Re: [escepticos] Lectura en frio

[Enrique Reyes <conen@...>]

Bueno, como parece que ese archivo adjunto que mandé no se comporta como
es debido, mando el texto de la página:

***********
The Randi Files:
The Art of "Cold Reading"
					
					The currently-popular "psychics" like Sylvia Browne, James Van
Praagh, and John Edward, who are getting so much TV space on Montel
Williams, Larry King, and other shows, employ a technique known as "cold
reading." They tell the subjects nothing, but make guesses, put out
suggestions, and ask questions. This is a very deceptive art, and the
unwary observer may come away believing that unknown data was developed
by some wondrous means. Not so.
					Examples: "I get an older man here" is a question, a suggestion,
and a guess by the "reader," who expects some reaction from the subject,
and usually gets it. That reaction may just be a nod, the actual name of
a person, or an identification (brother, husband, grandfather), but it
is supplied BY THE SUBJECT, not by the reader. "They're saying, 'Bob,'
or 'Robert.' Do you recognize this person?" is another question,
suggestion, and guess. If there's a Bob or Robert, the subject will
amplify the identification. But if there's no Bob or Robert immediately
recognized, the reader passes right on, after commenting that Bob is
there alright, but not recognized right now. If any Bob is remembered
later, that is incorporated into the spiel. You should observe and
listen to a video of a reading. In one such by Van Praagh, prepared by
the "48 Hours" TV program, a reading that lasted 60 minutes, we found
only TWO actual statements made, and 260 questions asked. Both actual
statements--guesses--were wrong. Van Praagh was looking for the name of
the woman's deceased husband, and he came up with it by asking, "Do you
know anyone named, Jack?" The woman answered, "Yes! Jack, my husband!"
But Van Praagh didn't identify "Jack" at all. He asked her if SHE would
indentify him. By that time, Van Praagh had already tried on her 26
other men's names--all wrong. But, the woman--the subject--forgot about
those failures, because they were not important to her. "Jack" was
important.

The readers have a way of leading the subject to believe that they knew
something they didn't. Example:
					
Reader: "Did your husband linger on in the hospital, or did he pass
quickly?"
Subject: "Oh, he died almost immediately!"
Reader: "Yes, because he's saying to me, `I didn't suffer. I was spared
any pain.'"
					
It's strange that the reader (Van Praagh, in this example) had to ask
that question.....

	And remember, these readers often go out and interview the audience
members when they're on line waiting to get into the studio or
auditorium. That technique was employed by the very successful reader
Doris Stokes. She would feed back any data she got as if she were
refreshing her memory of what had been told her. "Are you the lady who
has a passed-on sister, dearie?" would of course receive assent from the
victim, and ahhhs from the audience. Also, a person who approaches the
reader before the TV show or auditorium meeeting and says she has a
question about her deceased grandmother, can then later be selected out
of the audience when they're on-camera or during the live encounter, and
can then be asked, "Is your question about your grandmother?" and that
appears--to everyone else--like a bang-on "hit." Or, and this is very
subtle indeed, people in the studio or auditorium audience--usually
seated up front for best visibility--are sometimes those who have
already been to the "psychic" for a private reading, and have then been
asked to show up later to occupy reserved seats at the public in-person
gathering "to develop more information" using the "collective power of
the assembled audience." The reader then repeats previously-gleaned
data, and that appears miraculous both to the audience in the studio and
at home, watching, or elsewhere in the auditorium audience.
					We tested Sylvia Browne in 1989, on live TV, and she failed
miserably. On that occasion, she was not allowed to speak to anyone in
advance, or to be asked or told anything in advance. The audience was
told to only answer "yes" or "no," when asked a DIRECT question, and
Sylvia bombed out big-time. She blamed it all on bad vibrations.... Van
Praagh and Edward have not responded to our offer to test them--for the
million-dollar prize, even.
					So, you see, it's your perception of what's actually being done,
rather that the reality of the procedure, and your ignorance of other
subtle clues and methods, that misleads you in your observations of
these "psychics."
					I'll give you one example of something I did when I was performing
as a mentalist in Toronto, my home town, at the ago of 18. (I hasten to
add here that I would ALWAYS thoroughly disclaim any genuine powers,
before and after my show.) They had a huge auditorium filled with
reserved seats, just about every one of them occupied by eager subjects.
It was some sort of a charity affair, and seats were expensive. After I
got rolling with the various moving objects and blindfolded
duplication-of-handwriting stunts (spoonbending was not yet a popular
miracle!) I stopped abruptly and pointed to a lady in the third-row
aisle seat. "I'm led to say to you that I get a middle name of 'Rose'
for you, madame!" I cried. Her gasp verified that I was right." And that
name is more than significant to you." She leaned forward. "I see a
clock, a very old clock, and on the dial three pink roses?" She started
to speak, and I silenced her by raising my hand. "But this is a strange
clock. It can't tell the time!" By now, the poor woman was about to pass
out in excitement. "Why is it useless? I see two arrows, or
darts…They're metal, and they're broken…Ah! I see! These are
the hands of that clock, and they've come off the clock face, and are
lying together behind the glass cover of the clock dial! Is that right?"
The woman was standing, mouth open, nodding vigorously. She was
awe-struck, and the applause was vigorous indeed. How was it done? A
lucky guess? No. Planning.
					T.K. Lawson, my buddy, had been working with that charity. He was
the one got me the gig (a contracted appearance). And he also went
through several neighborhoods selling tickets to likely donors. He had
sold tickets CC-20 and CC-22 to this lady, and she'd invited him into
her living-room while she made out a check to pay for the tickets. He
observed that the "rose" theme was everywhere, and an embroidered
"sampler" was framed by the door, with the woman's full name on it. That
clock was by the fireplace. T.K. noted these facts, and reported them to
me. I must tell you that together we intercepted that dear lady as she
left after the show, and explained to her how I'd been "psychic." She
was highly entertained with the explanation, and grateful for our caring
to tell her.
					I somehow don't think that Browne, Edward, and Van Praagh would
trouble to do such a thing. But, after all, they say they're REALLY
"speaking with the dead."
					I'm amazed at how much death affects people who undergo the
process. It makes them really stupid and forgetful. Whenever I've asked
any psychics--or spiritualists--to contact my paternal grandmother, it
seems she doesn't remember such basics as the name of her husband, or
the name of her church--both important elements in her life while she
was "here." Now that she's "there," her rather prodigious intellect has
left her quite completely.

**************

Siento las posibles inconveniencias

Saludos,

Enrique Reyes