This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cold reading article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
Should the intro of this article be changed slightly? It states that cold reading is used by mediums etc, but this is obviously POV, particulary since it has not been proven. I would go as fae as suggesting a rewrits of the article, as it makes many accusations against 'mediums' and the like. I'm not strictly saying that they don't use cold reading, it is just that it makes the article far from neutral, which I'm sure you will agree, is not the point of wikipedia. Phallicmonkey ( talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Also, shouldn't it refer to alleged psychics? After all, a person could claim to be a doctor, this does not make them a doctor. So as criticisms of fake psychics cannot be levelled at genuine psychics, criticisms of fake doctors cannot be levelled at genuine doctors. If you see what I mean. Also the intro over-eggs the pudding, somewhat and needs to be red-penned as a result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.156.137 ( talk) 21:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Come on, this barely informs on cold reading and is more an article filled with psychic directed insults. it is hardly informative and gives only opinions. it is, in fact, one of the worst wikipedia articles i can remember reading. Worse even than vandalised articles Phallicmonkey ( talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
as it was only linked from 2 articles, and just repeated info from this article anyway. i left Hot reading as it is. Catherine breillat ( talk) 17:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
hilarious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 ( talk) 21:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm not going to try and get those same edits made, although i do still believe them to be right. But what i do think should be included in the article is a section or something on the fact that mediums etc deny the use of cold reading, and that some people believe that they don't. This could be easy sourced and is not POV Macromonkey ( talk) 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Macromonkey, you are being disruptive by not abiding by the advice given, and your promise at the beginning of this thread. Find the sources, then make your proposed addition right HERE before adding it. When we have worked out an acceptable addition, then you will have a consensus version that we will ALL defend. Until then, you are just being disruptive.
As to it being a "major viewpoint"... OF COURSE IT IS! It's so obvious as to not be worthy of mention. No believer in pseudoscience or the paranormal, and obviously not a fraud, will admit or believe that what they believe isn't true. They will obviously dispute any criticism. So what? It's so obvious that one normally considers it a given, and not worthy of mention. We aren't writing for three year olds here. -- Fyslee ( talk) 23:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Macromonkey, contrary to their promise above, has attempted to edit war inclusion of the following statement:
I have reverted, based on a lack of sourcing and based on Macromonkey's promise above to not do what they have been doing:
So what can be done here? The obvious and usual choice is to seek to get Macromonkey blocked for unwikipedian behavior and edit warring, which should be pretty easy to do. On second thought, I personally have no objection to the information, but just want it to be properly sourced, which is our policy here, so I'm willing to be merciful and give Macromonkey a second chance (conditions posted below).
There are currently two sections that touch on the subject of the fraudulent use of cold reading by psychics:
Since we need to develop this subject even more, maybe we should merge them and do that. I will tag the unsourced statement and then make some tweaks which will also be tagged to encourage other editors to help develop the subject.
I have now merged them into this section:
The statement should NOT be introduced into the LEAD until it is properly sourced. Then I will defend inclusion of a similar, and likely improved, statement. Until then, if it is introduced without sourcing, it is fair game for deletion and the one adding it fair game for blocking. Macromonkey, I request that you be an honorable person and respect this request. I am not interested in edit warring, and would rather see article improvement. -- Fyslee ( talk) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have (second time for me) just removed the following text from the lead: "The use of cold reading by psychics is disputed by some, including but not limited to the psychics themselves, new age practitioners and spiritualists". My reasons for the deletion are: First, the sentence is rather clumsy, and certainly non-encyclopedic. Second, the weasel phrase "disputed by some" stands out as requiring justification, particularly in the lead. Third, the sentence simply does not tie in with the article. The article is about a technique whereby a person can appear to display miraculous mental powers. The removed sentence seems to be an attempt to say that some psychics claim to not use the cold reading technique. That information belongs in an article on psychics. An article on card cheating techniques does not need a claim in the lead that some card players say they never cheat.
An argument could be made for putting the removed sentence (properly rewritten and justified) somewhere near the bottom of the article, but it is simply not relevant in the lead which is to introduce readers to the fact that "cold reading" does exist, and has a certain meaning, and has been demonstrated by some people (examples of the "some people" are given in the article). Johnuniq ( talk) 00:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This article seems really, really weird. It talks about cold reading as if it's a generally accepted practice or something. It talks about this as if it's a well known science. It's really far fetched. I think it needs to be completely redone. If anyone know of any better templates or something, please replace them. Should this be marked as just spam and redone entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisharov ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem with the first sentence of the lead that seems to have come up over and over and which will likely attract continued disruption if we don't deal with it. This is the current lead, first sentence:
The problem is that this implies a conclusion, specifically that cold reading is what all "mentalists, fortune tellers, psychics, and mediums" do. Our articles should reflect the "mainstream" view, predominantly, but what mainstream? Is this a science article? How, exactly, is the "mainstream view" determined?
Cold reading is a technique which can, at least, simulate mind-reading or psychic abilities, and it is a common skeptical point of view that this underlies all such phenomena. However, it may not underlie all, there may be other unusual abilities that are at work. For example, the supposed goal of cold reading: to convince them that the reader knows much more about a subject than they actually do. That would refer to one kind of cold reading, not to all. Suppose, for example, that the psychic has the ability to read subvocalisation, there are claims that some can do this. The reader, then, actually would have the ability to "read the mind" of the subject, even though, under this theory, there is a visual channel open, and it would be subvocalization being read, not the "mind" itself. Likewise with an ability to notice and understand what is communicated in eye movements, subtle movements of facial muscles, pulse rate, etc. We do not know the limits of the human mind and human capacities, but certainly some people are able to do what is mysterious to others. See Savant syndrome.
What's true and verifiable is that cold reading is proposed as an explanation for many phenomena ascribed to psychic abilities. It may also be true and verifiable that some who claim psychic abilities deny that they practice cold reading. (It should be noted that the the techniques of cold reading might be used outside of consciousness, in addition to the unusual perceptiveness as mentioned above, and might underlie the "intuition" of these psychics, so the denial might be fully sincere, but mistaken.)
I'm concerned that the is a possible POV problem with the very first sentence of the lead, which is an invitation to constant attempts by people who believe in psychic abilities, and there are certainly many, to correct the article. I have not researched the history of this article, but my general position is that we determine balance by what is in reliable source, so, first of all, is that lead sentence in reliable source without synthesis? I didn't see such source cited. -- Abd ( talk) 21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
With [1], Verbal reverted my edit to the lead with the comment, (revert unsupported edits by Abd). With [2], Verbal edited Psychic likewise removing the wikilinked skeptics, but did replace the word later in the sentence. That text in Psychic was supported by consensus and four sources. Why is very similar text here, clearly supported by the text and references of the article, removed as "unsupported"? I've been researching the history of the lead, and what I've seen was edit warring, over and over, on this, without attempt to find compromise. Not good. At Psychic, it seems there was extensive negotiation over the lead to find the text currently used, before Verbal's edit, which only weakens it slightly. -- Abd ( talk) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The "In movies and on television" was removed, but I've put it back for the moment - My thought is that it seems valuable, as a number of shows (in particular The Mentalist) are based on fictional accounts of cold reading, so it seems like a valuable enough topic, given that it should probably be trimmed and turned into prose. - Bilby ( talk) 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
How can you have a page about cold reading and not mention John Edward? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.200.182 ( talk) 20:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Another good example might be the reality TV show Long Island Medium. I've seen the show a few times, not by choice, and it looks like the medium, Theresa Caputo, is actually using cold reading. I'm not sure if she knows that this is what she's doing or if she really thinks that she's a medium but I do know that several psychic investigators consider her nothing more than a performer. JDZeff ( talk) 22:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a determination on the part of one or two editors to remove the following two text items:
1:
2:
This latter item is referenced by "cite journal |author=Karla McLaren |year=2004 |month=May |title=Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |url= http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html|accessdate=2006-12-11 }}"
Perhaps we could discuss the proposed removals here. -- TS 16:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the first item is a rather poorly supported anecdote and adds nothing to the article. The second one is fine. --
TS 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Several times in the last few weeks, anonymous editors have removed the term psychics from the lead paragraph without any edit summary explaining why. There's also been similar anonymous edits regarding "fake" psychics, or subjective commentary stating that cold reading is not used by psychics. As this is demonstrably false, I have also removed this.
If these anon editors (possibly the same person) want to state their reasons for their edits, and back it up with evidence, then please add your reasoning here.-- Dmol ( talk) 07:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at a an investigation by the IIG giving great examples of cold reading. There are no examples in this article and wonder if others might think the article would be improved by some. Also James Underdown writes quite a good description of the numbers associated with the shot-gun approach when your audience is 200+/- people. I think it would be quite informative. </ref> [1] Sgerbic ( talk) 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
References
...I moved fairly quickly and was able to grab a card before they ran out. The card asked for my name, birthday and a question for E. She'd said it could be literally anything, so I wrote "How did the bee 'waggle dance' evolve?". The back of the card then asked for a private piece of information to further test her abilities, so I filled this in too then quickly headed to the stage, dropped my envelope into the bowl and made it back to my seat just before the lights dimmed. Halfway through the second act, E called out my name and told me the first song I ever played on a guitar. It was quite the thing.
E: [picks up a card] A guitar! Andy..Andrew...does that match anybody?
Me: [standing up and receiving the microphone from a scurrying usher] Yes, that's me.
E: A Taurean, right?
Me: Yes. [gasps from audience]
E: This is something musical, something to do with the guitar. I'm getting...It's the first song you played on the guitar, am I right?
Me: Yes.
E: Ok. About fifteen years old, right?
Me: No.
E: It is older?
Me: Oh, me or the song?
E: Never mind, one question at a time. Sing the song over in your head. Over and over. Try to project it to me.
Me: [actually doing so]. Ok.
E: I'm getting something about...pain, is that close?
Me: Yes, very.
E: And lots of pain. I can't quite figure it out. There are many people in pain? Something like that?
Me: That's very close.
E: I can't get the title I'm afraid, what is it?
Me: Everybody Hurts. [audience go into shock]
kazuba Kazuba ( talk) 20:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Please include Lie to me. The entire show is about cold reading. 84.152.24.61 ( talk) 07:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The lead section seems to imply that all psychics, fortune tellers, and medium use cold reading, either in part or in whole. A significant number of people would argue that that claim is at minimum unproven at this time. The lead show be clearer that while many skeptics allege cold reading as a primary technique of psychics/mediums/etc. whether intentionally or unconsciously, others argue (including at least some psychics) argue that that is either untrue or at least unproven at this time. I think most will agree that some skeptics/mediums/etc. do indeed use cold reading either intentionally or unconsciously either in part of in whole but it's disputed whether any true psychic ability has ever been 100% disproven as a possibility. Thus the intro section should reflect that fact. Their should at least be some mention in a sentence or two in the intro mentioning that their is a debate as to how much cold reading plays into all alleged psychics technique and that some people claim that some cold readers do not use cold reading either consciously or unconsciously at all. -- Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 05:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Dmol. I see that you made an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cold_reading&type=revision&diff=923026011&oldid=923022198 on the "Cold Reading" page.
You changed what appeared to me to be a perfectly good edit by an "unregistered editor". Your edit summary "This is the whole basic of their claim. Discuss changes on the talk page if you want to reach consensus." seems a bit non sequitur.
I think you are a little out of process. A revert of the previous edit would have been more appropriate if you disagreed with the content of "unregistered editor's" addition.
You restructured two sentences into one sentence with a conjuction of "i.e. scam artists" which is awkard and creates an unnecessay ambiguity. Additional, inclusion of "scam artists" lacks a necessary relivance as the article is considered to be addressing "Cold Reading" as a "communication technique".
On this basis I am reverting your edit. I would entertain your thoughts on the subject by discusion on the talk page if you want to reach consenus.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cold reading article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
Should the intro of this article be changed slightly? It states that cold reading is used by mediums etc, but this is obviously POV, particulary since it has not been proven. I would go as fae as suggesting a rewrits of the article, as it makes many accusations against 'mediums' and the like. I'm not strictly saying that they don't use cold reading, it is just that it makes the article far from neutral, which I'm sure you will agree, is not the point of wikipedia. Phallicmonkey ( talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Also, shouldn't it refer to alleged psychics? After all, a person could claim to be a doctor, this does not make them a doctor. So as criticisms of fake psychics cannot be levelled at genuine psychics, criticisms of fake doctors cannot be levelled at genuine doctors. If you see what I mean. Also the intro over-eggs the pudding, somewhat and needs to be red-penned as a result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.156.137 ( talk) 21:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Come on, this barely informs on cold reading and is more an article filled with psychic directed insults. it is hardly informative and gives only opinions. it is, in fact, one of the worst wikipedia articles i can remember reading. Worse even than vandalised articles Phallicmonkey ( talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
as it was only linked from 2 articles, and just repeated info from this article anyway. i left Hot reading as it is. Catherine breillat ( talk) 17:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
hilarious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 ( talk) 21:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm not going to try and get those same edits made, although i do still believe them to be right. But what i do think should be included in the article is a section or something on the fact that mediums etc deny the use of cold reading, and that some people believe that they don't. This could be easy sourced and is not POV Macromonkey ( talk) 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Macromonkey, you are being disruptive by not abiding by the advice given, and your promise at the beginning of this thread. Find the sources, then make your proposed addition right HERE before adding it. When we have worked out an acceptable addition, then you will have a consensus version that we will ALL defend. Until then, you are just being disruptive.
As to it being a "major viewpoint"... OF COURSE IT IS! It's so obvious as to not be worthy of mention. No believer in pseudoscience or the paranormal, and obviously not a fraud, will admit or believe that what they believe isn't true. They will obviously dispute any criticism. So what? It's so obvious that one normally considers it a given, and not worthy of mention. We aren't writing for three year olds here. -- Fyslee ( talk) 23:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Macromonkey, contrary to their promise above, has attempted to edit war inclusion of the following statement:
I have reverted, based on a lack of sourcing and based on Macromonkey's promise above to not do what they have been doing:
So what can be done here? The obvious and usual choice is to seek to get Macromonkey blocked for unwikipedian behavior and edit warring, which should be pretty easy to do. On second thought, I personally have no objection to the information, but just want it to be properly sourced, which is our policy here, so I'm willing to be merciful and give Macromonkey a second chance (conditions posted below).
There are currently two sections that touch on the subject of the fraudulent use of cold reading by psychics:
Since we need to develop this subject even more, maybe we should merge them and do that. I will tag the unsourced statement and then make some tweaks which will also be tagged to encourage other editors to help develop the subject.
I have now merged them into this section:
The statement should NOT be introduced into the LEAD until it is properly sourced. Then I will defend inclusion of a similar, and likely improved, statement. Until then, if it is introduced without sourcing, it is fair game for deletion and the one adding it fair game for blocking. Macromonkey, I request that you be an honorable person and respect this request. I am not interested in edit warring, and would rather see article improvement. -- Fyslee ( talk) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have (second time for me) just removed the following text from the lead: "The use of cold reading by psychics is disputed by some, including but not limited to the psychics themselves, new age practitioners and spiritualists". My reasons for the deletion are: First, the sentence is rather clumsy, and certainly non-encyclopedic. Second, the weasel phrase "disputed by some" stands out as requiring justification, particularly in the lead. Third, the sentence simply does not tie in with the article. The article is about a technique whereby a person can appear to display miraculous mental powers. The removed sentence seems to be an attempt to say that some psychics claim to not use the cold reading technique. That information belongs in an article on psychics. An article on card cheating techniques does not need a claim in the lead that some card players say they never cheat.
An argument could be made for putting the removed sentence (properly rewritten and justified) somewhere near the bottom of the article, but it is simply not relevant in the lead which is to introduce readers to the fact that "cold reading" does exist, and has a certain meaning, and has been demonstrated by some people (examples of the "some people" are given in the article). Johnuniq ( talk) 00:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This article seems really, really weird. It talks about cold reading as if it's a generally accepted practice or something. It talks about this as if it's a well known science. It's really far fetched. I think it needs to be completely redone. If anyone know of any better templates or something, please replace them. Should this be marked as just spam and redone entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisharov ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem with the first sentence of the lead that seems to have come up over and over and which will likely attract continued disruption if we don't deal with it. This is the current lead, first sentence:
The problem is that this implies a conclusion, specifically that cold reading is what all "mentalists, fortune tellers, psychics, and mediums" do. Our articles should reflect the "mainstream" view, predominantly, but what mainstream? Is this a science article? How, exactly, is the "mainstream view" determined?
Cold reading is a technique which can, at least, simulate mind-reading or psychic abilities, and it is a common skeptical point of view that this underlies all such phenomena. However, it may not underlie all, there may be other unusual abilities that are at work. For example, the supposed goal of cold reading: to convince them that the reader knows much more about a subject than they actually do. That would refer to one kind of cold reading, not to all. Suppose, for example, that the psychic has the ability to read subvocalisation, there are claims that some can do this. The reader, then, actually would have the ability to "read the mind" of the subject, even though, under this theory, there is a visual channel open, and it would be subvocalization being read, not the "mind" itself. Likewise with an ability to notice and understand what is communicated in eye movements, subtle movements of facial muscles, pulse rate, etc. We do not know the limits of the human mind and human capacities, but certainly some people are able to do what is mysterious to others. See Savant syndrome.
What's true and verifiable is that cold reading is proposed as an explanation for many phenomena ascribed to psychic abilities. It may also be true and verifiable that some who claim psychic abilities deny that they practice cold reading. (It should be noted that the the techniques of cold reading might be used outside of consciousness, in addition to the unusual perceptiveness as mentioned above, and might underlie the "intuition" of these psychics, so the denial might be fully sincere, but mistaken.)
I'm concerned that the is a possible POV problem with the very first sentence of the lead, which is an invitation to constant attempts by people who believe in psychic abilities, and there are certainly many, to correct the article. I have not researched the history of this article, but my general position is that we determine balance by what is in reliable source, so, first of all, is that lead sentence in reliable source without synthesis? I didn't see such source cited. -- Abd ( talk) 21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
With [1], Verbal reverted my edit to the lead with the comment, (revert unsupported edits by Abd). With [2], Verbal edited Psychic likewise removing the wikilinked skeptics, but did replace the word later in the sentence. That text in Psychic was supported by consensus and four sources. Why is very similar text here, clearly supported by the text and references of the article, removed as "unsupported"? I've been researching the history of the lead, and what I've seen was edit warring, over and over, on this, without attempt to find compromise. Not good. At Psychic, it seems there was extensive negotiation over the lead to find the text currently used, before Verbal's edit, which only weakens it slightly. -- Abd ( talk) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The "In movies and on television" was removed, but I've put it back for the moment - My thought is that it seems valuable, as a number of shows (in particular The Mentalist) are based on fictional accounts of cold reading, so it seems like a valuable enough topic, given that it should probably be trimmed and turned into prose. - Bilby ( talk) 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
How can you have a page about cold reading and not mention John Edward? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.200.182 ( talk) 20:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Another good example might be the reality TV show Long Island Medium. I've seen the show a few times, not by choice, and it looks like the medium, Theresa Caputo, is actually using cold reading. I'm not sure if she knows that this is what she's doing or if she really thinks that she's a medium but I do know that several psychic investigators consider her nothing more than a performer. JDZeff ( talk) 22:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a determination on the part of one or two editors to remove the following two text items:
1:
2:
This latter item is referenced by "cite journal |author=Karla McLaren |year=2004 |month=May |title=Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |url= http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html|accessdate=2006-12-11 }}"
Perhaps we could discuss the proposed removals here. -- TS 16:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the first item is a rather poorly supported anecdote and adds nothing to the article. The second one is fine. --
TS 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Several times in the last few weeks, anonymous editors have removed the term psychics from the lead paragraph without any edit summary explaining why. There's also been similar anonymous edits regarding "fake" psychics, or subjective commentary stating that cold reading is not used by psychics. As this is demonstrably false, I have also removed this.
If these anon editors (possibly the same person) want to state their reasons for their edits, and back it up with evidence, then please add your reasoning here.-- Dmol ( talk) 07:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at a an investigation by the IIG giving great examples of cold reading. There are no examples in this article and wonder if others might think the article would be improved by some. Also James Underdown writes quite a good description of the numbers associated with the shot-gun approach when your audience is 200+/- people. I think it would be quite informative. </ref> [1] Sgerbic ( talk) 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
References
...I moved fairly quickly and was able to grab a card before they ran out. The card asked for my name, birthday and a question for E. She'd said it could be literally anything, so I wrote "How did the bee 'waggle dance' evolve?". The back of the card then asked for a private piece of information to further test her abilities, so I filled this in too then quickly headed to the stage, dropped my envelope into the bowl and made it back to my seat just before the lights dimmed. Halfway through the second act, E called out my name and told me the first song I ever played on a guitar. It was quite the thing.
E: [picks up a card] A guitar! Andy..Andrew...does that match anybody?
Me: [standing up and receiving the microphone from a scurrying usher] Yes, that's me.
E: A Taurean, right?
Me: Yes. [gasps from audience]
E: This is something musical, something to do with the guitar. I'm getting...It's the first song you played on the guitar, am I right?
Me: Yes.
E: Ok. About fifteen years old, right?
Me: No.
E: It is older?
Me: Oh, me or the song?
E: Never mind, one question at a time. Sing the song over in your head. Over and over. Try to project it to me.
Me: [actually doing so]. Ok.
E: I'm getting something about...pain, is that close?
Me: Yes, very.
E: And lots of pain. I can't quite figure it out. There are many people in pain? Something like that?
Me: That's very close.
E: I can't get the title I'm afraid, what is it?
Me: Everybody Hurts. [audience go into shock]
kazuba Kazuba ( talk) 20:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Please include Lie to me. The entire show is about cold reading. 84.152.24.61 ( talk) 07:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The lead section seems to imply that all psychics, fortune tellers, and medium use cold reading, either in part or in whole. A significant number of people would argue that that claim is at minimum unproven at this time. The lead show be clearer that while many skeptics allege cold reading as a primary technique of psychics/mediums/etc. whether intentionally or unconsciously, others argue (including at least some psychics) argue that that is either untrue or at least unproven at this time. I think most will agree that some skeptics/mediums/etc. do indeed use cold reading either intentionally or unconsciously either in part of in whole but it's disputed whether any true psychic ability has ever been 100% disproven as a possibility. Thus the intro section should reflect that fact. Their should at least be some mention in a sentence or two in the intro mentioning that their is a debate as to how much cold reading plays into all alleged psychics technique and that some people claim that some cold readers do not use cold reading either consciously or unconsciously at all. -- Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 05:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Dmol. I see that you made an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cold_reading&type=revision&diff=923026011&oldid=923022198 on the "Cold Reading" page.
You changed what appeared to me to be a perfectly good edit by an "unregistered editor". Your edit summary "This is the whole basic of their claim. Discuss changes on the talk page if you want to reach consensus." seems a bit non sequitur.
I think you are a little out of process. A revert of the previous edit would have been more appropriate if you disagreed with the content of "unregistered editor's" addition.
You restructured two sentences into one sentence with a conjuction of "i.e. scam artists" which is awkard and creates an unnecessay ambiguity. Additional, inclusion of "scam artists" lacks a necessary relivance as the article is considered to be addressing "Cold Reading" as a "communication technique".
On this basis I am reverting your edit. I would entertain your thoughts on the subject by discusion on the talk page if you want to reach consenus.