https://funnybirthdayshow.com/mismadebill/ |
|||||||||
DaFrog New user FRANCE 8 Posts |
I think that Brash has already given you a very good answer.
If you try to impose to someone the idea that somebody they believe in is a fraud, you'll hurt their feelings very strongly. Moreover you don't know for sure that anyone is not (at least a little) real... If somebody would come to me and say that because he can replicate stigmata, Jesus was a fake, I'm not sure I would be very inclined to listen to his message (I'm a Christian believer)... So just give facts, hints, and let them believe as long as it doesn't hurt them (sects may be another problem). Sylvain |
|||||||||
David Numen Inner circle 2071 Posts |
Why would an entertainer feel a need to intrude on someone's belief system?
Exponents of positive thinking have promoted the use of several key "beliefs" that may or may not be true but if you choose to believe in them then it can be very beneficial. For example "Everything that happens to me happens for a reason and that reason serves me". Now, that may be complete BS, it may not. One thing is for sure, to believe it encourages better, positive, flexible thinking. There are much worse things to believe in than psychic powers or abilities. True, some people getted scammed but then some people get scammed in EVERY walk of life. Obviously another factor to consider is your presentation. Are you presenting your feats as real, as some kind of trickery or do you offer no solution and let the audience decide? Sounds like you are going for the trickery option which, IMHO, is the weakest way to perform mentalism. I am primarily a "reader" and try as much as possible to work within a person's belief system. If I get the idea that they are too hooked on me or another reader's abilities then I work hard to wean them off the psychic teat and encourage them to take charge of their own life. In this sense, anything I do is presented as real. Having said that, everything I do IS real! I never claim anything I don't personally believe in! And that leaves me free to warn people about unscrupulous readers and the like. Regards, David. |
|||||||||
noncom Regular user Birmingham, UK 125 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-01-07 17:45, Indyfan wrote: OK, I know you're just trying to wind us up, but you must realise that this "research paper" is complete nonsense. The grammar and spelling of it suggest that it's been written by a fourteen-year-old (apologies to any fourteen-year-old readers who can do better!). The autopsy study sounds dubious at best, and almost certainly hasn't been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal (and as my wife's a doctor, I know that even some of the studies that ARE published in such journals are very badly constructed). And, as for the contention that since "experts agree that the potential of the human mind is infinite", we must be using far LESS than 10% of it, well that's complete tosh. As to whether continuing to believe in something which is based on a fraud is harmless, I think in many cases it is in fact very harmful. As has been pointed out in these discussions before (by Banachek among others) the likes of John Edward encourage people to believe that their beloved deceased relatives have not really gone from their lives, but can still play a part through the intervention of the medium. This interferes hugely with the psychologically vital process of grieving, and also pushes them into giving money to mediums in order to continue hearing from their loved ones. So whilst I would try to steer people gently away from persisting in such beliefs -explaining in general terms how the mediums may work (although trying not to expose secrets of our art), or even demonstrating something to them which they can't explain but which I can assure them is done by natural means - you have to tread extremely carefully. Someone who has used a medium to contact a lost parent, child or partner will react very badly to being told outright that they've been fooled. They may feel extreme anger in two ways: firstly, at you for challenging them; secondly, (to the extent which they believe you) at the fraud who has duped them. However, it's likely that you as the "message bearer" will take the full brunt of both. If you are to take on the task, you must be prepared to have the time and compassion to build them up again, having knocked them down. Respect and love by the bucketload is the order of the day. Cheers Andy
It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it - Bananarama.
|
|||||||||
David Numen Inner circle 2071 Posts |
Andy just said
"As to whether continuing to believe in something which is based on a fraud is harmless, I think in many cases it is in fact very harmful. As has been pointed out in these discussions before (by Banachek among others) the likes of John Edward encourage people to believe that their beloved deceased relatives have not really gone from their lives, but can still play a part through the intervention of the medium." Surely it really depends on how you look at it. Yes, you could say that it is harmful. On the other hand you could say that people like John Edward are giving people hope about what happens after death. Do you know for certain that we enter a black void of nothingness? And who are we to want to shake a persons belief in such a personal matter? By the way, I only ever seen Edward give the audience a sense of closure, I have never seen him say "Come back next week to see what Daddy says about the stock market". I'm sure that in some cases people can be taken advantage of and that some readers do keep their clients hanging, but is it for us who know only a few entertainment techniques to decry the many honest and sincere readers out there? Of the cases that I have read concerning major psychic fraud, most all of them concerned victims who were obviously highly gullible and didn't take much conning. I think that the general public as a whole has enough information out there to make their own decisions about the psychic world. Of course, this whole issue only becomes of import if you are adopting the questionable role of being a fake mentalist. If you are doing mentalism "for real" then you won't want to shake anyone's belief in teh supernatural. If you are playing the "you decide" card then once more it would be unproductive to denounce the supernatural world. Regards, David. |
|||||||||
noncom Regular user Birmingham, UK 125 Posts |
David
Thanks for your response. I stand by what I said, based on the specific words I used. I think your post takes my thoughts somewhere slightly different. I said that it may be harmful to believe in something which is based on a FRAUD, not a misconception. I personally choose not to take issue with the beliefs of others unless I'm sure they're being taken for a ride. You're absolutely right, I can't say for certain what happens after death, and people are free to choose what they think about that. But if (repeat IF) John Edward is "tricking" people into thinking he is communicating with the dead when he actually isn't, then you have to ask why? Either he's doing it unwittingly, or knowingly to gain money, fame, power etc. I have a problem with both those scenarios, but particularly the second. The other thing I'd clarify is that I said "the likes of John Edward encourage people to believe that their beloved deceased relatives have not really gone FROM THEIR LIVES, but can still play a part THROUGH THE INTERVENTION OF THE MEDIUM". Again, I can't say whether it's true or not that the people have "gone" in an ultimate sense, or moved on to some other existance. However I think the grieving process requires that people accept that, at least as far as the here and now is concerned, people who've died can't come back and say hello even if someone on television says they can. OK, it may be that both the believer and the medium are genuine about the process and that's probably an area to avoid, but if I honestly feel that the medium is well aware that they're not actually communing with the dead, then I don't feel comfortable allowing that to go unchallenged. It should be said that I don't have the Sci-Fi channel so I have seen very little of Mr Edward myself. I do not intend to slur him with these comments aimed at fraudulent mediums, since I have no idea whether he is one or not. Thanks again, I enjoy the debate. Cheers Andy
It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it - Bananarama.
|
|||||||||
Indyfan Regular user Calgary, Alberta, Canada 173 Posts |
Thanks everyone for your responses. With the differing opinions, I'm glad I asked the question. I think even I've been more enlightened now, thanks to your responses. People's feelings & their beliefs are a fragile issue, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » What do you say to "believers"? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |