Talk:Cold reading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Procedure

The "Basic Procedure" section was tagged with the "weasel words" warning, this section does not contain any statements of this type, so I removed it 65.33.181.67 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 65.33.181.67 12:37 EST 30 March 2007

[edit] Psychologists

I removed "psychologists" from the list of people using cold-reading. It's both wrong and unfair to claim that psychologists in general use cold-reading. Psychologists are trained scientists who use scientific methods. Actually, many psychologists have tried to encourage people to critical thinking about could-reading and other forms of pseudo-psychology. See for instance Stanovich's book "How to think straight about psychology" or Michael Shermer's book "Why people believe in weird things". If one still claims that psychologists in general use cold-reading, I urge them to show some documentation for such claims.

~ Not all people acting as psychologists are scientists. At least in the Netherlands people applying psychotherapy. Arakrys 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV check

In my opinion this article (if it could be called so) does not have a neutral point of view. The information contained in this page has no foundation, directly attacks the psychics mentioned and insults the people that believe in them and what they do. I think that anything published in Wikipedia should be limited to facts and provable data. It is unfair to publish the kinds of things that the author of "Cold Reading" article did. There are a lot of facts to tell about cold reading, where they use it (facts: like in a performance), etc. I hope you take this into consideration... Thankyou. --201.133.72.108 18:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Drayfus (10/Jan/2006 - 12:30 GMT -06:00).

cold reading is also used by palmists, graphologists, horoscopes, etc. It's not necessarily done to defraud. Is it actually a "criminal technique"? AFAIK, it's like prestidigitation -- it can be used to harmlessly entertain or to defraud. -- Tarquin 12:26 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

I've rephrased for NPOV and generality. Could use some filling-in, though, since I'm no expert. -- Wapcaplet
Good rewrite :-) I'll pick my dad's brains next time I see him. My grandfather used to dress up as a gypsy for school fetes and do fortune-telling; I'll ponder how to phrase the "just for laughs" aspect of it. -- Tarquin

Hmm since the pseudo-psychic technique "Cold Reading" is such a big topic and very different from the theatrical technique, I think we should put a disambiguation page here and split the two out. Only problem is I have no good idea what the second title would be. What do you think?

  • Cold Reading (theatrical)
  • Cold Reading (psychics)

Apparently the pretend-psychics listed in this article have already been blacklisted by a way-too-serious Magicians group who noticed this very Wikipedia entry, and hate these Skeptics for publicising "their" trick of cold reading. Zuytdorp Survivor 07:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since the most "popular" use of the term "Cold Reading" seems to be the second on the page, am considering going for a "type C" disambiguation where that meaning remains on the page, with a link to Cold Reading (theatrical) listed at the top. Am seeking guidance on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation . Zuytdorp Survivor 00:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Have split out cold reading (theatrical). If that topic becomes equally popular with the pseudo-psychic technique, we can form a full disambiguation page. Zuytdorp Survivor 12:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "Shotgunning (cold reading)" Into "Cold reading"

The subject is identical but the content in Shotgunning (cold reading) is much shorter. Hence I propose merging "Shotgunning (cold reading)" into Cold reading. --Maikel 19:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Martin Gardner cites an example of a Cayce reading from when Cayce's wife had tuberculosis:
... from the head, pains along through the body from the second, fifth and sixth dorsals, and from the first and second lumbar...tie-ups here, floating lesions, or lateral lesions, in the muscular and nerve fibers which supply the lower end of the lung and the diaphragm...in conjunction with the sympathetic nerve of the solar plexus, coming in conjunction with the solar plexus at the end of the stomach....
Cayce used the word lung, and this his followers take as a correct diagnosis; i.e., a psychic "hit."

Should this quote from shotgunning be put into this article or Edgar Cayce? --CDN99 03:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The article is perfectly fine as it is. Though I will admit it could use more discussion. It's a common misunderstanding that cold reading is somehow a psychic ability. It isn't. It can't be. Cold reading is ONLY a theatrical tool to pretend to read minds. If someone wishes to believe in "real" psychic ability, they are welcome to it but there is no "real" cold reading. I've written several books on how to cold read people and I assure everyone that is only a series of tools…NOT any special ability. NYCmentalist 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I have added the neutrality disputed tag as this page is horribly POV. Sentances like "The television psychic John Edward is famous for [cold reading]." do not belong on Wikipedia; they are not based in fact. Allthesestars 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems like some actual editing, disputation, and an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate consensus language should come before we apply the "POV Disputed" tag. Maybe you could make a few edits (not a complete rewrite) and see how they are received. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Better now? --Hob Gadling 23:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes (imo). The article now reads as a definition of Cold Reading. Here's my vote to remove the bias mark.
--Wurblzap 22:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the page is fine the way it is right now. But then again, I'm a skeptic. Cool user name, Hob. :-) PragmaticallyWyrd 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Okay, I'm a skeptic, but it does seem to me that given that listening to John Edward is indistinguishable from listening to an admitted cold reader, it doesn't seem unreasonable to describe what he does as cold reading. To successfully accuse this piece as biased, I think it would be necessary to attack that statement - in other words demonstrate where the observable differences between what admittedly fake psychics do and what John Edward and his like do. It is also worth pointing out that the nature of a television show makes "warm" or "hot" reading possible also. The Amazing Kreskin (an earlier television psychic) would go for long walks before a show to clear his head. It is alleged that he was noting the contents of the audience's cars in the car park and using the clues found therein to get some very startling "hits" once the show started. Tomsalinsky 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Changed a grammatical error:
In general, while most some of the words come from the reader, most of the information comes from the subject.--Tcwolf 05:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shotgunning vs. Barnum

In the Shotgunning section it gives a list of typical statements. These statements all seem to be Barnum statements. But doesn't Shotgunning also include much more specific statements, given in rapid succession, so that any wildly incaccurate statments are quickly forgotten? If so, I think the Barnum statements should be removed from the Shotgunning section to avoid confusion between the two techniques.

Ideally, a transcript of someone shotgunning would be the best example. Ashmoo 05:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shotgunning and purported psychics

...often used by purported psychics and mediums

The shotgunning section seems to imply that many psychics actually use shotgunning rather then real psychic ability and are thus engaging in deceit or fraud. If this statement was really just trying to point out the many fraud psychics use this technique then maybe it could be rewritten to specifically limit it to known fraudulent psychics. --Cab88 13:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought 'purported' was for. What wording would you prefer? Ashmoo 23:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypnotists? Shamans and witch doctors?

Hypnosis is, as ar as I am aware, planting suggestions. What does the hypnotist read from the person who's being hypnotised? Yes, he can suggest they saw things (see e.g. the Satanic Abuse scare), but what does cold reading have to do with it? Secondly, I don't think shamans and witch doctors in the traditional sense would have a need for cold reading either. The customer or patient comes to them, tells them what's wrong, and they perform a ritual. Maybe during the ritual they tell the questioner their problem has to do with a far uncle who passed away or somesuch, but is cold reading among their repertoire? Do they go 'I see a box with unsorted photos, what does that mean to you?' etc?

Nichiran 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


I Agree. 'Shamans and 'witch doctors' covers such a broad range of religious/magical figures from so many different cultures that it would be unVerifiable to include it here. Saying that hypnotists use cold reading is also OR. I'm going to chop them. Ashmoo 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
shamans definitely don't do cold readings, they do peyote and salvia

[edit] List of Cold Readers

After separating the list with an "alleged" section, I've decided to eliminate the list altogether. The fact is that the list seems to exist purely so that it can include people like Sylvia Brown in the same list as "conmen." While I certainly agree that Browne is a conwoman 100%, that sort of accusation isn't relevant to wikipedia, and the list is not at all necessary to describe what cold reading is. Allegations within the article in one or two places are good enough. If someone wants to work in a section about the controversy over who is doing cold reading and who isn't, I think that would work, but for now, that list is out.

[edit] Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes could be a candidate for expert cold reader in fiction. Anyone agree with this? - [ Redmess 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Any of us agreeing upon that isn't enough. We must find a respectable source to support this, or it is just Original Research. I have removed the sentence for now, also because it was in the wrong section. — Mütze (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
www.unt.edu/behv/hyten/3200/Cold%20Reading.doc www.psychicandclairvoyant.co.uk/HotAndColdReading.html http://www.skepdic.com/subjectivevalidation.html over 6000 results for ("sherlock holmes" "cold reading") in google, there's bound to be plenty of usable sources if anyone can be bothered digging through them Bitplane 05:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitplane (talk • contribs)

[edit] Wizard of Oz

In the movie the professor sneaks a photograph from Dorothy's purse- wouldn't this be a better example oh hot reading? 130.101.100.100 13:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subject Verb Agreement

The initial paragraph of this article seems, to me, to have errors. In the opening line the author writes:

Cold reading is a technique often used by mentalists, fortune tellers, and others posing as psychics and mediums to determine details about a subject through analysis of their body language, appearance and responses to questioning.

This is, correctly, written in the present tense, However, the succeeding line reads:

Even without prior knowledge of a person, a practiced cold reader could obtain a great deal of information about the subject by carefully analyzing that person's body language, clothing, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc.

I believe it should either read '...a practiced cold reader can...' or '...a practiced cold reader is able to...' to make the paragraph gramatically correct. MUGZ85 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biast Viewpoint

It seems to me that there are several pages on wikipedia which are very biased towards skeptics who are actually the ones who employ cold reading to disprove psychics along with some but not all psychologists. The fact of the matter is most psychics and mediums develop their mediumship in spiritualist church's or in home circles and they do NOT employ cold reading techniques. For the majority its mental mediumship and they may work on feelings, symbolism or mentally hear voices, very few people physically see or hear spirit. If any one of you skeptics took the time to go along to a spiritualist church and join a good development circle you would see a very different picture. People like Derren Brown (a psychologist, entertainer, skeptic) use cold reading to disprove mediumship. Admitedly there are some awful psychics and a few may employ cold reading tactics but the majority are sincere about what they do.(YinYangChing (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

I have removed Edgar Cayce from this article. Cayce never had a "stage and television show", worked in private, for free, with only the name and address of the subject, who usually was not present. His extremely specific readings and recommendations (such as the above mentioned example) cannot be considered shotgunning. There also is no Reliable Source for the inclusion of his name. HorusFlight (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro restore

I changed the intro back to an older version, because the current one was far to stridently negative against self-proclaimed psychics. The current one was already accusing these people of 'posing' even before it explained what cold reading was. Obviously, everyone isn't going to agree about psychics and the use of the word 'psychic' itself. But we should at least try to assume some NPOV. Ashmoo (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And the current one makes no sense now. If the reader knows nothing about "cold reading" they will not be able to make heads or tails out of the so-called "intro." Restoring necessary information (without reverting to avoid the previous POV). 74.215.110.214 (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)