Psychic fails tests

So I sit down at the PC with a cup of coffee to write for a bit, and when I get up ... omigod, more than a month has gone by.

A pity, as things have been going on in the psychic space that I'd like to have talked about. Still, I can catch up over the next few weeks. One event that caught my eye was Channel 5's Extraordinary People film series, which last week featured psychic Derek Ogilvie going in for Randi's million dollar challenge. I don't recall ever seeing anyone actually doing this on camera, and I tuned in all agog. It was a little piece of theatre - sad, funny, and completely predictable.

Ogilvie's thing is that he can communicate telepathically with pre-verbal infants. I caught a previous TV film about this a year or so ago, which showed him interacting with the children and passing on what it is that's bothering them to the parents. A lot of it is along the lines of, little Jimmy says you are upset about the blister on your right buttock, but it's also a therapy thing, to help find out why the little one keeps throwing tantrums and what the parents can do about it.  He zeroed in fairly quickly to family issues which the parents often seemed convinced he could not have known about, although as often happens that impression was spoiled when he passed on other details that could equally easily have been gleaned from the circumstances.

I read in a preview that Ogilvie had been pushed into applying for Randi's prize by the programme makers, but actually he didn't seem at all reluctant. He set off all enthusiastic and hopeful, a lamb to the slaughter. First stop London, as a curtain raiser, to be tested at Goldsmith University by Professor Chris French. His task was to read six babies separated from their parents, and then for the parents to try to identify the transcript that applied to their baby. He scored only one hit.

Then off to Miami, where Uncle James gave his disarming 'I don't believe there's such a thing as a real psychic, but of course I could be wrong' speech, then shuffled around arranging a test. This involved sticking Ogilvie in a soundproof room, and getting a toddler outside it to pick numbered balls out of a bag. The number was linked to an object - a little keyboard, a guitar, a skateboard, etc - which the child held briefly, while Ogilvie, in communication through an intercom, had to decide what the object was. Spooky the-aliens-are-here type music played in the background while Ogilvie scratched his head and scribbled on a pad. He got one out of ten right, exactly the chance result that Randi had predicted.

The reviews the next day were brutal. Psychic submits to competent test. Psychic shows no paranormal knowledge whatever. Olgilvie phoney, psychics baloney.

Now I'm biased of course, because I think psychism is genuine - not because of what I've seen Ogilvie or anyone else do on television, but through studying psychical research. So what happened here? If it's real, why is it so effectively disguised? Why can't psychics pass tests of this kind? Why do they fail so miserably?

It was obvious to me at the outset - as it apparently wasn't to Ogilvie - that he would find himself having to do things he didn't normally do. Both French and Randi took him right out of his comfort zone: French by having the babies held by a child minder, so that he couldn't cold read the parents, and Randi by separating him from both. Of the two tests, French's was the more painful to watch. He and a colleague watched Ogilvie from behind a two way mirror, sniggering as he became ever more desperate and started apparently cold reading the child minder. But he was also pretty stressed out in Randi's test, hunched anxiously over his pad and pencil, sweating and more or less tearing his hair out.

If Ogilvie thinks he's getting images from the baby, then it makes sense from French's point of view to separate him. But I got the impression that he'd never read babies separately before, and one might think - on the assumption that he is genuinely psychic - that he's tuning into the emotional bond between mother and child. That's how it works: he has to be present with both. But of course that gives him opportunities for cold reading. At least he was doing his thing - communicating with the baby about its family situation. The guessing game that Randi made him do is probably something it had never occurred to him to do before.

Then there's the stress factor. In a living room, the child is happily clambering around his mum's lap or playing on the floor. In French's studio, the one child we saw was bawling his head off and trying desperately to escape the child minder's grasp. I suspect they weren't all like that, but it's not clear to me that a psychic would be able to establish any kind of meaningful communication under those circumstances. Especially in the state he was in himself.

All this reminds me of Wiseman and Hyman's televised test of Natasha Demkina some years ago. She too was stressed out by being asked to do things she had never done before, like divine that a certain person had a large steel plate in his head. Again, her reputation as the 'girl with the x-ray eyes' made this a logical test. But was she actually looking into people's bodies, or was she just getting intimations about what was wrong with them? If the latter, a man with a steel plate in his head is not necessarily ill, so it's not something she would have spotted.

So one conclusion is that taking a particular psychic ability from its context is like taking a fish out of water. The idea that a psychic who does one thing should easily be able to do something quite different is an assumption, and probably a wrong one. It's a mechanist view, as though psi is a force or an energy that can be switched on or off and applied at will in different circumstances. But what if it isn't? In that case, if we are serious about finding out about it, we have to develop ways to understand it within its context.

That's not at all what French and Randi are about - they want to reinforce perceptions that it doesn't exist. And from their point of view the programme was an absolute gift. That's the second thing: that psychics should be so naïve about these things. When Randi asked Ogilvie if he was happy with the test structure he said, yes, fine, but he shouldn't have, because he had no idea what he was getting into. Of course he probably doesn't think like that. He's popular and in demand: the parents like him because he seems to be helping them. So he can't imagine that anyone is going to be nasty to him. Did he get any objective advice before he set off?  He's unlikely to have got any from the TV producers, who usually know zip about the subject: even if they suspected that he'd get stitched up they'd hardly tell him - it's dramatic TV footage they're after, not the truth.

And they got that in spades. The human element was what made this film rather compelling. French amused, Randi grimly satisfied, and Ogilvie weeping tears of bitter frustration - 'but I do get these images in my head, I do, I do, I'm not a liar, I'm not a fraud'.

The programme made it up to him afterwards by taking him off to see a scientist who hooked him up to a an EEG machine while he was doing a reading. After analysing the data the scientist concluded pretty definitively that something was going on in his brain that supported his claims - that he was engaged in processing new information. The test was vague and passed without any comment. But it bucked Ogilvie up no end - he'd been waiting all his life for this kind of third-party validation, that what was happening in his head was real. 

The wonderful thing about these TV films is that they tell you everything and yet nothing. They perfectly portray the different players and their agendas and points of view, but instead of elucidating anything just add to the confusion. We're left at square one, with tests that superficially look convincing, but contradict each other, and allow us to think whatever we want.

Comments

[Unamused]

'...but I do get these images in my head, I do, I do, I'm not a liar, I'm not a fraud'.

Alright, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He's just another of the many, many self-deluded people who have been conditioned by the fuzzy-minded reliance by our species on religion and magical thinking to believe they have powers beyond the ken of mortal man.

It's the SAME OLD STORY, folks - Psychic fails test to which they have agreed in advance, then apologists everywhere bend themselves over backward providing excuses why they magic didn't work THIS time. "They were separated from the target. There was too much iron in the room. One of the testers had an unhappy childhood and was feeling grumpy." I'm sick of it.

I USED to be a believer, really. I spent years of my childhood and early adulthood reading anything I could find by Hurkos, Cayce, all the 'hidden powers of the mind' guys from the 1970's and 80's and even trying my own experiments in an open-minded attempt to see for myself. And then, one day, I just grew up and out of it.

Now, I see fakes like John Edwards preying on grieving families on cable television. I see 'psychic detectives' being consulted by police departments on missing persons cases and murders. And I see an alarming number of otherwise rational people who support this harmful tomfoolery.

Sorry to rant, but I happened across this blog and was in a particularly cranky mood this morning - thanks for your time and for your report, it was well written and even though I disagree with your basic conclusions I found it interesting.

[The Major]

"And then, one day, I just grew up and out of it."

What was the reason for this?

[Unamused]

Why did I stop Believing, with a capital B?

Continual lack of any results not explainable by random chance or the laws of averages during testing. More critical (not necessarily skeptical) books and reports were issued showing flaws in studies I had accepted before unquestioningly. My own realization that quite a few of the people I had been presented with earlier as true psychic prodigies in the literature (Geller, Arigo, Serios, to name a few) were quite simply frauds, and embarrassingly bad ones in some cases.

And I think the final straw was seeing the rise in predatory fakes (or, again, possibly simply self-deluded fools) who have made a very comfortable living by capitalizing on the gullibility of good people who want nothing more than comfort during a hard time in their life. People like John Edwards, once again. The ease with which men and women who obviously have NO psychic powers (Jeanne Dixon, anyone?) are believed by their fans is enough, in addition to my own small studies, to tip my own opinions onto the side of the doubter.

I'd like nothing more than to be proved conclusively wrong, I'm a science fiction fan of the old school and a Charles Fort freak of long standing. But until that day that a 'psychic' can demonstrate a truly paranormal ability that is testable under some version of scientific study, I will still be waiting and watching with a raised eyebrow.

[Mort]

I agree with you, Unamused, for the most part.

I'd say that I believe psychic abilities exist but that the vast majority of so-called psychics are just con-artists and frauds. In a similar vein, I also think that some people have a very uncanny ability to "cold read" people and may be using simple powers of observation to mimic psychic phenomena, whether they know it themselves or not.

The major reasons to believe there is a "psychic phenomena", for me, are my own experiences as well as Cayce's impressive volume of work.

[Larry Boy]

Unamused wrote: "My own realization that quite a few of the people I had been presented with earlier as true psychic prodigies in the literature (Geller, Arigo, Serios, to name a few) were quite simply frauds, and embarrassingly bad ones in some cases."

In the case of Serios, you may want to read Michael Prescott's discussion here:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/08/lets_get_serios.html

If it's true Serios was tested under the conditions described here, then the skeptics' criticisms just don't apply.

[Tony M]

Unamused:

It seems to me that you have reached conclusions based on popular media presentations. I wonder if you have read books like Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds, for example? His meta-analysis of the combined results of scientific psi testing may be what you are looking for. Sure, the results of hundreds of Ganzfeld tests aggregated and analysed would hardly claim "Randi's Prize" or offer the kind of spectacle that makes interesting television. Frankly, it's boring. But it so is most science.

If you genuinely would like to reopen the discussion, I suggest Radin's books are a good place to start. You should also read through other blog entries here for raw material - if you are willing to actually consider the evidence.

I hope you return to this blog often and engage the evidence and discussions found here.

[Tony M]

Oh, and one Radin helps open the possibilities for you, I recommend Irreducible Mind (link below) for an exploration of the current state of Psi- studies. I think you'll see that the case for Psi rests on something considerably stronger than television shows.

http://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-hard-find-contemporary/dp/0742547922

[Nimbi]

If anyone really wants to see how bad Derek Ogilvie is just take a look at how atrocious his readings are in Holland. Does anyone else find his bankruptcy in 2000 followed by his revelations of psychic powers too convenient? Even his poor parents had no idea until 2000.

I'm sorry but he's not even good when it comes to cold reading. He may be delusional but on the other hand he knows exactly what he's doing when it comes to deception. Children wouldn't have the know how to talk about the things he claims they say to him. Why would a small toddler (in the programme) talk about mum's badly fitting bra? They wouldn't. It takes a while with some psychics to see through their charade but I'm afraid Derek Ogilvie is as transparent as glass to me. The only person he thinks about is himself and the money he so desperately wants.

[Mark]

Okay, Unamused, seriously. I hate when people bash psychics and say that anyone who believes in psi is crazy but then turn around and say, "But I'd love to see proof." You're never going to find proof if you have already decided that anyone who believes in psi is crazy.

[Ben]

I think you’re on to something here, Robert. Double-blind trials are all very well, but they cannot test for *relationship*. If what psychics do is osmotically tune into relationships or a kind of psychic atmosphere, then the normal scientific method would appear to be designed to completely frustrate this.

[nimbi]

Who's bashing psychics? That's a quick assumption to make. So you believe in Derek Ogilvie who uses innocent children to pedal his wares? So it's all fine and dandy to scam people in this way? Please explain to me how a man can tell a woman in a reading I've seen from Holland that she had a son in spirit when she'd never had a son. The claims he makes about badly fitting bras, bruises on legs, punctures in tyres, etc, he says come from babies and toddlers are far from showing any miraculous insight. It's common sense to me that no child is going to talk about these things. Never at any time is it okay for anyone and I mean anyone to use a child to make money and achieve fame. Who's said that anyone who believes in psi is crazy? I'm sorry but it may have hit a nerve in you but you're pulling non existent statements out of thin air. Watch his readings and ask yourself has he told the person being read anything significant. Don't forget the children either who cannot defend themselves while you defend this man. The only bonus is the fact that they are oblivious to what he does. There's nothing wrong in wanting proof, if he can do it why did he fail? Let's be right the tests were hardly difficult now were they.

[Paul]

Not only is there "nothing wrong in wanting proof" it's absolutely essential. That proof may come through the testimony of trusted 3rd parties or directly. The only question is "what constitutes proof?" - this may differ from person to person but if you want to convince me of something you need to meet my standard of proof - if that standard is too high or unreasonable then I will never be convinced by anything you say, I would need to see it for myself. As an aside I don't think Randi is looking fo rthe truth I think he has made his mind up already and would not conceed until the evidence was so powerful only a moron would deny it. We are a long way from that.

[nimbi]

Good points Paul. For me the proof would have to be something more tangible than say a bruise on your leg or a painful neck. It wouldn't take much when you think about it and you may not realise it until a psychic says it, for example. I've transcribed a few readings and there's definitely a pattern in them. We really do need open minds and use logic and common sense. I know a few sceptics who are cynical and can get pretty nasty well before they are cornered. I don't think science can hold all the answers there's so many unanswered mysteries, etc, in the world and personally I think it adds to it's wonderment. I think you've got a point with James Randi. Maybe he's seen so much fraud and deception anything truly mystical or psychical would be ignored. It's a shame that we have all the fakery to deal with, it prevents us from nearing the possible truth.

[Paul]

What was helped me a lot is to have read as much historical information by reputable people as possible. People like Oliver Lodge, Arthur Findlay, William Crookall etc. Although some of the things they report sound fantastical they were eminent people who had serious reputations to lose. One can either dismiss them as credulous, or accept that they witnessed the things they say.They don't convince me outright but do lead me to believe there is something going on. Enough to keep me looking until hopefully one day I find direct evidence that satisifies me. In the meantime they help to balance the nutters and frauds on all sides as I continue to research.

[nimbi]

I've been thinking about well known believers quite a lot just lately. And you're right we cannot possibly dismiss everyone's claims and accounts. Like you say they have reputations to consider and hold a lot of credibility when they speak out. I've found that taking readings, etc, writing them down and analyzing them has helped a lot of people understand what cold reading is all about. Sadly I agree that there are nutters and frauds on both sides. I've witnessed genuinely nice people who make no money from their psychic work being ripped to shreds by sceptics. I am a big sceptic but do not and will not ever rule out the possibility of there being a true psychic gift. Having the right approach to someone makes all the difference. Personally I'm not there to class everyone the same and watching someone talk about their beliefs to certain sceptics is akin to throwing themselves into the lions den. I hope one day to start my own website, of course it's main objective is to stop the frauds but any personal attacks or jibes, etc, towards someone who dares to speak up will never be accepted. The truth is out there it's just a case of finding acceptable evidence to prove it once and for all.

[Paul]

hi Nimbi. I think scepticism is healthy. I believe one can be sceptical but open minded and willing to listen. Although I agree that 'ripping to shreds' genuine people is unnecessary and unkind I do think there are people, perhaps many, who delude themselves into thinking they have abilities they don't really possess. I suspect its human nature to want to be 'special' and 'chosen'. For me, the acid test is evidence - show me. I have read a few autobiographies as well as books by Lodge etc. You mind find Leslie Flint's autobiography gives food for thought if you haven't already seen it - "Voices in the Dark". Also I found David Fontana's "Is there an afterlife" very interesting too. These types of books help me to retain a degree of balance in the face of preposterous claims by frauds and deluded individuals.

[nimbi]

Hi Paul, thanks for the book titles I've made a note of them. It's true that human nature frequently predicts our need to feel special and/or chosen. The knowledge I have is only the tip of the iceberg but it thankfully helps me see through countless claims of psychic ability. Anything additional will help. I've seen websites where you've either got total believers or sceptics/cynics. I would love to find one that has a good balance to it but as yet I haven't. You're right the test is simple - show me the proof. I won't make any unfair demands I just want evidence that these abilities do exist. Like I say I've written Leslie Flint, David Fontana and lodge down with the titles. Thanks again Paul.

[Paul]

You're welcome. There are dozens more some more or less digestible. I'd be interested to hear your view.

[Larry Boy]

I would recommend "Irreducible Mind" as well as Radin's two books if you haven't read them.

[nimbi]

Thanks Paul and Larry Boy. It's nice to think that I came across this blog by chance and that you've been kind enough to point out extra helpful advice to look at. In a space of a few months I've been amazed at how much I've learnt. I now want to start with book reading and it helps when you have recommendations from others. I'll quite happily give you my views Paul. Will this blog remain open for me to do so? I'm not quite sure if there's a time limit on them?

[Ben]

nimbi,
If you want to understand why evidence is already out there but ignored (because it's seen by the current materialist paradigm as "impossible", I recommend you read the entertaining transcript of the debate between Rupert Sheldrake and Lewis Wolpert, available online:
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/RSA_text.html

[nimbi]

Thank you Ben I would like to take a good look at the website later. The psychic world is one of the most controversial subjects to date and has been for many years. Due to the popularity of mediumship, etc, more people are taking interest in the hopes of finding evidence. Debates can be fascinating in themselves. I appreciate the information by everyone here. The right approach goes a long way.

[Paul]

Hi Nimbi - of the blog doesn't remain open I am happy for the web admin to give you my email if you want to continue the discussion. P

[nimbi]

Yes that would be fine Paul thank you. I've placed a few informative websites into the favourites box. They give me an idea of the books and the people who wrote them like David Fontana and Lesllie Flint. As sceptical as I am I would like to learn more about these books after reading some of the website Ben gave me earlier. I'm going to do some research soon and I'll quite happily give you my reviews. Thanks again nimbi.