Near the end of the interview he uses that example - the woman who's husband had recently died - to show that he really didn't, not consciously as far as he could tell, pick up on the queues to hint at her having recently dealt with a tragedy. After much use of this technique he noticed he wasn't required to consciously perceive the hints. Rather, he was able to subconsciously pick up on the evidence to base his cold reading off of, without the need to even pass by the filter of conscious perception.
He would come to the conclusion based on evidence that his mind no longer needed to be aware of. Just process the information and hand him the end result.
In a different interview he simply recalled the event as simply saying "you lost your husband" not quite as specific as he makes out here. One of the techniques within cold reading is making rather assertive statements had they said "no I didn't" the usual reply was, "I'm seeing a husband figure here does that mean anything?" On average that person is going to know someone who lost a husband or a father (who would be a husband to somebody) thus gaining a "hit" I'm slightly skeptical of the idea of a "shut eye".
I haven't seen many interviews with Orson Welles to know his descriptions of this event lol But I don't understand what is hard to believe about his description in the video you linked? I find it plausible that one could detect hints of tragedy on a person, and then after applying this skill many times (like any skill, to an extent, I suppose) one might develop the ability to skip over the conscious queues and skip straight to the point. Yes, I think that raises other questions. Such as, how well would one be able to trust their subconscious queues. Obviously one glance doesn't give you some secret insight to ultimate truth about that person's life, but, I think it's possible that one might see dark clothes, a gloomy expression, etc. and then take a guess - "A tragedy, ma'am?". Like in any case there are probably lots of cold readers who get the response, "No, that's not right at all." and are totally off in their guess. But those aren't exceptional, so you don't hear about them. Same with psychics, or fraudsters or anything.
In the instance of seeing dark clothes, gloomy expression etc I understand as it fits with the cold reading technique but as for "a completely normal person" sitting in, somehow giving the impression that they had lost their husband I find difficult to believe. A physical indicator of this would be something like a white line around a wedding finger indicating removal of a ring along with gloomy expression dark clothing etc
But a "completely normal person" is so hard to come by these days that it must be tragedy :P I agree with most of your points so far but what are you sceptical of? That he can cold read? That he had the experience at all? Or do you think he had a psychic experience with that specific woman? I'm sorry, I may have missed your point.
No no no lol I'm not sceptical that he can cold read (he admitted that's what he did) im just not sure about the idea that you can cold read information without any visual or audio indicators from the person. That would indicate psychic ability (which he doesn't seem to have lol) but he describes a shut eye as being someone who ends up believing in their own bullshit really, this did t happen to him since he frequently refers to it as being a trick so I don't get how he was becoming a shut eye. Just concerned about the phrase being used as another sceptic tool to debunk people
Is he not saying that he must have been getting queues, whether they were visual or audio, but subconsciously. So as to not be aware of his critical thinking on the matter and just consciously get the thought in its end product?
As for anyone utilizing tools to debunk any subject I've seen some pretty low tactics in any part of the spectrum. So the term "shut eye" would be a welcome addition seeing as it's just one's opinion on the matter.
It is an interesting idea if true. How many times have you watched a video or read a story and wondered if somebody is that brave. crazy, bold or if they're just putting on a show - or a bit of all? For example, I've wondered if the people charging money for psychic readings are legit, and then the next thought might be along the lines of, "do they just believe in it so deeply but they're still frauds that just don't know it." sort of thing. Maybe not sounding so harsh though :P