Psychics see their popularity rising

Discussions on UFOs, ghosts, myths etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Psychics see their popularity rising

#1  Postby RichardPrins » Mar 02, 2010 3:33 am

Psychics see their popularity rising
Medium's popularity a sign of public's growing fascination with the other side

DETROIT - When you're a self-professed psychic medium and you hear dead people, sometimes you just have to turn down the volume.

Rebecca Rosen says she'll be in line at the grocery store when she's mentally bombarded by spirits, specifically, the deceased loved ones of the strangers in front of her.

"If I'm standing in the checkout line behind them, and I hear a name in my head over and over again, the only way to know if it's real is to ask the person in front of me," Rosen says.

"But then I ask myself, 'Should I cross that line?' and 'Are they ready to hear it?' And I usually hear a 'no.' "

There are plenty of people, however, who are tuned in and ready to hear what Rosen says dead people are telling her. The 33-year-old mother of two, who started delivering psychic readings in a West Bloomfield, Mich., coffee shop 10 years ago, is booked nearly three years in advance for readings: $275 for a half-hour, $500 for an hour.

In February, a group reading in Novi, Mich., drew 800 people who paid $30 to $60 apiece.

"I think people are curious to know - have solid validation - that there's life after death and comforted to hear their deceased loved ones are OK and still with them," Rosen says. "They like having guidance and validation on the path they're traveling down."

Rosen, who now lives in Denver, has written a book about her life, "Spirited: Connect to the Guides All Around You" (Harper Collins, $24.99); it came out in February. She's been featured on Rachael Ray's talk show and "Entertainment Tonight." She's given celebrity readings to Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox Arquette and Vanna White, and ABC's "Nightline" followed her around for a few days.

Long-time fascination
The fascination with psychics and "the other side" is long documented.

An August Pew Research Center Forum survey of 4,013 adults indicated that 29 percent of Americans feel they've been in touch with the dead; almost 1 in 5 Americans (18 percent) says he or she has seen ghosts, twice as many as in a similar survey 13 years ago. About 15 percent of Americans have contacted a fortuneteller or psychic; women were twice as likely to do so as men.

Even if we don't believe, we're certainly entertained by the paranormal.

A top-20 TV hit on CBS is "The Mentalist," whose lead character feigned a career as a psychic medium but now uses his razor-sharp observational skills to solve murders. The "Ghost Whisperer," based on the experiences of a psychic medium, is in its fifth season on CBS and is followed on Friday nights by "Medium," a psychic mom, inspired by former Valley resident Allison DuBois, who helps law enforcement.

The recent film "The Lovely Bones," based on the 2002 novel of the same name, tells of a dead girl who tries to contact her parents and siblings.

Pop culture's current preoccupation with all things psychic makes sense, experts say.

"During times of economic difficulty and uncertainty, interest in the supernatural skyrockets," says Lynn Schofield Clark, a professor at Denver University and author of "From Angels to Aliens: Teenagers, the Media and the Supernatural."

"We all want answers to the unanswerable questions in life. And when we're uncertain about our own futures - which a lot of us are today, given the economic recession - popular culture can provide stories that allow us to ask, 'What if?' "

Debunker of claims
It's all verbal tricks and mirrors, says magician James Randi, who traveled the world as the Amazing Randi.

Randi operates a non-profit educational foundation, http://www.randi.org, and wrote a book, "Flim Flam!" to rebut the paranormal claims of mediums.

Randi says clairvoyants pick up clues inadvertently transmitted by a client or use information they've found from published and online sources. Psychics, he says, practice observations or guesses that draw responses from a client and provide clues.

But Richard Mann, a professor emeritus of psychology and religion at the University of Michigan, says people have always expressed a connection with the dead.

Some scientific experiments that put strict controls on the seer and the client - for example, putting a screen between the two and having the client give only yes and no answers - suggest that some psychic mediums are more accurate than can be explained by chance, Mann says.

"My own indirect experience is that the accuracy rate is not huge, but it's not minor," says Mann, who once had Rosen visit his class.

"I'd say that all the skeptics are on the losing side of this."

Grandmotherly advice
Rosen, who grew up in Nebraska, started working as a psychic medium when she and her husband were living in Michigan and working for her dad's mortgage business.

Her new book is part memoir and part how-to guide on living a more serene life, even in the face of tragedy.

Rosen always knew she was prone to depression. Her grandmother committed suicide when she was 11, and while she was at the University of Florida, her father tried to kill himself.

Through the journal she kept in college, Rosen says she felt as if her late grandmother spoke to her. She says she wrote down what her grandmother told her - how to take better care of herself, how to guard against depression - and that her grandmother gave her clues from the other side: the names Ryan and Rose and the numbers 9 and 24. She also talked about an important man who would enter Rosen's life.

Several months later, Rebecca met Brian Rosen (which sounds like Ryan and Rose), who was born on Sept. 24. He would become her husband.

Rosen built a career as a psychic, but even she couldn't see the tragedy that came three years ago, when her father, Shelly Perelman, did commit suicide.

"I was comforted that he was at peace. But it doesn't take away the pain and the questioning of why, and why didn't a psychic pick up on the signs," she says.

Rosen says it took eight months after he died for his spirit "to come through" to her.

Rosen says people can choose to believe or not.

"My brother is a rabbi, and he was a big skeptic until he started watching my groups.

"I have rabbis who openly support it. . . . Some say, 'Don't you think you should allow the souls to rest in peace?'

"And I laugh. I don't go after them. They come after me."
Image
Image
User avatar
RichardPrins
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1525
Age: 54

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Psychics see their popularity rising

#2  Postby DanDare » Mar 02, 2010 7:04 am

Rebecca Rosen needs medication.

Seriously, we need a new Harry Houdini to take this stuff on. I guess James Randy but He's getting a bit long in the tooth. Who are the new upcoming sceptics? I bags not be it.
Atheist. Ozzie.
Strange Flight
User avatar
DanDare
RS Donator
 
Posts: 1900
Age: 59
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Psychics see their popularity rising

#3  Postby virphen » Mar 02, 2010 7:07 am

DanDare wrote:Rebecca Rosen needs medication.

Not medication, she needs a long jail sentence for fraud.
User avatar
virphen
 
Posts: 7288
Male

Print view this post

Re: Psychics see their popularity rising

#4  Postby jerome » Mar 02, 2010 11:09 pm

DanDare wrote:Rebecca Rosen needs medication.

Seriously, we need a new Harry Houdini to take this stuff on. I guess James Randy but He's getting a bit long in the tooth. Who are the new upcoming sceptics? I bags not be it.



Houdini is interesting: a lot of the stuff credited to him, like the debunking of Mina Crandon (Margery) was actually done by other members of the Boston Society for PSychical Research. Which is not to say Harry did not play a major role - just not the overwhelming role his modern biographers tend to credit him with. I'm writing a paper on Magicians and Parapsychology a the moment - but it's a tradition which goes back way further than James RAndi or Harry Houdini :)

j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 51
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

#5  Postby Just Wondering » Mar 02, 2010 11:18 pm

I just go batty ape shit when I hear about this stuff! OOOOOoooooooooooooo preying on people who are bereft!
User avatar
Just Wondering
Banned User
 
Posts: 2766

Print view this post

Re: Psychics see their popularity rising

#6  Postby RichardPrins » Mar 02, 2010 11:20 pm

DanDare wrote:Rebecca Rosen needs medication.

Seriously, we need a new Harry Houdini to take this stuff on. I guess James Randy but He's getting a bit long in the tooth. Who are the new upcoming sceptics? I bags not be it.

We have organizations like CSI(COP) and indeed JREF, as well as other grass-roots endeavours sprouting up. Sites like this could help in that as well.
Image
Image
User avatar
RichardPrins
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1525
Age: 54

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Psychics see their popularity rising

#7  Postby I'm With Stupid » Mar 02, 2010 11:23 pm

You need to get Derren Brown over there.






But he's ours, so you can't have him.
Image
User avatar
I'm With Stupid
 
Posts: 9632
Age: 36
Male

Country: Malaysia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


#8  Postby Goldenmane » Mar 03, 2010 12:01 am

Some scientific experiments that put strict controls on the seer and the client - for example, putting a screen between the two and having the client give only yes and no answers - suggest that some psychic mediums are more accurate than can be explained by chance, Mann says.

"My own indirect experience is that the accuracy rate is not huge, but it's not minor," says Mann, who once had Rosen visit his class.

"I'd say that all the skeptics are on the losing side of this."


So where're the peer-reviewed papers on this? I haven't seen any. Anyone else seen any?
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

http://goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com/
User avatar
Goldenmane
 
Posts: 2383

Print view this post

#9  Postby William.Young » Mar 03, 2010 12:17 am

You can only see them if you're psychic.
Image
User avatar
William.Young
 
Posts: 272

Print view this post

Re:

#10  Postby jerome » Mar 03, 2010 12:40 am

Goldenmane wrote:
Some scientific experiments that put strict controls on the seer and the client - for example, putting a screen between the two and having the client give only yes and no answers - suggest that some psychic mediums are more accurate than can be explained by chance, Mann says.

"My own indirect experience is that the accuracy rate is not huge, but it's not minor," says Mann, who once had Rosen visit his class.

"I'd say that all the skeptics are on the losing side of this."


So where're the peer-reviewed papers on this? I haven't seen any. Anyone else seen any?


Yes, reading the parapsychology journals of course i have.:) I quoted them extensively in the formal debate on life after death in the old forum, and the Robertson/Roy study would occur by chance once in the lifetime of the universe as I recall. I know both the researchers, read all the papers (the study was designed in three iterations, each examined by sceptics first - Skeptic Report stated that if they received positive results with the last double blind version they would have clearly shown a paranormal effect) and yes, the two year study conslusively showed to me that something was going on. Hang on I'll go get the papers and cite them here - and better still, send me an email. They were the papers that FWUF and SpaghettiSawUs referred to in the commentary thread when they admitted that the critique levelled by Dr P was inadequate.) Wiseman, Blackmore etc remain silent on the issue: so far no one has found the flaw... which does not mean there is not one. :) What Spags said I think was "proves something - maybe ESP, not necessarily life after death" -- and that is completely true. I'll go dig out the links in a minute.

j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 51
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

#11  Postby jerome » Mar 03, 2010 12:41 am

Oh and I agree about psychics preying on the bereaved absolutely. :)

j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 51
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Re:

#12  Postby RichardPrins » Mar 03, 2010 12:47 am

jerome wrote:
Goldenmane wrote:So where're the peer-reviewed papers on this? I haven't seen any. Anyone else seen any?


Yes, reading the parapsychology journals of course i have.:)

Really? Peer-reviewed papers on psychics? Or do you rather mean papers that maybe show weak statistical anomalies in some experiments that are a far cry from what psychics actually claim they can do?

Of course, anyone can claim to be able to talk to the dead. The people that do make shitloads of money off of it. And there is no shortage of gullible people.
Image
Image
User avatar
RichardPrins
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1525
Age: 54

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Psychics see their popularity rising

#13  Postby jerome » Mar 03, 2010 1:12 am

From the old forum ---

"There is of course Gary Schwartz' VERITAS research project - http://veritas.arizona.edu/ -- but I can't say I'm enthusiastic. Hyman and O Keefe have both done a great job of critiquing experimental flaws. Wait and see I suppose...(and since I wrote this my reservations have hardened in to active distrust)

Far more robust to my mind is Professor Archie Roy and Tricia Robertsons PRISM research, checked in each iteration by sceptics, taking the feedback in to account for the next stage of methodological flaws and then moving forward... http://www.sspr.org.uk/Search.html gives an overview, but the second paper was

A Double-Blind Procedure for Assessing the Relevance of a Medium's Statements to a Recipient. Robertson and Roy, JSPR Vol 65.3 No 864 July 2001 pg 161 - 174

this was critiqued well in SkepticReport
http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=571

="Mark Tidwell" I believe the proposed design offered by Robertson and Roy is far and away superior to any that I have seen before. If the protocol is strictly adhered to, then there will be little room for dispute when the data is offered, in my opinion. It is my understanding that the team is currently undertaking a study based on this design. I look forward to seeing the results
.

What happened? There followed Roy AE, Robertson TJ. Results of the application of the Robertson-Roy protocol to a series of experiments with mediums and participants. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. 2004;68(1):18-34. Skeptic Report has not as far as I know commented yet on this successful experiment...

A couple of very recent papers --
Keeffe C, Wiseman R. Testing alleged mediumship: Methods and results. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2005;96(2):165-179. ( I note this especially because the British Journal of Clinical Psychology rarely troubles its readers with disproving claims of unicorns).

I can dig out more, but it's a pretty minor area as I said. Now if you spent time on the JREF forum you would note the million dollar challenge (which I enthusiastically support) is excellent when testing psychic claimants like Landin, Geller, Ogilvie, Acorah, etc, etc. It is not however designed to test a lab based claim like say Ganzfeld or much of that addressed above - though I suspect Randi would put his money where his mouth is happily enough if a simple test could be devised. It's simply not the area the JREF challenge tend to target - and this is discussed from time to time on the forum."

I may as well mention the comments from the forum members who actually read the papers in question --
FedUpWithFaith  wrote:
As most of you know I am no believer in life after death, psychics, and other woo. Obviously the papers did not convince me to change my mind. There are loose ends. But they cannot be hand-waved away either. Even assuming there are no real paranormal effects at work, there is something going on there even if it is due to the most subtle analysis flaws , an ingenious deception (which I highly doubt), or coincidences of a highly unusual nature. Certainly, in my view, it is the best and most credible work I've ever seen on this paranormal topic and I eagerly await further research and more attempts to replicate the work with the same or other "psychics".


SpaghettiSawUs wrote:Well it is my turn to wade in here. Having spent some time last night and today going over these papers, perhaps I can offer a few - hopefully objective - comments on the method and findings.

First it is important to understand what question was being addressed. Is there even a statistical significance between statements made by mediums, and the acceptance of those statements by recipients as being valid for their lives? Or, can the statements be correctly (i.e. rigorously and fairly) categorised as being so general that everyone would pretty much agree with a certain portion of a given set of a medium's statements anyway. The first question to be examined is then: is there a statistical significance which cannot be explained by chance alone.

So the initial study is geared only to detect such a significance, and it certainly appears from the result that substantially more people who are intended recipients of a given set of statements find those statements valid than do non-recipients. Massively so (as Jerome has pointed out).

But now for a statement of 'faith': not only am I not privy to the raw data, and I wouldn't know what to do with it if I was, but I certainly doubt that I could be as rigorous as the three independent (anonymous) reviewers who would have been privy to the data were. The acknowledgements recognise both the input of the referees and the changes that were made to the method paper* as a result. So I acknowledge the greater knowledge of others in regard to interpreting the raw data: generally that works for us all. In the several hundred times I've climbed aboard an aeroplane, or the several thousand times I've got into my car, and even sitting here writing this on the fifth floor of a high-rise block, that 'faith' is not without objective foundation.

Having said that, I can follow the presentation quite well, and the first paper does give significant grounds for confidence that a large part of the medium's apparent success is not due to chance alone. Of course, it certainly could be due to other factors - those 'tricks of the trade' for example, and other factors (the experimenter bias, confirmational bias on the part of the recipient etc) - so the first paper ends by outlining a method to address these possibilities - and to quantify their potential effects on the data.

The second paper presents an improved definition of the proposed method, and the third paper shows the results of a two and a half year study using this method. The study is rigorously defined and categorised, truly double-blind, varied specifically to enable certain factors (like whether a person thinks they are a recipient when they are not, and vice versa) to be measured and accounted for (to quantify confirmational bias for example).

The conclusions do appear to be clearly supported by the data: although there is some effect of confounding variables, it is nowhere near sufficient to discount the findings of the first study. That is to say, when all conceivable confounding variables are excluded (cold-reading, confirmational bias etc) there remains a highly significant statistical correlation between statements made to a recipient, and the acceptance of those statements, which cannot be reasonably assigned to chance. This much is clear.

So what about the statements themselves, the raw data. Well it is obvious that some statements are more weighty than others: 70% of people agreeing with "you have a dead male relative" is hardly impressive, but accurately hitting the person having a dead Scottish uncle named Bill who died in his forties, is obviously more weighty. So a strict method is required to give appropriate weight to individual statements, and to the degree of specificity included across a set of statements (a particular individual reading).

This weighting should reflect not just the specific nature of a statement, but also its relation to other statements in a set, as an objective indicator of the overall specificity of the whole set wholly -to allow different sets to reflect their own 'total weight' overall, and subdividing into the relative weight of each element within each set for comparative cross-set analysis. Obviously this opens up an opportunity for interpretation, my "very strong" could be your 'quite strong' as it were, and I must again defer to those referees in assuming that the relative weightings applied are reasonable overall according to the chosen system.

I do not need to wholly rely on those referees, however: allowing that there is a reasonable degree of objectivity in assigning weighting I can question the weighting system itself. Perhaps the weighting is too broad in range, say, so the distance between a specific and a quite specific statement might not really the same objectively as the difference in weight would suggest. So an obvious first question is: what happens if we tweak the final figures in order to 'lessen the total weight overall'. The effect would be a narrowing of the probabilities overall, as the effect of each weight would be lessened in calculating the overall probability of a given statement being accepted by a recipient as valid. This could possibly 'open the window' for chance, if a sufficient degree of weight-loss could be achieved.

So how much weight loss reasonably available? From the surface I would say not much. The scale, and the statistical computations performed on it, are as rigorous as anything I might reasonably expect to be used for such a task, and it stands to reason that so long as the differences in weight across the board are applied consistently, then no narrowing of the scale is going to change the resulting statistical outputs. The differences overall will be the same, proportionally speaking.

I might be incorrect on the above point, but I'm sure I understand the weighting applied sufficiently to recognise its valid basis for 'marking-up' or 'marking-down' each datum.

Important to point out however is that significant statistical correlation remains even when weighting is removed altogether, i.e. when all statements are given equal value and only non-confounded values are extracted from the data-set. Therefore the weighting is not 'creating the illusion of significance', though it does affect the final result as one would expect: the weighting should serve to normalise the significance of each piece of data, therefore high degrees of specificity accepted only by a blind recipient should have a greater significance overall.

Accepting then that the weighting has been fairly applied, the conclusion is that of highly significant correlation for which it would be 'engaging in fantasy' to put down simply to chance.

Of the conclusions, nothing is claimed beyond what the study can bear, but the claim is a serious one for the sceptic to consider: if all possible confounding variables have been taken into account, then recipients did indeed accept a higher proportion of statements from mediums as relevant to their lives, than did non-recipients, whether they believed (rightly or wrongly) that were the intended recipient, or not.

Since all 'normal' avenues of possible information were closed, and the effects of all confounding factors had been quantified and excluded, the fact that a very strong significance remains indicates that the mediums tested must be getting their information in a 'non-normal' way. The sceptic perhaps needs to find a hidden 'normal' route for such information, in order to discount the studies.

Overall I think it is fair to say that I came away from the papers recognising not only that a potentially valuable method had been developed, one which deserves to be repeated (and hopefully varied further) in several trials. The studies do raise genuine questions which are impossible to honestly ignore. Accepting - on 'faith' in scientists ;) - that the methods employed really do successfully exclude the possibility for 'normal' sources of information, then I am forced to accept that in this study it appears that the tested mediums were far more successful in their accuracy than pure chance would allow.

In regards to the experimenters themselves, their approach was scientifically correct IM(V)HO: they initially collected some raw data, analysed it and then sought out possible explanations for any statistical anomalies which they found. Ways were sought in which to discount these possible explanations systematically, leaving just the null hypothesis of that 'random chance' should easily explain any results so derived. The null hypothesis has certainly been falsified in this case, and no known hypothesis seems capable of carrying the findings the non-random nature of the results (weighted and un-weighted). Wherever the information came from, it certainly doesn't appear to have been derived from 'normal' methods.


As you can see, the chaps had a good look over the papers, and both found them sensible, and needing further study. I am massively prejudiced against mediums on common sense and religious grounds -- but I accept these trials did show a massive effect, not explicable by any currently accepted hypotheses.

j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 51
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Psychics see their popularity rising

#14  Postby RichardPrins » Mar 03, 2010 1:32 am

jerome wrote:(...) I am massively prejudiced against mediums on common sense and religious grounds -- but I accept these trials did show a massive effect, not explicable by any currently accepted hypotheses.

Massive is hyperbole in both cases. :grin:
Image
Image
User avatar
RichardPrins
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1525
Age: 54

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

#15  Postby jerome » Mar 03, 2010 1:42 am

LOl, maybe in the former; not the latter

we find that the probability P that this result is due to chance is 1.21 x 10~14 Now the second series of experiments took 2.5 years. If we had carried out the same experiment every 2.5 years for approximately ten thousand times the accepted age of the universe (14,000,000,000 years), we would have expected such a result to happen about once. This suggests that some factor other than chance is at work in obtaining such a result.


That's a pretty big effect size: massive hardly seems an understatement. :)

j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 51
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


#16  Postby FedUpWithFaith » Mar 03, 2010 1:47 am

Hi Jerome.

Nice to see you again after so long. I was just thinking about these papers and wondered what became of the research when lo and behold, I came across this thread in the most recent posts section. Must be a psychic paranormal event!
FedUpWithFaith
 
Posts: 33

Print view this post

#17  Postby RichardPrins » Mar 03, 2010 1:48 am

I have no idea whatsoever (-1020000000000000000000000) where you are quoting these big numbers from.
Image
Image
User avatar
RichardPrins
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1525
Age: 54

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Psychics see their popularity rising

#18  Postby Tangerine Dream » Mar 03, 2010 1:50 am

Unfortunately, this is true. They are all over the place, and some you cannot even imagine :smoke:
Take a look :lol: Sorry cannot provide a link.
Paranormal Wall Street

by Karen Stollznow

On Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley, CA, a sign in a store window reads, “Psychic Readings: 2 for the price of 1.” A street vendor barks at me, “I’ll give you a tarot reading for two bucks!” and a sandwich board advertises a “Free Psychic Fair” to attract new customers. Even psychics are affected by the downturn in the economy. Then again, Sylvia Browne still claims there’s a wait of up to eight years for her psychic readings, at a cost of $800. Asked when the economy might begin to recover, Barack Obama told the Washington Post earlier this year, “I don’t have a crystal ball. Nobody can tell.” But some people think they can…
In the current economic climate of the recession, subprime market foreclosures, the credit crisis, and mass unemployment, are psychics affected negatively by these factors, or are they actually profiteering (propheteering?) from them? Many industries are suffering, and it’s likely that psychics are too, but some allege that the economic bust has led to a psychic boom. According to several news sources, including USA Today, Time, and ABC News, new trends have appeared in the psychic industry over the past six months. Apparently, there are more clients, more psychics, different clients, and different client concerns.1 These sources explain that, during times of “uncertainty” about the future, people seek those who claim to “know” the future, and that as a result, psychics have experienced an increase in clientele. With a greater demand for psychics, supposedly there is also a growth in the psychic job industry. Given current unemployment rates, it’s possible that psychic jobs are appealing as tax-free, unskilled, remote work; and given inflation rates, they may appeal as second jobs.

If we are to believe these anecdotal accounts, the once “staple” female demographic now includes male clients. The sources further report that there is a change in client concerns; namely, a shift away from relationship advice-giving to a focus on career and money, reflecting the current employment and financial strife. Finally, some psychics believe that their new clients are from higher socio-economic brackets, often with backgrounds in finance.

It appears that psychics have skipped the MBA and securities training to become amateur financial advisors for failing financiers and customers who are now distrustful of orthodox financial services. In the articles cited above, one psychic claims she charges $350 for financial advice to individuals, and $10,000 for corporations.

Some try to close the gap between trading futures and reading futures. There’s Arch Crawford, “The Street’s Best Known Astrologer,” who believes in not only bulls and bears, but Aries and Pisces.2 Then there’s Mary T. Browne, better known as “Wall Street’s Psychic Advisor”.3 Henry Weingarten, author of Investing by the Stars, is a “financial astrologer” (or “corporate astrologer”) who uses a “top down approach” (i.e. astrology) to the stock market.4 Amazingly, they all claim to have predicted gold as a stable investment (although gold is traditionally an alternative investment to currency in such times.)

Some psychics have found a new niche as real estate gurus. If you’re lucky, you might find a real estate agent who is also psychic! To sell your home in this difficult market, California psychics recommend the use of a psychic-approved real-estate agent; and that the seller apply the principles of Feng Shui to improve the “energy” of the house.5 Don’t forget to bury a statue of St. Joseph upside-down in the back yard!

At this point you could be tempted to joke, “At the moment, psychics couldn’t do any worse than the analysts!” Yes, they can. Here are a few examples. The telecommunications company One.Tel (a venture funded by the Murdoch and Packer heirs) Feng Shui-ed itself out of business. A change management consultant (and white witch) cost a local government over $800,000 with her advice based in eastern religion and astrology.6 Recently, a banker gambled up to $109 billion on the stock market, and lost $7.7 billion, relying on advice from psychics in what was euphemistically called a “high risk strategy.”

7. Some psychics deny that they offer financial advice, and defend their craft as based in practical advice and common sense. However, there’s nothing rational or logical about unqualified strangers advising “clients” on life-altering decisions, based on gut-feelings, emotions, hunches, hopes, and intuition. Ironically, these are the very impulses that have contributed to the current economic crisis.
If shit was worth something, poor people would be born with no asshole.
User avatar
Tangerine Dream
 
Posts: 12670
Age: 4
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re:

#19  Postby jerome » Mar 03, 2010 1:53 am

RichardPrins wrote:I have no idea whatsoever (-1020000000000000000000000) where you are quoting these big numbers from.



You'd have to see the papers if you want to see in context. That can easily be arranged. Still FUWF is here now!

j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 51
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re:

#20  Postby jerome » Mar 03, 2010 1:59 am

FedUpWithFaith wrote:Hi Jerome.

Nice to see you again after so long. I was just thinking about these papers and wondered what became of the research when lo and behold, I came across this thread in the most recent posts section. Must be a psychic paranormal event!


lol! or sheer coincidence! How you doing? :) Great to see you over here. Any idea where spags is? :) He sort of gave up on the 'Atheism' thing, while as far as i know still being atheist. :)

On the papers, I caught up with Robertson and Roy at a conference Nottingham, and grilled them. I then started an email correspondence with Robertson. They are desperate for a replication: I offered to do a PhD one, but no funding, and while Derby, Coventry and Edinburgh could provide supervisors, doing this kind of stuff is academic suicide. Still I thought it interesting enough to try - but we are stuck with no funding, and so no progress. You would have thought the psychics, mediums and snake oil salesmen would have been falling over themselves to actually fund a replication, but nah, no interest, which says ot me that the vast majority of them have absolutely no faith in their own abilites - whereas the ones who do, by definition don't tend to make any money out of it, and don't see the point in a study to confirm their own beliefs. So we are stuffed. :( I might actually go dor it this summer; I can get a research grant, but not a maintenance one - so I can do it if I am willing to remain penniless another three years, and end up wit the worlds most useless PhD :)

j x

.
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 51
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Paranormal & Supernatural

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests