The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Enrique Enriquez' "Invisible Readings" (1 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
lumberjohn
View Profile
Special user
Memphis, TN
618 Posts

Profile of lumberjohn
Mota,

I do indeed respect your opinion, though I fail to see what James Randi has to do with this discussion. Several of your comments, furthermore, appear to fall into the category rightly criticized by Mr. Cushman as dismissive ad hominem attacks that don't address the substance of the arguments asserted. I have addressed above the charge that I questioned Mr. Enriquez's ethics. Finally, I don't believe one's mindset, whether skeptical (Randi-esque as you call it) or not would make any difference in the value one finds in Mr. Enriquez's work. I might agree with you if he were making supernatural or paranormal claims, but as I read it, he is not. Most of what he says I do not necessarily disagree with. I just don't find it of much value for the purposes most on this board would be purchasing IR, and for reasons stated in greater detail above, believe that it implicitly encourages and condones what I consider to be reckless and potentially harmful behavior. I do agree with you, though, that IR is a "different type of readings book." I just don't think that difference is necessarily a good thing.
bdekolta
View Profile
Inner circle
Texas
1636 Posts

Profile of bdekolta
Randi and finding 80 pages of IR as "filler" actually have much to do with each other. That is not meant as a put down. It has to do with mindset and presuppositions.

I would recommend that you do some readings - not cold readings - but actual readings and find what you can discover. Then see how Enrique's work can be applied. At the very least I think you would find it an interesting exercise. At best you will learn more about yourself and the people around you.
takeachance
View Profile
Inner circle
3334 Posts

Profile of takeachance
Just being straight Tony, if you read some of the earlier post here, you will see the many references stating as to the benefit anyone in mentalism will gain from this work. So have another read mate, there laid the problem for me. Your post should have come earlier and perhaps this thread would have turned out differently.
teejay
View Profile
Inner circle
Liverpool, UK
1832 Posts

Profile of teejay
Good people write bad books and bad people write good books.
It would have been more helpful if posters had stuck to the contents of the book.
And said what they liked or disliked about the book.
I do readings and ONE GOOD NEW USABLE idea in a book is like finding gold.
Unfortunately ONE GOOD NEW USABLE idea in ANY book is rather unusual lol.
:_)
bevbevvybev
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
2571 Posts

Profile of bevbevvybev
There's an awful lot of words here to basically say 'I don't like this book'. I find that strange. When I've not really liked things I haven't even bothered to post about them. Otherwise my 'I don't like x' posts would be all over these boards.

Please tell us about some books on readings you HAVE found useful, then we'll be able to see where you're coming from.

I'm trying to figure out a 'scale' of readings based on how much input the reader gives. How about, on a scale of 1 to 10, from least input to most input:

1. Simply tell someone what the cards mean
.
.
.
.
5. Explain what the cards mean, and your take on the cards, with input from sitter
.
.
.
.
10. Take the cards as a springboard for the imagination

If you did a reading which was basically a 1, then in fact you're not doing a reading. You're doing what hobbyists across the world do when they get a book on tarot and some cards for the first time - 'this means this and this means that' readings using the stock meanings in whichever book you have. If someone came to you for a reading and you did what they'd already done at home I think they'd be pretty upset.

So in truth, using my scale of imagination here, only really anything from a 2 upwards could be considered a 'reading' as such, because you actually came to some conclusions yourself - you were part of the experience. Readings are a shared experience - it's not a correspondence course. People come to readings for the experience - if they wanted otherwise, they would be happy reading their horoscopes.

As subjective as it is, I would imagine that most people's readings fall somewhere around the five mark. But here's the problem - if you're using ANY imagination, any intuition, or any wisdom, it's YOURS and open for criticism. If you do ANY kinds of readings, and are using your imagination in any way whatsoever, you are still using your imagination, and just because you're using it 10% of the time doesn't get you off the hook any more than someone who uses 80% of their imagination during a reading.

You could argue that in fact with readings, it is the imagination that IS the reading - the ability for the reader and the sitters minds to interact with each other, using the symbols presented before them, to come to conclusions. You may find that the sitters imagination is even more rampant than your own! Then what?

Is 'more' imagination better than 'less'? I'm not sure. But I do know that if you have any imagination at all, and are doing readings, it is quite strange to say that someone who does it more is dangerous and someone who does it less isn't. If you're doing it AT ALL, you are in the same boat.

And if you're giving readings, you must be.

Enrique's book takes the idea of the imagination and readings to about 8 I would say. Why not 10? I would say because I know for a fact he would not just go on a total flight of fancy regardless of the consequences. I would give a 10 to someone who was as bad as a 1, but in the opposite direction - someone who went off with his imagination at such wild tangents without a thought for the sitter that he could do some potential damage.

A lot of dangerous and deluded so called 'psychics' fall into the 10 category.

If you do any kind of readings which are more than a 1, you can see where people who are doing a 10 come from - of course you can, you've used your imagination, you can imagine using it some more.

I would say that Enrique's book is about using more of your imagination, and learning to 'let go' more. This doesn't mean you suddenly become a 10. I would say probably an 8 - on the far reaches of using your imagination, but no so much that all ethics go out of the window. It's not delusion, but it is a freer form of reading than someone who reads for instance on a scale of 2.

But like I said, I find it strange that people who give readings would argue that using the imagination isn't part of the process. And especially if they would argue that using the imagination more or less is bad.

Whatever the level of imagination used in readings, it all comes down to whether the reader really cares about the people who come to him for readings. And what's strange is that people who get a 1 on my scale probably don't care one bit. I would spot a 1 or a 10 in about a minute. The 1 would bore the hell out of me, and the 10 would scare the hell out of me. The 1 would probably be a magician who just learned the tarot to make a quick buck, and the 10 would probably be nuts.

But it's all nuts, right? Should we be doing this at all?

And on it goes.
lumberjohn
View Profile
Special user
Memphis, TN
618 Posts

Profile of lumberjohn
Quote:
On 2008-10-21 07:44, bevbevvybev wrote:
There's an awful lot of words here to basically say 'I don't like this book'. I find that strange. When I've not really liked things I haven't even bothered to post about them. Otherwise my 'I don't like x' posts would be all over these boards.


Bev,

I suspect that is why we so often see pages of glowing reviews about products and few or no honest negative reviews. No one wants to post such reviews because they are often attacked as dishonest or unqualified by those endorsing the product, as though if a negative reviewer disagrees with their assessment, there can be no possible explanation other than that the reviewer is hopelessly biased or incompetent. I personally believe that these forums are an appropriate place to post all honest reviews, whether positive or negative, and that readers can judge the weight of the reviews for themselves.

As for books I have found useful about reading, I would recommend Rowland’s “Full Facts of Cold Reading,” Dewey’s “Red Hot Cold Reading,” and Knepper’s “Wonder Readings,” which I thought was excellent. Most recently, I very much liked the DVD “Draw Me a Tree” by Rudy Hunter.

With respect to your scale, I would agree that if bringing imagination to cold reading is your main criterion, Mr. Enriquez’s book would rate high, as he does discuss this subject throughout. But I could just as easily use “the extent to which the book was not written by Enrique Enriquez” as my criterion and assign the book a “one.” I find it interesting that you concede that you don’t know whether it is better to inject more or less imagination into a reading(!), so I am at a loss to understand why you would consider this your primary criterion in evaluating readings, unless it is to validate your pre-formed conclusion about Mr. Enriquez's work.

If I were to create a scale such as yours, I would use the entertainment value of the reading as the primary criterion. Points would be added for the extent the reading could be made informative or useful to the subject’s life and points would be taken away to the extent the reading technique posed a potential for doing harm, such as providing inaccurate or uninformed information the subject might reasonably rely upon in making decisions. In evaluating new literature on the subject of reading, I look to see whether the literature makes advances in the area of increasing entertainment value or introduces other ideas or concepts that may impact the score favorably or unfavorably.

And this is where Mr. Enriquez’s ebook falls short for me. Most of the book involves internal processes that occur in the mind of the reader, but that don’t necessarily translate into a more accurate or entertaining reading for the subject. Much of the discussion appears very academic and theoretical or applicable only to the specific style of Mr. Enriquez. And in dealing with specific questions, Mr. Enriquez’s approach loses many points, for reasons I’ve already discussed.

Mota stated in his post that “Answering specific questions is what you do in readings,” as if this is the only legitimate approach. I don’t agree with that, and can cite many examples of readers who do not attempt to answer specific questions. Mr. Hunter’s video, referenced above, represents one such example. But if one does endeavor to respond to such questions, there are better ways than suggesting knowledge and expertise one does not have. One legitimate approach would be to simply pump the subject for his or her own feelings on the issue without suggesting answers of your own, though even this may skirt the domain of the licensed psychotherapist. I believe that whenever you start down the road of attempting to answer questions you don’t know anything about, you are on shaky ground.
sgrossberg
View Profile
Special user
Southern California
738 Posts

Profile of sgrossberg
In addition to the comments supportive of Enrique’s writings and concepts, I want to add that I find Enrique’s “invisible” series of books consistent with the concepts put forward in Gladwell’s book, “Blink.” In “Blink,” Gladwell talks about our ability to determine and express what is really important from a very limited and narrow period of experience. Simply, the concept is presented that our spontaneous reactions, images, feelings, and “experiences” are sometimes better than more carefully planned and considered routines. (Of course, I am also acutely aware of the concepts of primacy and recency; namely, how a person’s ability to make decisions and take in information is instantly clouded by personal likes, dislikes, prejudices and stereotypes, and timing issues.)

With Enrique’s concepts, as with Gladwell’s, you must buy in to the offering that we all instinctively “read” people upon our first meeting with them. Enrique is simply providing the tools by which this “reading” is brought to the surface and is made into something that can be expressed to another. Interestingly, and despite critics of Enrique to the contrary, Gladwell, I believe, will stand by the proposition that “experts” often make more solid decisions and come to better conclusions when based on their gut reactions (e.g., invisible readings) than they do given more time and information.

While I believe Enrique’s work should be a cornerstone of every working mentalist’s repertoire, I also believe that everybody processes their own internal language/imagery differently and Enrique’s techniques will take some longer to master than others. That being said, I can attest that Enrique's techniques when adapted to your individual style can be very, very entertaining!

Just some thoughts. - Scott
lumberjohn
View Profile
Special user
Memphis, TN
618 Posts

Profile of lumberjohn
Scott,

You make an interesting point by bringing up Malcomb Gladwell's "Blink." I took Mr. Gladwell's primary point to be that those who have developed significant expertise in an area often come to better conclusions through almost instantaneous unconscious processes than when forced to consciously think through a problem or to verbalize the method by which they arrived at their conclusion. In other words, our unconscious mind often works better than our conscious mind.

The key to this, however, is that it only works if the person has already developed an expertise in the subject area. Gladwell uses the example of an art critic who can spot a forgery with great accuracy but cannot necessarily tell you how he reached his conclusion or why he believes the artwork is fake. Gladwell's conclusion is that the critic's unconscious mind has become very effective at rapidly sifting through the relevant data and will often be far ahead of his conscious mind. Therefore, we should not easily dismiss snap judgments and decisions SO LONG AS THEY ARE ACCOMPANIED BY RELEVANT EXPERTISE.

Mr. Gladwell's book should not be seen as a recommendation to always go "with your gut" on every issue. Nor should it be construed to mean that all snap decisions are necessarily better than more carefully considered and reasoned ones. I think he would agree that education, knowledge, and experience regarding the subject matter are all extremely important in coming to accurate conclusions.

I agree with you that we all "read" people to some extent as soon as we meet them. But our accuracy in pegging them will be directly proportional to our own emotional intelligence quotient (EQ) -- that is, how experienced and intuitive we are in dealing with others. Some will naturally be far more accurate than others because they are more naturally gifted in this area and have probably spent most of their lives actually paying attention to other people and how they act. These people are more likely to be empathetic and to actually care about other people.

Having said all that, I don't agree that the approach Mr. Enriquez advocates has much to do with what Mr. Gladwell was discussing in "Blink." I think Mr. Gladwell would say that the best way to be a good reader would be to spend as much of your life as possible closely observing people, until you get to the point that your initial assessments turn out to be reliably correct the vast majority of the time.

At this point, you would be ready, with minimal input from the subject, to provide a fairly reliable character assessment, even if you could not explain how you got there. No oracle would be necessary. There would be no need to create random mental images, to speak in metaphors, or to create metaphorical associations. Someone that has reached this point would be able to tell the subject about themselves in clear, simple language. And wouldn't that be the best way to do it rather than speaking in puzzling ambiguities?

In short, Gladwell would presumably agree that those who have developed a strong expertise in reading should feel comfortable letting go of the reins a bit and trusting their intuition and insight. For those who have not put in the many years of practice and gaining relevant experience, however, I suspect that Mr. Gladwell would send these folks back to school before even attempting such a feat.

Mr. Enriquez, by contrast, makes no such distinction and recognizes no standard by which readers should be judged before being unleashed upon the public. Instead, he offers a skeletal one-size-fits-all strategy for approaching all readings.

I should point out that I am not claiming that Mr. Enriquez lacks the type of expertise referenced by Mr. Gladwell. From the examples Mr. Enriquez gives, it appears he is very empathetic and also very experienced. But that only highlights my point that what may work for him will not necessarily work for others.
bevbevvybev
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
2571 Posts

Profile of bevbevvybev
Lumberjohn - do you give readings?
IAIN
View Profile
Eternal Order
england
18704 Posts

Profile of IAIN
I've always taken Enriquez's work to be worth its weight in gold. And I don't really give readings in the traditional sense. And if you read up on Carl Jung, you'll see some cross over points too.

I'm starting to work on something that may make the fundamental-skeptics feel more relaxed about these kinds of things. No tarot involved whatsoever, and Enrique said the idea was a beautiful one. We'll see how it goes. I hope to finish it in the new year.

This is said with respect lumberjohn - you're avatar has you with, unless my eyes decieve me, mr. randi...i could be wrong, that could just be a friendly uncle..so I would take the leap and say you're coming from maybe a skeptical point of view and would never engage with someone and give a reading...so I am curious as to why you bought it in the first place...

as an offshoot of this discussion - I've always thought it would be lovely if someone would put out an "ethical guide to reading", especially aimed at mentalists who get a little confused, learn some cold reading and just blab it out - not ready for, or willing to take responsibility for what they've just said...which could cause distress for some people...

I think there's room in this world for everyone, of all beliefs - even those I completely disagree with (unfortunately hehe) - I don't think everyone who is out to learn how to give a reading is out to scam people, or be insincere - just as I think not every skeptic would only believe in what the nay-sayers say without exploring things for themselves...

there - I've waffled - where's the butter? oh and I should say, I'm an atheist skeptic mostly...
lumberjohn
View Profile
Special user
Memphis, TN
618 Posts

Profile of lumberjohn
Bev,

Yes, in the last year I have begun giving readings, though not professionally. I have been doing it primarily to learn and improve. That is why I purchased Mr. Enriquez's ebook. I feel comfortable with graphology and drawing analysis because I believe these do convey aspects of people's character. I do not answer specific questions and do not purport to fortell futures. I also describe for the person for whom I'm doing the reading exactly how I am getting my information from their writing so it is no mystery for them. I never even suggest that I have psychic or supernatural powers of any kind.

I believe that readings are far more personal than traditional mentalism and more interesting because you are discussing with people their favorite subject -- themselves. My readings are primarily intended to provide a context and frame of reference to discuss my subject's own personality traits with them. It is a very interactive process and a very enjoyable one for both of us.

To answer Iain's question, I am generally skeptical but do not discount the value of intuition, especially when viewed as Mr. Gladwell views it. As a trial lawyer, psychology enthusiast, and people person, I have spent the majority of my life analyzing and observing how and why people do what they do. It has always fascinated me. I think that readings are a logical extension of that interest and enthusiasm.
Roth
View Profile
Inner circle
The 18
5091 Posts

Profile of Roth
Lumberjohn,
I don't know if it was mentioned on this thread, and I certainly don't want to side track the thread, but Bev has some excellent material also on the subject of Cold Readings and Graphology.

Here is a link to bev's books:

The Parlour
2015 ECSS Alumnus

PANDORA

Deadwood
sgrossberg
View Profile
Special user
Southern California
738 Posts

Profile of sgrossberg
Lumberjohn - I have an experiment for you: Let's take off your trial attorney hat, for a moment, and ask the question, what would you have to think in order to make Enrique's "Invisible" series work for you? Once we have that answer, I think those of us who use Enrique's techniques can provide more solid assistance and responses. - Scott
mindpunisher
View Profile
Inner circle
6132 Posts

Profile of mindpunisher
Why is it in this community when someone speaks their mind and gives an opposing opinion no one can accept it?

I find it really strange that you would think he needs assistance. He simply isn't impressed with the book.

I don't have the book but have visited Enriquez site where he does these readings. Personally I didn't like them and would never use them. To me (just my opinion they came across as slightly mad and a wee bit pretentious).

In short I didn't like them. It's my opinion its good to have opinions. I think Enrique comes over as a nice and sincere guy.

I just wouldn't use his readings and would've been disapointed if I had bought the book based upon the overwhelming good revews on here.

So tell what could we do to alow you to see the folly of your judgement?

basically that's what you mean by your question. Just accept that not everyone will see things your way and that IS a good thing for mentalism.
sgrossberg
View Profile
Special user
Southern California
738 Posts

Profile of sgrossberg
Smile

Touche.

We must never allow ourselves to take ourselves too seriously. Let's put it all to rest. I respectfully withdraw the question as it's obviously objectionable. - Scott
mindpunisher
View Profile
Inner circle
6132 Posts

Profile of mindpunisher
Scott - your question just seemed to sum up the whole community when it comes to someone not agreeing with the mainstream. I think its healthy that those that don't air their thoughts. I think its badly needed in mentalism otherwise we give ourselves a false sense of superiority. I wish more people would speak out on things they don't like especially when they are "universally" being praised.

It gives everything a better balance.

And being objectionable isn't always a bad thing or means that we are taking ourselves too seriously. No Offense intended.
lumberjohn
View Profile
Special user
Memphis, TN
618 Posts

Profile of lumberjohn
I think Scott and Mindpunisher have ended this discussion on a positive note and I have nothing more to add. I did, however, want to say that I did not realize until Roth's post that Bevbevvybev was Bev Moore. I have Bev's ebook Post-Justify, and found it to be a fantastic resource for impromptu mentalism and a terrific bargain. His thinking was clever and first-rate. I will be picking up Bev's material on Graphology and Cold Readings soon and do not expect to be disappointed. Thanks, Roth!
Bill Cushman
View Profile
Inner circle
Florida
2830 Posts

Profile of Bill Cushman
Bev's work is superb and I highly recommend it. His new ebook on graphology for mentalists fills a long existing void. As per his usual, Bev writes in a way that is clear and concise and makes it fun and easy to remember and learn. He is truly a teacher. And he has had some wonderful influences that he generously acknowledges and whose impact is visible throughout his body of work. Highly recommended.

Getting back to the topic, I'd like to end with a similar recommendation for Enrique's work, particularly Invisible Readings. Whereas Bev may be said to "teach the trees," Enrique "teaches the forest." His forward to my new ebook The Fource contains so much in so few words that it is truly astounding. Just when I don't think Enrique can amaze me anymore, he goes and writes something like Refractions and sets the bar higher once again.
bevbevvybev
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
2571 Posts

Profile of bevbevvybev
Thanks for the kind words chaps
leapinglizards
View Profile
Inner circle
1254 Posts

Profile of leapinglizards
Quote:
Whereas Bev may be said to "teach the trees," Enrique "teaches the forest."


I think that THIS puts into perspective the entire thread very well!!!

I read Invisible readings and LOVED it… But then I have been a reader for MOST of my life, and a professional at it for the better part of 20 years, so trees I don’t really want or need all that much. I enjoy seeing them arranged in a new forest however.

When I find something like Invisible Readings or Bauta- I am DELIGHTED because it gives me a new level, a new path, an additional dimension to what I already do. My opinion is different from the poster on here who didn’t care for it, but I also was able to determine from what he wrote why and how. Neither of us is WRONG since it is our opinion. We are all right.

What I am bothered by in reviews, good or bad, is when people berate or fawn over something- but never tell us why. Any reviewer, including one who reviews any of our published works, who takes to time to tell me about their background, any biases for or against a given type of work or author, and then tells me what they specifically liked or did not like about a given book and WHY- will be a useful review to me. It lets me know how likely I am to agree or disagree with them, where their level of experience and philosophies may be similar or different than my own.

There are reviewers out there that if they PAN something, I know I should run out and get it as I will be delighted. Similarly, there is a movie reviewer in my local paper that if he hates a movie, I know I will love it and vice versa. I figured this out after wanting to shoot myself at several movies that he loved.
I think the original review more or less did this. I think Lumberjohn did this too.
So, I think that this thread has been a great discussion really and should give those who would enjoy Enrique’s books a good idea of what to expect- and those who would not a good idea of what to avoid.

I actually thought Scott’s question was terrific (But I drank the Ericksonian water so I got where he was going with it.) and think it would be neat for them to continue that chat in private NOT so Scott would convince anyone that they were wrong… but rather so lumberjohn might get more value out of the technique for himself. I think that is what Scott was shooting for anyway, not trying to disrespect a fellow attorney and performer for having an opinion.

That was my 2 cents… or at today’s gas prices $1.80
Leaping Lizards!!! Who knew it was possible.
<BR>
<BR>www.LeapingLizardsMagic.com
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Enrique Enriquez' "Invisible Readings" (1 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.43 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL