I think ultimately the only way for those unsure on mediumship and its abilities to gain any certainty on these phenomena and who have questioned experimental procedures on existing experiments would be to go ahead and do your own experiments. Just be careful not to go in expecting one answer or another, or it will color your interpretation of your results, especially via cognitive dissonance if the data points in the opposite direction you assume it will.
Mod+ A mediumship reading with a non-believer
- Thread starter Ian Gordon
- Start date
I don't understand something. If the medium and the researcher didn't knew anything about the sitter, (except that he was male and non believer) how did he welcome him by saying "Welcome Chad". I mean, ¿where did he get his name from?, that happened in the introduction of the video, so the medium got his name even before contacting the spirits?, ¿is he also a psychic besides being a medium?
Last edited:
Jim_Smith
New
I agree getting a reading from a good medium can help someone understand the phenomenon better. It might seem odd that someone who questions experimental procedures such as, triple blind protocols, will be convinced by an uncontrolled reading. But when you see the phenomenon occurring in your own presence you can see that the information being presented by the medium cannot be produced by cold reading. If you arrange the reading carefully you can prevent hot reading by concealing your identity. At my first reading I walked into a spiritualist church (for the first time in my life) without making an appointment, gave only my first name, and paid my $20 for 20 minutes in cash. (I also parked my car some distance away so I could reasonably rule out anyone in the church identifying me from my license plate.)
JKMac
New
And,,, how informative was the reading?
satyanveshi
New
I am not sure if we are interpreting the youtube video the same way, but to me it looks like:
1. Reader and sitter are in the same room with visual view of each other and audibility to each other
2. Reader is verbally communicating with the sitter (with at least one verbal response)
3. Sitter is providing lots of body posture / facial and even auditory feedback to reader
As for the proof, I judge it as I see it. The video does not provide summary of counting/scoring of hits/misses, nor show usage of anchoring or how hits were counted (other than agreeing by sitter).
Now, we all know this kind of setup is far from optimal. There is lots of discussion in the parapsychology literature AND in the skeptic literature about this. Some of it is quite valid. Sensory leakage is of course naturally the biggest issue. For statistics the scoring/counting/weighting is another.
We also know that there are better setups available and have been already used (again, Windbridge Institute / Beischel).
Now, is it possible I have judged this thing wrong based on looking at the video? Yes.
Will I re-evaluate once Smith-Moncrieffe publishes in JoP or JoSE (or elsewhere), maybe showing that the methodology was something other than what I alluded to based on watching the video? Yes.
Yes, as it stands, based on what is available for me to assess, the setup doesn't pass criteria for proper, scientific, sensory-leakage-blocked, triple-blind experimental evidence.
Do I appreciate her work? Yes.
Am I convinced? Yes (probabilisticaly), but I was already.
PS. Sorry for late reply, I had take off reply-notification so missed this.[/quote][/quote]
Yes, valid points. I was just inquiring because I had thought you might be saying you had some privileged information on this research.
I agree at first glance there are protocols with better blinding measures.
The researcher says this on the website:
Sensory leakage: Critics have often diminished the findings of research studies with Mediums as skeptics point out that Mediums may communicate accurate information about the sitter as a result of having knowledge about the sitter prior to the reading. In the Non-Believers experiment conducted by Metaphysics Research, “sensory leakage” was controlled for by ensuring that no one knew the sitter prior to the experiment. The researcher had an independent individual recruit the sitters. No names or any information was to be e provided prior to the study. Where the findings indicate that the Medium was able to provide information unknown to anyone except the sitter, this increases support for the notion that “survival of consciousness” exists. In this study, the only information the Medium and researcher knew was that the sitter was male and that he did not believe in the afterlife and other alleged talents related to mediumship.
I don't know what that means in the context of the medium in the video saying "Chad" at some point. Maybe the above means that sitter's first name was only revealed as the sitting started, rather than prior?
This page seems to indicate there is quantification and statistical analysis used in the research (although maybe not "hits and misses").
http://medium7.com/?page_id=88
Last edited:
Psiclops
Member
Firstly I fully agree with satyanveshi's points which are totally valid in that proper scientific protocols are the only way to validate this kind of material for those who need convincing that the phenomena is real.
There is a need to close all possible "wiggle room" loopholes for those who are eager to find a non-psychic answer.
In the end everything does depend in the first place whether this video is real and not a bunch of actors playing a role. I'm pretty certain they're not but no doubt the researcher will provide at least the proof that these are genuine experiments.
That said, if I had been Chad I would have been blown away especially by a couple of what I gather mediumship researchers know as 'dazzle shots' - namely the 'donkeydick' and 'pickles' words which no amount of cold reading would have elicited - unless of course Chad had the words tattooed somewhere visible! :-)
Thanks for posting this Ian - I will share with friends.
There is a need to close all possible "wiggle room" loopholes for those who are eager to find a non-psychic answer.
In the end everything does depend in the first place whether this video is real and not a bunch of actors playing a role. I'm pretty certain they're not but no doubt the researcher will provide at least the proof that these are genuine experiments.
That said, if I had been Chad I would have been blown away especially by a couple of what I gather mediumship researchers know as 'dazzle shots' - namely the 'donkeydick' and 'pickles' words which no amount of cold reading would have elicited - unless of course Chad had the words tattooed somewhere visible! :-)
Thanks for posting this Ian - I will share with friends.
I found this video in August. So I started researching Chris Stillar. I will say this. Having lost my 23yr old son in July I was desperate for answers. I contacted and wrote many mediums. I was requesting their opinion on the afterlife.
Also the few readings I did have during that time were terrible. For some reason many mediums like to play this act. They call you dear heart, lovey, with every sentence. They also gave me very generic mumbo jumbo readings that could pertain to anyone. Nothing to validate that they were connecting with my son.
Anyway, the medium on the above video, "Chris Stillar" actually wrote me back. A very nice, normal, long letter. He has about a year waiting list for readings. He never offered one, never told me I would benefit from one, in fact he just wanted me to know that he believed my son was always with me, and always would be. He said after a significant amount of grieving time had passed I would be able to feel this myself if I kept my heart open to it. He assured me that I would get through this and someday I would feel real happiness again.
He was a real caring person who took the time to respond to my letter. Not one other medium did. All I got from others was........their secretary emailing their fee information. About a month later I wrote him again with a question. A few days later he wrote me back answering. Not once did he tell me I would benefit from a reading or anything regarding one.
So what do I think about him? I tend to believe he is the real deal. I know for sure he is a caring person. This does in no way prove his abilities, yet it does go to showing the character of him.
Also the few readings I did have during that time were terrible. For some reason many mediums like to play this act. They call you dear heart, lovey, with every sentence. They also gave me very generic mumbo jumbo readings that could pertain to anyone. Nothing to validate that they were connecting with my son.
Anyway, the medium on the above video, "Chris Stillar" actually wrote me back. A very nice, normal, long letter. He has about a year waiting list for readings. He never offered one, never told me I would benefit from one, in fact he just wanted me to know that he believed my son was always with me, and always would be. He said after a significant amount of grieving time had passed I would be able to feel this myself if I kept my heart open to it. He assured me that I would get through this and someday I would feel real happiness again.
He was a real caring person who took the time to respond to my letter. Not one other medium did. All I got from others was........their secretary emailing their fee information. About a month later I wrote him again with a question. A few days later he wrote me back answering. Not once did he tell me I would benefit from a reading or anything regarding one.
So what do I think about him? I tend to believe he is the real deal. I know for sure he is a caring person. This does in no way prove his abilities, yet it does go to showing the character of him.
Last edited:
Bucky
Member
Hi and welcome,
I am sorry for you recent loss and thanks for your testimony.
It's good to know that it's still possible to find compassionate and caring people that don't need to charge you money for a simple question.
Some of the "superstar" mediums seem to have lost track with all this, they have all of their contacts taken care of by secretaries, they never reply directly to any request and charge stellar fees. It all feels like an assembly line and they act like movie stars. Personally I don't like the attitude even if they were the best around.
The guy in the video seems a very down to earth person, very able to communicate with grieving people without posing as a "guru" or sounding cliché etc... I watched several of the public readings available. I was impressed.
cheers
Bucky
Member
Here's a possible reason.
Suppose you're on the phone with somebody but the signal is not that good and there are interruptions and hiccups.
How come you heard "Donkey dick and pickles" but you didn't quite catch the caller's name?
David Bailey
Member
I think there is a danger that once someone like Julie Beischel does a very carefully blinded experiment (and gets a positive result) people are inclined to disregard other evidence. It is perverse, but I think it happens. It may be, for example, that the sheer artificial nature of Julie's studies would put a lot of mediums off.
The problem is that even when a 'proof' (strictly, there is no such thing in science) is supplied, people want another one, and another..... Not all scientific enquiry can be performed in the same way. Think of the anthropologist who has one very incomplete skeleton to theorise over. Statistics isn't much use.
Furthermore, my impression is that a great deal of trickery in science revolves around the misuse of statistics.
David
satyanveshi
New
There are fairly simple known, studied, experimentally verified and generally accepted psychological models of perception that deal with questions like this: priming, selective attention, change blindness, etc.
In summary, even with 100% wake, cognitively healthy and 20/20 vision capable adults, the exact same visual stimuli (a scene being viewed):
- produces different selective perceptions (i.e. noticing "what is there")
- produces different interpretations (i.e. explaining "what is it, what does it mean?")
- results in different reactions/narratives (i.e. "how does it relate, what are causal relations")
even with non-psychic perceptions.
When you add into the fact the PSI research finding, that ESP seems to be a relatively noisy channel in terms of signal/noise, then different people will pick out different things at different times.
No real mystery there, at least it is not required.
KMarantz
New
I've been looking at this medium named Gordon Smith. Google him if you aren't familiar. This guy comes up with complete names. He seems to like street names too. I tell you what- he's either the most gifted psychic there is or the most amazing con artist around. I can't tell which. Supposedly, from video where he got the first, middle and last name of a deceased son, it was debunked because the camera crew was shown a newspaper clipping of the a story featuring the son's death before the video. I couldn't find anything else about that claim. Who knows.
Last edited:
Far.From.Here
New
You may be interested in Tymn's book, Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife. He addresses this idea several times in the book through the thoughts and writings of the gentlemen who studied Piper first hand.
In Piper's case there was not only a medium on the physical side, but there was a medium on the "non-physical" side who communicated with the deceased and attempted to translate the message received from the deceased as best they understood it to Piper. Piper then needed to apply a level of interpretation to that communication and relay it to the sitter.
Another issue that was brought up in that book is that is is oftentimes much easier to communicate an idea like "gardening" or "piano playing" mentally because one can construct a mental image of the activity or the object. In other words perhaps, one can imagine it. Names, it was claimed are much more difficult to communicate telepathically.
In some ways it could be related to the effect that is reported by some while dreaming or our out body that language or something that is read while in that state is much more difficult to remember than images. Remembering numbers for example is seemingly more difficult in the "nonphysical."
This is a good point. And somewhat related to it is this: A portion of certain psychological/educational tests given to students/patients will be to have individuals recall a series of numbers read aloud, beginning with, say, three numbers in a row (eg. 3, 9, 2). Then four numbers will be read, five numbers, six and so on. What often happens is that individuals will have difficulty recalling six or seven consecutive digits, but as the process progresses the same indivdual will have no problem remembering and reciting back series involving fifteen, sixteen or twenty+ digits... When this happens it can be an indicator of certain types of anxiety. People will fear the failure of not being able to recall an easier series, and this tension can interfere with performance. As the test becomes more difficult this tension relaxes and interference is reduced.
Different mediums get different types of info, that's pretty basic Mediumship 101.
But KMarantz is an idiot.