Pet Psychics
Noting with some despair the recent dirge of so called “pet psychics” whilst Googling the term, I was reminded of a time when I was invited to appear on a local cable show and do my thing for invited guests in a live studio audience situation.
The hostess of this charade was a fairly well-known magicianess I had worked with for many years at The Magic Castle. She had been basking in the limelight of local communitycabledom as a non-magician, taking full advantage of the rampant psychic craze that was then sweeping the country back in the mid-nineties and acting as moderator on her own interview show “Brainstorm.” She knew what she was doing. She knew I was a mentalist and not any more “psychic” than the next guy, but she needed something that fit in with her theme and asked if I would consider doing something different. Of course,I jumped at the chance. She would provide the pets and their owners and all I had to do was give a reading for each of them. No pay was involved and it was planned purely for the fun of it as far as I was concerned. Any publicity or monetary advantage I might have expected later would be minimal, given the small local area and interest market this cable company covered. This was long before the BBC trotted out that dotty woman who made being a professional pet psychic so desirable and way before Redford became “The Horse Whisperer,” so I didn’t have much to model my persona on. I figured this kind of shtick wouldn’t be much of a leap from telling fortunes to some of the dunderheads I had been stuck dealing with over the years of doing private readings. With the additional advantage of knowing that a dog or bird couldn’t really say no or argue with what I was “seeing” about them, I theorized I would have a better chance of scoring bigger hits with a setter than with a sitter. It would be up to the owner to provide any feedback as to whether I was right or wrong, and since I was the featured animal expert and psychic, how could they argue with me?
So I let my beard grow out for a few days, donned my khaki animal trainer clothing I still had hanging in the closet and arrived ready and in character as The Pet Psychic. Showing up being 90% of getting any job done, I was met by my host, who kindly filled me in (as all good television personalities are want to do if they expect accuracy, have no scruples and want things to appear miraculous – watch my Penn & Teller show if you don’t believe me here) with as many details of the pets and their owners that she could cram into the few minutes we had backstage. This is how it’s done folks. I made mental notes of what I could and prepared to totally go for it. The ham in me was willing to go way over the top this time. I thought at the time, …what did I have to lose?
This was a live transmission and I soon found the ordeal a bit tougher going than I had anticipated. I had to really work to get my act together. Pets don’t react or give much feedback like humans do. I found my usual habit of searching for body language and facial cues as one of my course correcting methods woefully missing when I was confronted with a cockatiel and a golden retriever. Any actual cold reading was at a minimum. As I had assumed beforehand, only the mirroring of the owners reactions to what I said provided any clues. I had to “lay it on with a trowel “as they say. Having years of this dubious skill behind me, I projected complete authority and managed to confidently bluff my way through: The bird was lonely of course, and the dog needed to get outdoors more often and had recently lost his favorite ball, etc., etc. I think this was the only time I can remember actually having flopsweat on my brow after thirty minutes. It was a tedious experiment I won’t repeat.
The pre-show information I was given was woven into the “conversation” I had with each pet and soon the “ooohhhhs” and “ahhhhhhhs” filled the studio and left the owners suitably impressed. How did I know that the bird had recently flown out the front door of the house or that the dog was rescued from the pound? Everyone was delighted and the dog seemed to particularly love the extra attention I had given him and rewarded me with a generous lick on the face to end my segment. Cute.
So why would I share this with skeptics, knowing that many will no doubt bristle with resentment after reading that I so brazenly helped promulgate such nonsense and knowingly bamboozled hundreds of cable customers (well, …maybe not that many) with an admittedly shaky scam? Because that’s what I do. I can’t help myself when it comes to exploring the limits of human credulity. Like it or not, this sort of tripe is what‘s passing for entertainment and even news out there. You buy the sponsor’s products and help support things far worse in the media when you turn on Larry King, Oprah or Montell every single day. With shows like “Medium” and “Ghost Whisperer” you can add in an even sorrier mix of fictional hokum to help keep the paranormal pot bubbling. Sorry if I make the wrong assumptions of what some skeptics might be watching, but hopefully get my point. sad isn’t it? Do something about people like me! Change all of that. Want the truth about such things? Get on your computer or phone, write letters and tell the media executives you want “The Skeptologists” on the job! You deserve nothing less.
I don’t know what it says about me that I assumed that ‘pet psychics’ were essentially just good with animal behavior, rather than getting prompts from backstage. Probably that I’d never seen one in action, and assumed that they were more into the ‘giving advice about what an animal’s behavior means’, with a dressing of woo, rather than ‘knowing things that the owner didn’t tell them, but told someone else’.
(Then again, I tend to think things like cold reading and sleight of hand are pretty cool even without the paranormal stuff (maybe even cooler, since it shows exceptional skill at a normal thing, rather than something removed from my experience), so I’m probably not the target audience.)
“Because that’s what I do. I can’t help myself when it comes to exploring the limits of human credulity. Like it or not, this sort of tripe is what‘s passing for entertainment and even news out there.”
With the full admission, no harm, no foul. The assertions regarding media behavior appear to be accurate by all known information.
Passing judgment on admitted exploitative strategies? Rather not, that is every hominids “shtick”. At least the author had the presence of mind to fully illuminate the behavior, with no delusions or illusions as to its motivation.
Welcome to “humanity”.
As the old cliche goes, people hear what they want to hear. You cater to the pet owners, not the pets, and once the owners are suitably convinced of your psychic powers you tell them what *you* really want through what you claim is the pet’s wants and needs. It’s a simple trick and works so well. I just loved that episode of The Simpsons when the pet Santa’s Little Helper was taken to a pet psychic.
Great stuff Mark; it’s always good to see things told as they are from an expert in psychic scams.
I spent a fruitless morning trying to convince my mom that the “pet psychic” on TV was just cold reading. “Plus,” I said, “who can argue with her when she says things the owners have no way of knowing for themselves?”
Part of the problem is that people really don’t take the time to understand how their animals think, and so they expect the animals to behave like people. Pet psychics only add to this misguided view by saying strange things about the pets’ personalities.
I think some folks want to believe in the idea of a pet psychic because it’s a nice idea, and in the cases of dead pets, it’s sort of like a young boy who’s being told that his mother who died of cancer is in heaven now with the angels watching over him. It’s thought to help people get over their grieving. Whether it does or doesn’t is up for debate, (I tend to think that it’s not helpful to establish a connection with a person or pet who’s passed, since letting go is what really needs to happen), but most people outside the situation seem to recognize that it’s not the truth.
Having spent money and time rigorously training our two dogs with a reputable dog trainer, I have never found advice of animal “whispering” useful. That said, I have also heard from numerous friends that they have had difficult pet problems solved by whisperers. Good training does mean understanding animal body language, etc, much as you would do with people, but I also keep an open mind, since I am not an expert on the topic.
That said, I happen to enjoy Ghost Whisperer. It’s hokey and fun, and I am able to separate my entertainment/fiction from my reality. I know the characters are actors, the stories fiction, and they are not trying to pass themselves off as fact. While of course there are the folks who buy what they see lock and stock, there are also viewers who can distinguish fun from fact, even while in moments of “suspended disbelief.” It’s possible many people did that while watching your show, though there is no way of knowing without more information than your impressions of the audience’s response.
I am new to reading this blog, admittedly, but isn’t the job of the skeptic to investigate and question, to dig out the truth, or at least to try, not to lie and bamboozle? To give a measured account of things based on evidence and inquiry? If you really want to educate or illuminate people, or to show “truth,” how is that accomplished by lying and mockery?
You mention the “Skeptologists” TV show, but is this what it would be about? No thanks. A number of reality and game shows have done this schtick already (going back to Candid Camera), making people look like idiots and then laughing at them for it. Though it was some good fun, it didn’t promote critical or responsible thinking.
Based on what you present, I’m not likely to make that phone call asking for “Skeptologists” programming, but I’ll keep reading.
Mauri
I am an intuitive animal communicator. I don’t take offense at what you say at all. I think that skepticism is good.
There are many people out there who are perfectly willing to have their beliefs suspended, who so want to experience their pet’s voice, that they throw their common sense out the window.
For example, this exchange occurs more often than I’d like:
Me: “Lily would like you to clean her bowl more often.”
Client (excited): “How did you know her name!?”
Me: “It’s here on her tag.”
I worry about these kinds of clients, because while I’m ethical and will try to convey exactly what their pets tell me, not every psychic is.
There are some out there who would be perfectly willing to sell them a special candle or tell them that their pets wants to speak with them once a week at $100 a session.
People need to own their psychic experience and to be discerning with the information that they’re receiving.
Most animal communicators don’t read with the animals in the same room with them. We talk with the pets remotely. We can’t observe body language. I understand how strange that sounds.
Animals are like people in that they have differing interests and opinions. I don’t think it’d be possible to cold-read only and get anywhere near 90% accuracy.
Animals are also not like people. Talking with a horse is different than talking with a chicken, which is different than talking with a human. They have different ideas about what’s important. I’d say that the animal that sounds and thinks most like humans is the cat.
I’d be happy to talk with you about my experience, at your convenience.
Bridget Pilloud
http://www.petsaretalking.com
Mauri, ghost whisperer is not fake, and they aren’t actors. He’s an expert in animal psychology. It has nothing to do with psychic stuff. I doubt you’ve ever seen the show, but instead just are going by the title.
^ And there you have the worst of all; the self-deluded psychic.
Calling it Intuitive animal communication doesn’t make it scientific.
From her website: “Intuitive animal communication is the act of exchanging information through the sharing of energy.”
Please see this skeptoid article about “energy”:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4002
Bridgett the pet psychic: “I worry about these kinds of clients, because while I’m ethical and will try to convey exactly what their pets tell me, not every psychic is.”
Yeesh… the irony, the lack of insight, the hubris, the lol…
I don’t lack insight or harbor hubris. I’m sorry that, by my statement, you think that I do. Especially the hubris part. I don’t find any irony in what I’m saying.
You can argue my abilities all you want, but don’t say I lack ethical behavior. I don’t.
I wish that I had a better word than energy to describe what I’m sharing and experiencing. I don’t. I wish that I knew more about quantum physics, because I think the answer is in there somewhere.
Speaking of ironic… It’s pretty funny that “skeptics” are trying to prove the impossibility of something through assertion. “It can’t possibly be true, because I say it’s just stupid.” Where I come from, skeptics *question* the validity of things that are stated without any basis in fact. They don’t just deny things out-of-hand.
As for your parlor trick, and those of other charlalans, it’s meaningless. I could go on TV and convince people I am a civil engineer (I am not one). My being able to pull that off does not disprove the existence of actual civil engineers.
Good luck with the whole “skeptic” thing. I hope it works out for you.
Whilst reading this I couldn’t help but hear Mitch Hedberg’s routine running through my mind.
“I once had a parrot that could talk but it did not say it was hungry. So it died”
“As for your parlor trick, and those of other charlalans, it’s meaningless. I could go on TV and convince people I am a civil engineer (I am not one). My being able to pull that off does not disprove the existence of actual civil engineers.”
Aye, but if you were in the presence of another engineer you would easily be outed when it became obvious you lacked the expertise o the field or the needed skill set. A simple test would suffice to reveal you for a fraud.
But psychics, mediums and other snake-oil salesmen wouldn’t be able to do that would they?
Bridgett: “I don’t lack insight or harbor hubris. I’m sorry that, by my statement, you think that I do. Especially the hubris part. I don’t find any irony in what I’m saying.”
By believing you can ‘psychically’ communicate with animals, you are either deluded (lack of insight) or outright dishonest. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Your hubris is in simultaneously calling yourself a pet psychic and ethical, which is also an irony.
“You can argue my abilities all you want, but don’t say I lack ethical behavior. I don’t.”
Pretending psychic abilities is unethical.
I choose not to take your ignorance personally. From what you know, there are only the options of self-delusion or hubris. There is no third option for you, which would be that I can actually talk with animals.
No dear, you can talk *to* animals and make up their responses because your claims cannot be checked with those animals.
I am 100% willing to accept that humans can communicate psychically with animals, but for me to believe such a claim requires that silly detail called evidence.
Evidence. Got any?
Evidence isn’t a silly detail. Evidence is important. Look at the work of Marta Willams, for example.
Here’s some evidence: A client told me that they were having problems with their cat not using the litter box. Hecate wasn’t happy.
I contacted the cat, and she was upset. She wished that her owner would go back to using “Murphy’s Oil Soap” instead of the soap she was using now. I had no way of knowing that her owner used Murphy’s Oil Soap, had hardwood floors, used a different cleaner now, nothing. No way of knowing. I talked with the cat remotely, meaning I wasn’t in the same room with her.
I told the client, “Hecate would like you to go back to using Murphy’s oil soap.”
The client said, “Oh yeah! I stopped using it a few months ago, when I made my own soap to clean the floors.”
She switched back. She showed the cat the bottle of Murphy’s Oil Soup and the cat nudged it and purred. The cat was happy. End of story.
It’s a silly little story, but the details are clear. There was no way that I could know that detail. It wasn’t like I was telling her that her cat wanted more tuna. Every cat wants more tuna.
@Bridget Pilloud
Curious little story. Are all your encounters this well documented or do you rely entirely on your memory to for the details of each event?
Bridgett, we’re not stupid here. Any fool can claim what you claim. Anecdotal accounts and verbal claims = zilch.
Evidence. Got any?
DA, take the blue pill paesano … then you too can become a true believer.
Who needs verifiable evidence? Blue pill. {Complimentary gift after ingestion: tinfoil hat}
Julian-
I write down, verbatim, the information that I receive from the animal and then share that with the owner. I ask the owner to validate the information that I receive, telling me if anything is off or inaccurate. I keep records of my work to refer to. I do document my work as much as possible.
Steve- you asked for evidence. Would you like the email address of Hecate’s owner? She’d be happy to tell you about her experience. I doubt that would be enough for you. She’d just have drunk my kool-aid, right? As well as the rest of my clients? I think we’re going to find ourselves in a circular argument here.
Bridget: “I write down, verbatim, the information that I receive from the animal and then share that with the owner. I ask the owner to validate the information that I receive, telling me if anything is off or inaccurate. I keep records of my work to refer to. I do document my work as much as possible.”
That is not evidence of psychic communication with animals. That is evidence of hot and/or cold reading of the animals’ owners.
“Steve- you asked for evidence. Would you like the email address of Hecate’s owner? She’d be happy to tell you about her experience.”
She’d be happy to confirm that you had successfully bamboozled her into believing you communicated psychically with her cat. This too is not evidence, nor anything near it.
“I doubt that would be enough for you.”
You are 100% correct. That is not enough, not even a start, in fact.
“She’d just have drunk my kool-aid, right? As well as the rest of my clients?”
Again.. yes, 100% correct. All your clients have drank the same Kool-Aid. Their credulity as regards pet psychic is exactly what makes them so easy to fool.
“I think we’re going to find ourselves in a circular argument here.”
There is no argument. You can convince some clients you can communicate psychically with animals. You may have convinced yourself you can communicate psychically with animals. You cannot, however, communicate psychically with animals.
Enough of the verbal endorsenments of like-believing clients. These are not evidence.
Evidence. Got any?
That’s funny.
My clients are fools because I tell them accurate information that I couldn’t otherwise know and they believe me. I help them and their pets have great relationships.
Thanks for spelling my name right. I’m done here.
Assuming that Bridget is a true believer and not a scam artist, I am always surprised when someone like her, who claims to have capabilities that are contrary to the tenets of science, are satisfied to use those capabilities only to make a personal income. If she is confident that her capabilities can withstand the scrutiny of randomized, double-blind testing, then she is but a few repeated trials away from a Nobel prize. She has set her sights too low.
BTW, SDR (#7) wrote:
I believe SDR meant the show The Dog Whisperer. Indeed, Cesar Millan uses practical animal behaviourist techniques and not “animal communication” as has been represented in this thread. He is a credible practitioner, and it is a very good show.
Hrmmm.
The government funded “covert groups” to engage in remote viewing from Sept. 1977 until June 1995 …
So psychic powers must be real, right? Or … our government, and in particular the CIA and military, are actually gullible fools who waste tax dollars for over twenty years on unproven bunk … ?
I know where I’ll place my bet.
False dichotomy, Mastriani.
Richard Wiseman on remote viewing:
“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (…) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you’d probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don’t have that evidence.”
Sounds like a good justification to fund more research, especially if it’s your bread and butter.
Bridget – Perhaps you might try a name change, to something easier to spell. I suggest “Charlotte Tunn”
@ Max
It would only be a fallacy of bifurcation if there was verifiable evidence of remote viewing. “Right now we don’t have that evidence.”
The CIA and military both shut down their “ops” programs because evidence was never established beyond mathematical chance. It would appear that this falls in line with anything under the “paranormal” umbrella of hoodwinkery.
I have never seen one shred of verifiable evidence in favor of remote viewing, psychic ability, ESP.
Bridget,
If you ever read this again why not apply for the JREF Millinon Dollar Challenge.
Seems simple enough, get several animals in control rooms, and you decide what these animals can tell you. Not knowing exactly what animals can and cannot determine, I mean if they know Murphys Oil Soap animals can read English. But…..anyway
Have an object placed in each empty room with said animal and have animal tell you what is in room with them and voila, a Million dollars is yours.
Kirk
Good ideer, Kirk. Unfortunately, the Randi Challenge was amended to challenges extended only to those claimants who have a substantial media footprint.
Or paw print, as it were.
Bridget shares her experience and you guys attack her. Why don’t you demand the same from liars like James Randi ? Randi proved himself a liar two years ago and the guy who has the proof also has a ten thousand dollar “Honesty Challenge” that he has made to both Randi and Shermer. Ask Shermer why he and Randi run from the challenge, couldn’t they use the ten grand ? Ask Mark about it, he has a copy of the youtube video that was put on youtube that explains the situation. I know he has it because I dropped off a copy for him at his job. As you know anybody can flag a youtube video if they find it objectional and that is why you can not see it on youtube today because enough the cowardly brainwashed devotees of Randi complained about it instead of just requesting Randi take the challenge. The reason they won’t take the challenge is because Randi and Shermer know it will discredit the whole skeptic empire they have built up, and you rubes only shamefully play into their hands.
Carlos,
I have contacted and e-mailed very civily with Bridget.
I don’t belive she feels attacked by me.
I will look into the honesty challenge for myself.
Kir
I have to admit, I tried to communicate with my goldfish last night. I asked it if it was happy in it’s environment. It farted a bubble. I’ll take that as a “yes”.
Aw geez, I love the internet.
KIRK ROBINSON I will be very interested in what you see after looking into the honesty challenge, if you don’t want to post it here you can either call me on the phone or send me an e-mail both are at my web site which arte posted here. Thank you, Carlos Caliente
Carlos,
Please forward me information on Honesty Challenge to vfr65@yahoo.com
as I can’t seem to find what the actual challenge is anywhere on the web.
Thanks,
Ex-drone said it best that it’s surprising “Ms. Pilloud” is satisfied with a normal practice/income. The easiest way to de-bunk most things is to just fo a minute imagine they were 100% true. When we discover new things that defy what we know, things change! Surely Pilloud could use her talents to help wildlife issues, zoos, etc. all this after major universities would have competed to do research on her for nobel prizes of course. Instead she ,what, works 9-5 Mon- Fri with weekends off?
Oh, and the cat actually said “Murphy’s Oil Soap” so what, it can read too?? I’m a human-animal, Bridget, can you “see” what I’m thinking now?
I do think that pets do actually communicate with their owners.
I saw this study done in another blog like this about the dogs waiting for their owners 20 minutes before the owner come home.