talkmagic.co.uk

Is it possible to have a discussion about this book that does not get locked within a few posts?

just thought i'd ask that question first.

Probably not.

"Reader of Minds" does the same job but is far less controversial. Now who's that by? Hmm. Can't remember right now.

Seriously, I quite like "Full Facts" which may shock some people. I haven't looked at it for around 5 years, so my perceptions of it may be wrong. I do however agree with many on this board that no reader (as in psychic fair tarot reader type rather than stage reader) would ever use the techniques mentioned in Full Facts. Why would they? They have a perfectly good oracle sat in front of them (tarot, palm, runes, aura etc). Why not just use the oracle as it was meant to be used? Makes far more sense. It's certainly what I do.

do you ever experience people who question the scientific veracity of the system being used? so maybe it would be handy to fall back on other techniques?

I don't have a problem with Rowland, but I do think the controversy comes down to the way in which Full Facts is descriptive, rather than proscriptive. As the good Mr V suggests, very few readers learn to read by learning these techniques. Certainly Full Facts does not describe most readers' learning experience.

I disagree somewhat about whether or not readers use the techniques - suspect most, if not all, readers do use them whether they realise it or not. I say that because many of the techniques really just describe fairly normal and non-devious human behaviour. Something as simple as the disappearing negative can be used by a reader without really being aware of it

"This person isn't a relative is it?"
"Yes"
"I thought so"

To shoot the arrow and draw the target afterwards is part of human nature, and the disappearing negative is just a manifestation of that. We tend not to realise even when we do this ourselves.

In answer to your second point, if someone is getting a reading, it's doubtful that they are going to question the scientific veracity of the system in use. If they are (and I'm not a reader) then I presume the obvious response would be that you don't know very much about what science has to say about the system, you just use it and get results; your clients are welcome to make whatever inferences they like from them. Keep it folksy!

Just to clarify: if we're talking about Barnum Statements and the like, there's no need and no point in memorising vast swathes of them when the tarot deck (for example) is a collection of 78 "barnum statements"! The cards are in essence a crib in full view. Each card has a meaning, simply tell the sitter what the card means and find the common thread that runs through the "spread".

But I'm a great believer in the good that readers can do. My motto is to make sure people leave me feeling better about themselves than they felt before they met me. If that is the case (and I always ensure it is), then I think I am doing a good thing.

I realise this thread will inevitably attract the more vicious elements amongst the magic fraternity and I will soon be accused of taking money from grieving widows or something. I await this inevitability with an odd mix of dread and excitement. It is the price one pays for discussing such matter "out in the open" and not in the more secretive areas.

My advice to anyone who's just read "Tricks of the Mind" and has mastered a DL (hence of course making them the guardians of the nation's moral values), make sure you know what you're talking about before you start.

I would like the Rowland book better too if it weren't for that awful chapter telling people how to annoy psychics. He claims that it was written tongue in cheek but I don't believe him.

The rest of the book is an intelligent and well written load of tosh. I was once told that all you have to do to write a good book is know 10 percent more than your reader about the subject. The reader will know no different and assume you are an expert. That is what Rowland has done.

He is NOT an experienced reader and has hardly done it at all and never once for money. The book is bluff and nothing else. Intelligently written bluff but bluff nevertheless. He is simply not qualified because he has never been out there doing it on a regular basis. He writes about what he thinks goes on but in actual fact doesn't.

The book should have been titled "A few facts about coldreading" rather than the FULL FACTS.

If you want to know true full facts of this business go to International Magic. I understand they sell a DVD on the subject by someone who DOES know what he is talking about.

i was in two minds about the chapter mark refers to.

i think it was more about protecting yourself against fraudulent psychics. as the methods described wouldn't make a difference if the psychic was a genuine one.

and if you are paying for the service than you should reserve that right, wouldn't you say?

I've always given the book a thumbs up BUT NOT AS SOMETHING A BEGINNER NEEDS TO WORK WITH but rather, a matter of added study once the novice has some foundation under their belt, preferably when working with a legit Divination system or (before anything snyde is said) using an oracle as any shut-eye student would for at least a year and a few hundred Readings. Let them see first hand what it means to give a Reading before being bombarded by THEORY and biased rhetoric. Same goes for TRADECRAFT, which hit the horizon in around the same time as the Rowland book.

The infamous chapter Mark refers to WASN'T written tongue-n-cheek, that EXCUSE didn't surface until people started bitching about it and how cruel it was; suddenly the story and position shifted on Rowland's part so as to spare him a possible tar & feathering encounter. It was rude, intentionally bigoted and encouraged those new to said bigotry to do as all zealots will do, and act-up and act-out. For that, the lie that he worked as a Reader in order to study and learn all this stuff and some of the other antics he's promoted, like using black coffee as a shiner. . . well, the man has lost a huge amount of credibility in my book and painted himself into the same basic corner Randi has. . . the difference is, Randi really did ply his hand at being a Reader and failed, so he allowed his vindictive nature to take over. . . especially after Uri declined his offer to "manage" him and his tour back in the 70's (or so the story goes).

Many years ago I bought this book as a novice and should have not bothered at that time. At the time I found that the book was long winded and not practical.

I then spent some time with a deck that I bought, because I liked the pictures, it was an oracle deck. I read the book and learned what the cards meant and practiced. I have done a few readings several years ago and have since read parts of Full facts and found it better to delve into into and read relevnt snippets.

We have already heard if the sitter leaves better and more positive than they arrived then it is a good thing and I agree. There is no difference in the person going for a reading or going to a counsellor, end result is what is important.

The chapter that is being talked about. All that can be said is it should not be in the book. All it does is stir up biggoted view points that harms people and does no good for anyone

Nic

I discussed the book with Ian just last week. The misconception is about what the book actually _is_ (or rather, what it is not). Ian described it to me as 'a demonstration' of cold reading, and in that regard I think it does very well.

Strangely, a moment earlier I had likened it - in my mind; I had not yet mentioned this to Ian - to Discoverie in its style. It was a good feeling to hear Ian describe it similar terms himself.

With that in mind, I think the chapter on protecting oneself fits entirely in with the premise of the book. Since it is _not_ a book for people who choose to believe in the supernatural (and doesn't that preclude the very idea of cold reading anyway?) I think it is a valuable part of the book. To look at a parallel example, in the many books and videos on card cheating, no one complains when there is a chapter on protecting oneself from card sharps.

If you believe that the 'oracle' (or whatever tool you use for readings) is able to tell you things about a complete stranger, why would you turn to cold reading for help, when cold reading is designed _specifically_ to represent such a skill where none exists?

Ian

I found the book an interesting read, but it does not teach you how to do readings. There are far better sources for that.
Cold reading is a good technique, but if you also use an oracle, such as palms or Tarot, then you simplify the whole process. Ian does not go into that in any great detail.
And I did find that one chapter highly objectionable.

I might have known Kendall was all pally wally with Rowland. And of course Kendall has never done a reading in his life either.

As for "protecting" yourself the ideas presented do no such thing. You do have to pay in advance you know. And you will either have the reading cut short or sent off with a flea in your ear and the money in the pocket of the psychic.

An experienced psychic can smell an idiot within seconds but in actual practice these scenarios never happen. So again Rowland doesn't know what he is talking about. No sceptic ever wants to pay money up front so again he is talking tosh. I am quite sure he has never done it himself so he is misleading the reader of his book again. And in any event using such silly techniques will only ensure the client a bad reading.

If I get a difficult client, (not necessarily a sceptical one but a draining one) I go into evil grafter mode rather than compassione spiritual person mode. If they get on my nerves too much I remain polite but my thinking changes. It goes along the lines of "OK. I have had enough. Let me get this silly b***** out of here." Naturally I don't refund money since I have worked hard for it and in fact deserve it even more.

I just waffle away and give them a very generalised reading which is all I can do. They don't realise they have just defrauded themselves and it is their own fault. If a client is unco-operative and drives me nuts with question after question and demand after demand I shut down very quickly and they get a very bad reading. My mental attitude is "serves you right for driving me nuts"

Getting a reading is a two way thing. There has to be give and take. I don't mind sceptics one bit and in fact I prefer them. They are quite easy to read providing they are polite and they always are since they have paid out money. It is the absolute believers who are the trouble because they can be very demanding and expect the psychic to solve all their problems. They have to be made aware that they need to take responsibility for their own lives and I try to help them do that.

In actual fact a good psychic does not ask any questions. The Rowland book implies a different approach and seems to think a conversation goes on between the psychic and the client. Not with me it doesn't. I like the sound of my own voice too much. The client hardly says a word. I just impart the information that I see in the cards.

And yes. I DO see things in the cards. I haven't the energy to explain it all here but even Randi would see the logic of my explanation. There is nothing supernatural about Tarot cards and I believe in their power 100%.
But it ain't witchcraft or so called "cold reading". There is a logical scientific reason that tarot cards work. And the key thing is that they DO work. It isn't so much the cards as the operator. The cards just make it easier to operate. It is difficult to use one without the other.

And of course Kendall has never done a reading in his life either.

Wrong again, Mark.

I find these discussions interesting but confusing

When a reading is done by the readers in the discussion what are you promoting yourself as. Psychic, psychic entertainer, skeptic entertainer.
Is the reading completed under a cloak of deception or are you open that you are just an entertainer.

I seem to get that you read the cards and that no psychic power/ability is used. It is just the ability to use an oracle e.g. tarot.

Waybe I a wrong but the thing that confuses me is that people are not clear about what they do and it seems that there is a grey area. I am not saying anyone is right or wrong. It is just being on a magic site there seems to be a tendency to assume there is some trick/effect and not some special unexplained ability. I know mark says there is a scientific explaination to it and I would be interested to see what that is.

I am sorry if this post is a bit convoluted and I do not mean to stir up ill feeling, I just don't understand or be able to follow the view points here.

I do feel as I said earlier that if the person leaves with a positive experience it is a good thing and that seems to be the big difference to me between psychics speaking to the dead and giving false hope and a reading that can be a positive experience.

Nic

When I give "pure readings" (as opposed to readings that form part of a mentalism routine), I sell myself - and yes, I get paid for them - as a "tarot card reader" pure & simple. I have invested a lot of time in learning the meanings and the intricacies of each individual card and that coupled with the experience of having performed literally thousands of readings means that I am able to gain an insight into people's lives.

I do not talk to the dead. I offer positive, upbeat readings with the intention of making the sitter feel better about themselves than before they sat down in front of me.

Tin hat on.