talkmagic.co.uk

themagicwand wrote:I do not talk to the dead.

_________________
Voodini!
Read Minds! Talk to the Dead! Get Girls! Click Here!

Aww come on Paul, it is funny

Some people just don't get my sense of humour. My books on cold reading no more tell you how to talk to the dead than they tell you how to get girls. It's supposed to be a funny joke.

Yeh that's why it made me smile last night I know you're expecting the usual attacks in this thread - this isn't one. Sorry if it came across as such.

The post I had originally typed out was about my wife's experiences as a Tarot reader for many years... then I realised I would only have been taking the discussion away from Mr Rowland's book and helping to provide a definite "No!" to Stackman's original question...

No worries mate!

after looking through previous threads it does always seem to be the same couple of people who fail to demonstrate any manners and result in the thread being locked.

could anyone answer the question that i posted earlier please.

'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?'

mark lewis wrote: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.

Yea... what he said!

Mark and I actually do see fairly eye-to-eye when it comes to this side of things (he's just a bit more patient than I tend to be, I think)

The one thing I see in the magic community is that there's 101 "experts" in this particular arena, of which one one has actually used work as a Reader as a means of generating a livelihood. The majority thinking the silliness they do at parties by way of Barnum statements and psychologically scripted B.S. is what Readers do while not realizing just how far away from the reality of things they really are. Worse, they don't want to accept the fact they are off mark in that it's all a "trick". . . at least, to their biased mind that's all it can be.

Magicians, by their very nature, like tricks, they can understand "tricks" and actually thrive on the idea of being able to REPLICATE an impossible thing by way of trickery vs. working at it, studying it, and actually learning how to do it. . .
. . . I don't know a single person that's learned how to work with a legit oracle system (based on the shut-eye methods only) and gone out to do at least 100 or more Readings a month for even a six month period, who haven't woken-up to the fact that there is "more" to it all. . . a lot more than all the regurgitated theory folks like Rowland keep barfing up.

I do find it interesting however, how we find very little about this template we call "Cold Reading" has become the encouraged "truth" to it all vs. what was taught most and encouraged prior to the mid and late 1970s. . . even into the early and mid-1980's Richard Webster and the Brian Flora crew were still teaching how to work with Tarot, Numerology and other traditional oracles at the legit level vs. all the psychobabble that started coming along via Herb Dewey's bit releases and subsequent "experts" of the sort mentioned previously. The whole thing is "odd" given the fact that Forer and others supposedly came up with this gold standard way back in the 50's and too, we have inference in the older texts of Mentalism of stock answers and canned spiel. . . the confusion being that such bits address stage work and NOT the one-on-one act of doing a Reading.

The "trickery" when it comes to this latter arena, was always viewed on the basis of learning the client's question, magic lovers "inventing" a vast array of techniques based on a handful of antics found in use by noted charlatans -- billet work & impression systems leading the way in most such cases, with some physical footwork and record searching covering things on the more "lucrative" marks. Tactics that very few working Psychics are even aware of let alone using. . . and that includes the majority of Mentalists that do Readings.

Finding out what the question is, in the real world of the Psychic Reader, is typically accomplished in a very devilish manner. . . the psychic asks the client why they came for the Reading and what they hope to get from the session. There's no little slips of paper, no clip-boards, no secret assistants in a back-room, etc. and I can assure you, few psychics in today's market, drink black coffee or tea. . .

The bottom line should be that person's who've never done Readings for a living should never write books as an authority, on things they know NOTHING about; especially in a time in which there is more than enough fertilizer flowing through society on a daily basis without their small ton of re-framed and regurgitated sermonizing. . . at least get the facts on the subject in question vs. personal conjecture and theory, and be honest enough to reveal what the real statistics would be when it comes to fraud and charlatanism vs. the legit workers, most of whom are seriously appalled when discovering such things are used and worse, used by entertainers under the guise of "being special"

Ian Rowlands book gets a lot of attention due to the fact it was mentioned in Tricks of the Mind. There are far better source for learning readings such as the aforementioned Reader of Minds by Mr Voodini (which is practical and full of information from someone who has actually worked in this field), Craig Brownings works, Mr Lewis material and dare I say it, my own tome The Tarot Reader's Black Book.

All of these people have actually worked as readers. Would you buy a book on car mechanics from someone who has never worked on a car in their lives?

It's funny how people who used to spit bile at this book now claim to have supported it all along, but Earnest Rutherford once said that "All science is either physics or stamp collecting". By this, he meant that it is either about exploring the "go" of the natural world, as Maxwell put it, or about cataloguing its contents. Full Facts is an attempt to catalogue the major techniques used in cold reading. In that sense it is stamp collecting; a taxonomy of techniques rather than a book of instructions.

Craig Browning wrote:

mark lewis wrote: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.

Yea... what he said!

Mark and I actually do see fairly eye-to-eye when it comes to this side of things (he's just a bit more patient than I tend to be, I think)

The one thing I see in the magic community is that there's 101 "experts" in this particular arena, of which one one has actually used work as a Reader as a means of generating a livelihood. The majority thinking the silliness they do at parties by way of Barnum statements and psychologically scripted B.S. is what Readers do while not realizing just how far away from the reality of things they really are. Worse, they don't want to accept the fact they are off mark in that it's all a "trick". . . at least, to their biased mind that's all it can be.

Magicians, by their very nature, like tricks, they can understand "tricks" and actually thrive on the idea of being able to REPLICATE an impossible thing by way of trickery vs. working at it, studying it, and actually learning how to do it. . .
. . . I don't know a single person that's learned how to work with a legit oracle system (based on the shut-eye methods only) and gone out to do at least 100 or more Readings a month for even a six month period, who haven't woken-up to the fact that there is "more" to it all. . . a lot more than all the regurgitated theory folks like Rowland keep barfing up.

I do find it interesting however, how we find very little about this template we call "Cold Reading" has become the encouraged "truth" to it all vs. what was taught most and encouraged prior to the mid and late 1970s. . . even into the early and mid-1980's Richard Webster and the Brian Flora crew were still teaching how to work with Tarot, Numerology and other traditional oracles at the legit level vs. all the psychobabble that started coming along via Herb Dewey's bit releases and subsequent "experts" of the sort mentioned previously. The whole thing is "odd" given the fact that Forer and others supposedly came up with this gold standard way back in the 50's and too, we have inference in the older texts of Mentalism of stock answers and canned spiel. . . the confusion being that such bits address stage work and NOT the one-on-one act of doing a Reading.

The "trickery" when it comes to this latter arena, was always viewed on the basis of learning the client's question, magic lovers "inventing" a vast array of techniques based on a handful of antics found in use by noted charlatans -- billet work & impression systems leading the way in most such cases, with some physical footwork and record searching covering things on the more "lucrative" marks. Tactics that very few working Psychics are even aware of let alone using. . . and that includes the majority of Mentalists that do Readings.

Finding out what the question is, in the real world of the Psychic Reader, is typically accomplished in a very devilish manner. . . the psychic asks the client why they came for the Reading and what they hope to get from the session. There's no little slips of paper, no clip-boards, no secret assistants in a back-room, etc. and I can assure you, few psychics in today's market, drink black coffee or tea. . .

The bottom line should be that person's who've never done Readings for a living should never write books as an authority, on things they know NOTHING about; especially in a time in which there is more than enough fertilizer flowing through society on a daily basis without their small ton of re-framed and regurgitated sermonizing. . . at least get the facts on the subject in question vs. personal conjecture and theory, and be honest enough to reveal what the real statistics would be when it comes to fraud and charlatanism vs. the legit workers, most of whom are seriously appalled when discovering such things are used and worse, used by entertainers under the guise of "being special"

Thanks Craig, I have my own views as most people do on various aspects of these types of things. You have answered all the things I was curious about from the aspect of someone who conducts reading regularly. I come from a family were readings from cards are regularly conducted and as I said When I came back to this book I did find some parts helpful, but it comes across to me as dated and unbalanced in its approach.

As for it being mentioned in Tricks of the mind D.B. would support this book because he promotes that evrything in this field is rubbish and everyone is a charlaton, this seems to be a fashionable approach.

When I mentioned "Talking to dead people" I was not lumping everyone in that group and certainly not people who use tarot etc for readings. However there are people who proclaim that they can communicate with those that have "Passed" Personally I feel there are people in that arena who get linked with tarot etc and there is a distinct difference.

Anyway thanks again for explaining, so well.

Perhaps Mr Rowland's book should be treated just like any other? A resource which contains a lot of information, some useful, some not, but worth checking out even if only to help the reader decide if it's their 'thing' or not. The other works mentioned here and in other threads on this topic are all excellent resources and even if the methods described don't appeal, at least the reader's store of knowledge on the topic has been enriched.

Craig Browning wrote:. . . I don't know a single person that's learned how to work with a legit oracle system (based on the shut-eye methods only) and gone out to do at least 100 or more Readings a month for even a six month period, who haven't woken-up to the fact that there is "more" to it all. . . a lot more than all the regurgitated theory folks like Rowland keep barfing up.

Now you know one. I have done several hundreds of readings, often with startling accuracy, based on a legitimate reading of palms and Tarot. I have a stock of the Barnum statements for the odd difficult customer, but tend not to have to use them. I base my readings on what the Oracle tells me, and my intuition.
And I firmly believe there is nothing more to it than tuned intuition and basic psychology.

The opening chapter of Richard Wiseman's Paranormality is a very insightful exploration of readings. It is sceptical without being dismissive (as Ian Rowland's work often was). Anyone else read it yet?

I agree with Mandrake. I am always annoyed with myself over my own bias against the book. I don't feel objective about it and my lack of objectivity annoys me. Still, I think it is Rowland's fault for triggering this lack of objectivity.

Tony's post reminds me of the time legendary stage hypnotist Paul Goldin once said to me, "I hope you don't believe in all that psychic stuff you do. Especially psychometry. If you do you're dead!" I then seized on his question and said, "well, do you believe in hypnotism. Are you "dead" if you believe in hypnosis?"

He was quite startled at the question and I think I caught him off guard. He looked quite shifty and closed the door of his office so his receptionist couldn't hear him and proceeded to tell me that hypnotism was baloney. I was quite shocked at his frankness especially because of his reputation and all the learned articles he had written on the subject. You have to remember this was one of the most famous stage hypnotists and hypnotherapists of his generation.

I have always kept this conversation secret but now that Paul has passed away I feel free to reveal it now.

Mark, if I have ever hypnotised anyone in a decade or more of doing shows, it's been an accident.

TonyB wrote:Mark, if I have ever hypnotised anyone in a decade or more of doing shows, it's been an accident.

With you all the way there Tony!

The power of the human imagination is indeed a wonderful thing.

On a related note, we appear to be steering further and further away from the Full Facts book!