I do feel as though the skepticism of the interviewees (your interviewee and his) could have been bolstered by knowing more about cold readings. It was a very interesting episode.
I am generally skeptical of spiritual things, including psychics and mediums. However, Dan's preamble really made me open to Laura Lynne. So when we finally got to her reading of Dan, I was shocked to see blatant cold reading tactics and obviously broad horoscope-style descriptions. (For example, nearly every teenager in America cares about music.) I lost any sense of openness when Jackson said she was tapping into quantum mechanics. It sounded like Tony Stark taking the eigenvalue of a mobius strip in Avengers Endgame.
Mark was spot-on when he said, "Science doesn't know everything." Science doesn't claim to know everything. It proposes a method of testing claims and developing knowledge based on experimentation and evidence. I'm surprised that such a normal and unimpressive psychic reading aroused enough interest to seriously question an otherwise empirical worldview
"Once you start opening the door to things you can't prove, how do you decide which things to believe? Where do you set your level?" This line should have been the thesis of the episode! Why should we be any more open to believing in psychics than to believing in Greek mythology or believing in faith healers?
David's high schoolers approached La Fermiere's clay pots with more scrutiny than Search Engine's team used with the most normal and obvious psychic. How did this happen?
I know you didn't want to fall into the trap of trying to prove (or disprove) the supernatural here, but this episode really could have done with some more critical discussion on the topic of psychic mediums.
It is important to keep an open mind, I agree, but blindly accepting something simply because it feels good can be dangerous. In this age of misinformation and charlatans, critical thinking is important. These "psychic mediums" often take advantage of people that are at their lowest point. They use extremely personal and painful experiences with grief as a basis for conducting their business. It is a disservice not to investigate their practices or at least make mention of them on the show.
However, I understand that wasn't the spirit of the episode. The intention was to just examine someone else's belief system and how they got there. It was an interesting listen. I guess I'm just firmly in the ranks of those party poopers you alluded to :)
For better interrogation of the subject for anyone reading this, I would recommend the work of Derren Brown. He is a British illusionist and entertainer, and he performs the same feats as these "psychic mediums" without any claim to paranormal abilities. He only uses "magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection, and showmanship". He explains these exploitative practices and shows how readings can be done without making any contact with the dead. He'd make a great guest!
I think this episode was a lost opportunity to dive into why people want to believe in the irrational. It missed another voice, someone who could discuss that many psychics and mediums are not scam artists, the majority are earnest believers. But what they are doing has clearly been shown, again and again, to be a product of psychology and culture, not super- or paranormal powers. That would allow the discussion to focus not on "what if it's real?" to purely: why do we believe? The episode certainly touched on that, but with far too much credulity.
You also misused the term "open-minded." The suggestion is that someone who is skeptical, who tries to view the world through evidence-based science, is close-minded. Would you say then that someone who believes the moon landing was faked or that the earth is flat is open-minded? That someone who believes that vaccines cause autism is open-minded? It's believers who are close-minded, because they are willing to believe a story, that has no basis in fact, because it supports their world view or brings them comfort.
I'm most concerned about the softly spoken anti-scientific rhetoric that pops up on the show from time to time. It's clearest with the statement that "scientists don't know everything" or there are things "science doesn't understand". As if "science" is a belief system or a dogma. Science is a way to try to understand through evidence. That's it, that's all. It's about asking questions, not giving answers.
What I got from hearing this psychic read these guys is that a person in a position of authority telling someone what they want to hear is very powerful. She was completely unconvincing to me , both with those incredibly obvious questions and the tone she asked them in, but I could understand how it could help someone feel better about their lives. It’s a service, but it feels scummy.
I do feel as though the skepticism of the interviewees (your interviewee and his) could have been bolstered by knowing more about cold readings. It was a very interesting episode.
What is a cold reading?
This Wikipedia article will probably do a better job of explaining it than I will.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading
It basically just means using good guesses to make statements that end up sounding like they involved some supernatural power.
I am generally skeptical of spiritual things, including psychics and mediums. However, Dan's preamble really made me open to Laura Lynne. So when we finally got to her reading of Dan, I was shocked to see blatant cold reading tactics and obviously broad horoscope-style descriptions. (For example, nearly every teenager in America cares about music.) I lost any sense of openness when Jackson said she was tapping into quantum mechanics. It sounded like Tony Stark taking the eigenvalue of a mobius strip in Avengers Endgame.
Mark was spot-on when he said, "Science doesn't know everything." Science doesn't claim to know everything. It proposes a method of testing claims and developing knowledge based on experimentation and evidence. I'm surprised that such a normal and unimpressive psychic reading aroused enough interest to seriously question an otherwise empirical worldview
"Once you start opening the door to things you can't prove, how do you decide which things to believe? Where do you set your level?" This line should have been the thesis of the episode! Why should we be any more open to believing in psychics than to believing in Greek mythology or believing in faith healers?
David's high schoolers approached La Fermiere's clay pots with more scrutiny than Search Engine's team used with the most normal and obvious psychic. How did this happen?
When she asked about music, it made me laugh. So typical.
Also refusing to believe him that he only plays one instrument. Classic cold reading tactics.
If Dan said he clapped his hands in a song, I'm sure that would have counted as the other instrument.
I know you didn't want to fall into the trap of trying to prove (or disprove) the supernatural here, but this episode really could have done with some more critical discussion on the topic of psychic mediums.
It is important to keep an open mind, I agree, but blindly accepting something simply because it feels good can be dangerous. In this age of misinformation and charlatans, critical thinking is important. These "psychic mediums" often take advantage of people that are at their lowest point. They use extremely personal and painful experiences with grief as a basis for conducting their business. It is a disservice not to investigate their practices or at least make mention of them on the show.
However, I understand that wasn't the spirit of the episode. The intention was to just examine someone else's belief system and how they got there. It was an interesting listen. I guess I'm just firmly in the ranks of those party poopers you alluded to :)
For better interrogation of the subject for anyone reading this, I would recommend the work of Derren Brown. He is a British illusionist and entertainer, and he performs the same feats as these "psychic mediums" without any claim to paranormal abilities. He only uses "magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection, and showmanship". He explains these exploitative practices and shows how readings can be done without making any contact with the dead. He'd make a great guest!
Well said! I’d also strongly recommend Chris French and his latest book “The Science of Weird Shit: How we conjure the paranormal”
I think this episode was a lost opportunity to dive into why people want to believe in the irrational. It missed another voice, someone who could discuss that many psychics and mediums are not scam artists, the majority are earnest believers. But what they are doing has clearly been shown, again and again, to be a product of psychology and culture, not super- or paranormal powers. That would allow the discussion to focus not on "what if it's real?" to purely: why do we believe? The episode certainly touched on that, but with far too much credulity.
You also misused the term "open-minded." The suggestion is that someone who is skeptical, who tries to view the world through evidence-based science, is close-minded. Would you say then that someone who believes the moon landing was faked or that the earth is flat is open-minded? That someone who believes that vaccines cause autism is open-minded? It's believers who are close-minded, because they are willing to believe a story, that has no basis in fact, because it supports their world view or brings them comfort.
I'm most concerned about the softly spoken anti-scientific rhetoric that pops up on the show from time to time. It's clearest with the statement that "scientists don't know everything" or there are things "science doesn't understand". As if "science" is a belief system or a dogma. Science is a way to try to understand through evidence. That's it, that's all. It's about asking questions, not giving answers.
What I got from hearing this psychic read these guys is that a person in a position of authority telling someone what they want to hear is very powerful. She was completely unconvincing to me , both with those incredibly obvious questions and the tone she asked them in, but I could understand how it could help someone feel better about their lives. It’s a service, but it feels scummy.