<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Little Bit of Knowledge&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/</link>
	<description>The official blog of the Skeptologists</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:38:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roy Edmunds</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/#comment-17424</link>
		<dc:creator>Roy Edmunds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:56:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=6009#comment-17424</guid>
		<description>Reading palms, or reading people?

We as humans are constantly &#039;reading&#039; people.
We do it instinctively.
We make some basic unconscious &#039;decisions&#039; about people. Without speaking!!

We forget I think that we are animals. Before language there was the knowledge of survival transmitted at the moment of conception, coupled with the capacity to &#039;learn&#039; survival from adult animals as we grew.

Our survival has depended upon identifying threat or support, fight or flight, in an instant. Non verbal, unconscious decisions.

 Our tribal &#039;instincts&#039; remain hence our pecking orders. There are leaders and followers.

Humans are about power and space. Control of other humans. Control or management of their environment for survival of the species, in particular, themselves through their own family.

I think that people pick up on many body language signals unconsciously. There are those who have made a conscious study of body language. Eyes in particular.

So, depending upon what your intention, your &#039;super objective&#039; is, when you meet some stranger, or someone you know, or a member of family, a whole lot of mental assessments, decisions, etc. are made on non verbal levels which eventually bubble up in &#039;clumsy&#039;or clever verbal conversation. Hence, hits and misses, and a whole lot of lying, on both sides.

There is a dramatic truth which actors search for in each scene of a play or movie. In turn, as an audience we make decisions in silence as to whether we believe this or that actor achieves the &#039;truth&#039; for us or not.
We suspend disbelief and allow for this strange &#039;state&#039; of our being in the absorption of the story with the objective to believe that this or that actor is so good at &#039;beleiving&#039; in what they are doing or saying themselves that we are willingly convinced that this actor is actually saying or doing whatever, for real!!! 

But not really, because if we saw that an actor actually hit another and caused real injury we are repulsed.
 
But we are not repulsed when we see this happen in the boxing ring because we expect that one boxer will knock the other senseless. 

We can watch a war movie and emerge relatively unscathed and yet spend a short time in a real war and be permanently damaged psychologically from what we see.
 
We know, sometimes, what is real and what is not, but we can deceive ourselves deliberately when we chose to. Something is, because we want it to be. We love a good story.
 
We are such a complex animal. 

We are all fascinated with people. People who can make us laugh, make us cry, lead us politically, inspire us with rhetoric, cure our ills, talk to our departed friends or family, and tell our fortunes.

Some people are ready to suspend disbelief for some things, but are also cynical and suspicious about other things while still being totally gullible for yet other things!!!!

Some people want to know what was behind the magic, others are content to be mystified and to remain in a state of amazement.

I am fascinated by Edwards. Because, I am amazed at the fact that he is, like any good &#039;con man&#039;, in a state of total belief in what he is saying, at the time. We are witnessing a stream of consciousness technique, which is well practiced, and very entertaining.

Its all about the story and Edwards believes it, Jesus believed it, Adolf Hitler and Stalin believed it, and they all had their followers. And their enemies.

Whether God exists, or spirits, or the ability to tell fortunes, is less important than the human belief attached to this or that proposition. It is belief which has the power for good or evil. It doesn&#039;t matter if there is or is not a God. 

The laws of nature will sort out fact from fiction ultimately.

The challenge for some is to discover those laws. For there, is some real excitement and adventure. A real story to be told.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reading palms, or reading people?</p>
<p>We as humans are constantly &#8216;reading&#8217; people.<br />
We do it instinctively.<br />
We make some basic unconscious &#8216;decisions&#8217; about people. Without speaking!!</p>
<p>We forget I think that we are animals. Before language there was the knowledge of survival transmitted at the moment of conception, coupled with the capacity to &#8216;learn&#8217; survival from adult animals as we grew.</p>
<p>Our survival has depended upon identifying threat or support, fight or flight, in an instant. Non verbal, unconscious decisions.</p>
<p> Our tribal &#8216;instincts&#8217; remain hence our pecking orders. There are leaders and followers.</p>
<p>Humans are about power and space. Control of other humans. Control or management of their environment for survival of the species, in particular, themselves through their own family.</p>
<p>I think that people pick up on many body language signals unconsciously. There are those who have made a conscious study of body language. Eyes in particular.</p>
<p>So, depending upon what your intention, your &#8216;super objective&#8217; is, when you meet some stranger, or someone you know, or a member of family, a whole lot of mental assessments, decisions, etc. are made on non verbal levels which eventually bubble up in &#8216;clumsy&#8217;or clever verbal conversation. Hence, hits and misses, and a whole lot of lying, on both sides.</p>
<p>There is a dramatic truth which actors search for in each scene of a play or movie. In turn, as an audience we make decisions in silence as to whether we believe this or that actor achieves the &#8216;truth&#8217; for us or not.<br />
We suspend disbelief and allow for this strange &#8216;state&#8217; of our being in the absorption of the story with the objective to believe that this or that actor is so good at &#8216;beleiving&#8217; in what they are doing or saying themselves that we are willingly convinced that this actor is actually saying or doing whatever, for real!!! </p>
<p>But not really, because if we saw that an actor actually hit another and caused real injury we are repulsed.</p>
<p>But we are not repulsed when we see this happen in the boxing ring because we expect that one boxer will knock the other senseless. </p>
<p>We can watch a war movie and emerge relatively unscathed and yet spend a short time in a real war and be permanently damaged psychologically from what we see.</p>
<p>We know, sometimes, what is real and what is not, but we can deceive ourselves deliberately when we chose to. Something is, because we want it to be. We love a good story.</p>
<p>We are such a complex animal. </p>
<p>We are all fascinated with people. People who can make us laugh, make us cry, lead us politically, inspire us with rhetoric, cure our ills, talk to our departed friends or family, and tell our fortunes.</p>
<p>Some people are ready to suspend disbelief for some things, but are also cynical and suspicious about other things while still being totally gullible for yet other things!!!!</p>
<p>Some people want to know what was behind the magic, others are content to be mystified and to remain in a state of amazement.</p>
<p>I am fascinated by Edwards. Because, I am amazed at the fact that he is, like any good &#8216;con man&#8217;, in a state of total belief in what he is saying, at the time. We are witnessing a stream of consciousness technique, which is well practiced, and very entertaining.</p>
<p>Its all about the story and Edwards believes it, Jesus believed it, Adolf Hitler and Stalin believed it, and they all had their followers. And their enemies.</p>
<p>Whether God exists, or spirits, or the ability to tell fortunes, is less important than the human belief attached to this or that proposition. It is belief which has the power for good or evil. It doesn&#8217;t matter if there is or is not a God. </p>
<p>The laws of nature will sort out fact from fiction ultimately.</p>
<p>The challenge for some is to discover those laws. For there, is some real excitement and adventure. A real story to be told.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/#comment-17307</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:28:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=6009#comment-17307</guid>
		<description>What&#039;s her phone number?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s her phone number?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Safe-Keeper</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/#comment-17144</link>
		<dc:creator>Safe-Keeper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:48:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=6009#comment-17144</guid>
		<description>Ugh... I know all about this. I did whatshisname&#039;s levitation trick (an apparently very convincing trick that really makes it look to a passerby like you&#039;re floating ten centimeters or more in the air) in a hallway at my school, and a classmate saw me and had a look of utter shock on her face.

To this day, I wish I could go back to that moment and do things a bit differently, &#039;cause I&#039;m afraid she might think she has hallucinated or something, and I really want to tell her what ACTUALLY happened.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ugh&#8230; I know all about this. I did whatshisname&#8217;s levitation trick (an apparently very convincing trick that really makes it look to a passerby like you&#8217;re floating ten centimeters or more in the air) in a hallway at my school, and a classmate saw me and had a look of utter shock on her face.</p>
<p>To this day, I wish I could go back to that moment and do things a bit differently, &#8217;cause I&#8217;m afraid she might think she has hallucinated or something, and I really want to tell her what ACTUALLY happened.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Walter</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/#comment-17143</link>
		<dc:creator>Walter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:47:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=6009#comment-17143</guid>
		<description>Back when I was single, I did a card trick in a diner for a cute waitress. She was really impressed and asked me if I was psychic and if I would read her palm. Wanting to hold hands with a pretty girl, I told her I did and proceeded to do my best at throwing Barnum statements and vague guesses her way (money problems, a trip planned, one lost love that she couldn&#039;t get over, yet another great love to come..) It was all crap. I wound up getting her phone number and I called her. Even though she was pretty and seemed to be interested in me, when I called I found her to be a horrible conversationalist and I didn&#039;t enjoy talking to her, that coupled with her belief in palmistry and I knew I needed to throw her number away. 
Since then I&#039;ve stayed clear of the dark side.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back when I was single, I did a card trick in a diner for a cute waitress. She was really impressed and asked me if I was psychic and if I would read her palm. Wanting to hold hands with a pretty girl, I told her I did and proceeded to do my best at throwing Barnum statements and vague guesses her way (money problems, a trip planned, one lost love that she couldn&#8217;t get over, yet another great love to come..) It was all crap. I wound up getting her phone number and I called her. Even though she was pretty and seemed to be interested in me, when I called I found her to be a horrible conversationalist and I didn&#8217;t enjoy talking to her, that coupled with her belief in palmistry and I knew I needed to throw her number away.<br />
Since then I&#8217;ve stayed clear of the dark side.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vie</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/#comment-17139</link>
		<dc:creator>Vie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=6009#comment-17139</guid>
		<description>I am conducting an experiment with something very similar. In the wake of all the Sylvia Browne mess on here, I decided it was necessary for someone to look at the situation from a more objective perspective. So I decided to evaluate the veracity of Sylvia&#039;s claims by examining several years of her predictions and calculating her rate of accuracy. 
(I know that several people have done this, or attempted to do this, but unfortunately their methodology was flawed. They marked correct predictions as wrong because it was possible for her to have extrapolated the conclusion using foreknowledge, such as &#039;Nicole Ritchie will be hospitalized&#039;. Unfortunately, there&#039;s no way to prove that Sylvia did this, and science is about proof. BTW- even counting those predictions as correct, Sylvia still had a pathetic rate of accuracy so I am not sure why anyone would have padded the data)
Anyways- I digress. There was no control group to compare the percentage with, and that bothered me, so I asked several friends to serve as the control group, (I participated as a member of the control group too) and made no-so-psychic predictions and posted them on Dumbosity. One girl entirely missed the point and asked me if I really thought I was psychic enough to predict the future. I started to wonder if I had really had thought this through, and it became obvious how easy it would be to trick yourself into believing you were psychic. 
A previous experiment, where I evaluated the likelihood that an average &quot;non-psychic&quot; person could guess a random zodiac sign had similar results. The highest scoring person started wondering if she wasn&#039;t in fact psychic. 
The best way to combat that is to be honest and say &#039;there&#039;s no way in hell I&#039;m psychic, and neither are you.&quot; Not everyone wants to believe that... I don&#039;t blame them. No one should ever simply BELIEVE you because you say you&#039;re telling the truth. Try an experiment to demonstrate how prediction is a fabrication, explain the process of cold reading, ect. Eventually your subject is bound to feel stupid: better sooner than later, and better they feel stupid with you for free, then with a psychic for $50.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am conducting an experiment with something very similar. In the wake of all the Sylvia Browne mess on here, I decided it was necessary for someone to look at the situation from a more objective perspective. So I decided to evaluate the veracity of Sylvia&#8217;s claims by examining several years of her predictions and calculating her rate of accuracy.<br />
(I know that several people have done this, or attempted to do this, but unfortunately their methodology was flawed. They marked correct predictions as wrong because it was possible for her to have extrapolated the conclusion using foreknowledge, such as &#8216;Nicole Ritchie will be hospitalized&#8217;. Unfortunately, there&#8217;s no way to prove that Sylvia did this, and science is about proof. BTW- even counting those predictions as correct, Sylvia still had a pathetic rate of accuracy so I am not sure why anyone would have padded the data)<br />
Anyways- I digress. There was no control group to compare the percentage with, and that bothered me, so I asked several friends to serve as the control group, (I participated as a member of the control group too) and made no-so-psychic predictions and posted them on Dumbosity. One girl entirely missed the point and asked me if I really thought I was psychic enough to predict the future. I started to wonder if I had really had thought this through, and it became obvious how easy it would be to trick yourself into believing you were psychic.<br />
A previous experiment, where I evaluated the likelihood that an average &#8220;non-psychic&#8221; person could guess a random zodiac sign had similar results. The highest scoring person started wondering if she wasn&#8217;t in fact psychic.<br />
The best way to combat that is to be honest and say &#8216;there&#8217;s no way in hell I&#8217;m psychic, and neither are you.&#8221; Not everyone wants to believe that&#8230; I don&#8217;t blame them. No one should ever simply BELIEVE you because you say you&#8217;re telling the truth. Try an experiment to demonstrate how prediction is a fabrication, explain the process of cold reading, ect. Eventually your subject is bound to feel stupid: better sooner than later, and better they feel stupid with you for free, then with a psychic for $50.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cthandhs</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/#comment-17117</link>
		<dc:creator>Cthandhs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:26:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=6009#comment-17117</guid>
		<description>I think the real problem here is that the &quot;palmist&quot; didn&#039;t immediately fess up. Time can always make a lie bigger. In general though, i think this kind of thing is an excellent teaching experience. If everyone had an encounter with a &quot;fake&quot; palmist who explained their methods, a lot less people would fall for this crap.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the real problem here is that the &#8220;palmist&#8221; didn&#8217;t immediately fess up. Time can always make a lie bigger. In general though, i think this kind of thing is an excellent teaching experience. If everyone had an encounter with a &#8220;fake&#8221; palmist who explained their methods, a lot less people would fall for this crap.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MKR</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/#comment-17093</link>
		<dc:creator>MKR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:05:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=6009#comment-17093</guid>
		<description>That e-mail message certainly made interesting reading. I wonder, Mark, if you have seen the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/615&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;episode of &lt;i&gt;South Park&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/a&gt; in which the boy Stan learns the techniques of cold reading from a book and demonstrates them while explaining each trick immediately after he has done it, but can&#039;t get people to believe that he is &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; psychic!

By the way, you might want to correct the phrase &quot;without the slightest tinge of remorse&quot;: I think you mean &quot;twinge&quot; rather than &quot;tinge&quot; (a sensation, not a coloring).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That e-mail message certainly made interesting reading. I wonder, Mark, if you have seen the <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/615" rel="nofollow">episode of <i>South Park</i></a> in which the boy Stan learns the techniques of cold reading from a book and demonstrates them while explaining each trick immediately after he has done it, but can&#8217;t get people to believe that he is <i>not</i> psychic!</p>
<p>By the way, you might want to correct the phrase &#8220;without the slightest tinge of remorse&#8221;: I think you mean &#8220;twinge&#8221; rather than &#8220;tinge&#8221; (a sensation, not a coloring).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MadScientist</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/#comment-17091</link>
		<dc:creator>MadScientist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:09:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=6009#comment-17091</guid>
		<description>A little knowledge may be dangerous, but nowhere near as dangerous as knowing nothing.  If more people understood the tricks used by Sylvia Browne, van Praagh, John Edward, etc, there would be far fewer people to dupe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A little knowledge may be dangerous, but nowhere near as dangerous as knowing nothing.  If more people understood the tricks used by Sylvia Browne, van Praagh, John Edward, etc, there would be far fewer people to dupe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rob</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/#comment-17090</link>
		<dc:creator>rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:25:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=6009#comment-17090</guid>
		<description>i am going to try and cold read a couple of my friends tomorrow night it sounds like fun.


evil laugh</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i am going to try and cold read a couple of my friends tomorrow night it sounds like fun.</p>
<p>evil laugh</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leslie Haber</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/01/15/a-little-bit-of-knowledge/#comment-17083</link>
		<dc:creator>Leslie Haber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:03:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=6009#comment-17083</guid>
		<description>As a favor to a friend, I dress up every Halloween and tell Tarot. It&#039;s entertaining, and in general the audience is educated and skeptical, so it&#039;s fun. I remind people regularly that it&#039;s all voodoo, and they generally assist my reading (as I&#039;m sure anyone does with the &quot;real&quot; psychics. I will not read anyone who seems serious or worried about the results. It&#039;s just not worth it.

There are always teens at the party. I am always very, very careful what I say to them--I keep my remarks happy and light and try desperately to remind them that &quot;bad&quot; cards don&#039;t really have those nasty implications. I have yet to have anyone freak out or get seriously worried. I suppose that is largely due to the parents (again, educated and skeptical).

Maybe there is hope for the world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a favor to a friend, I dress up every Halloween and tell Tarot. It&#8217;s entertaining, and in general the audience is educated and skeptical, so it&#8217;s fun. I remind people regularly that it&#8217;s all voodoo, and they generally assist my reading (as I&#8217;m sure anyone does with the &#8220;real&#8221; psychics. I will not read anyone who seems serious or worried about the results. It&#8217;s just not worth it.</p>
<p>There are always teens at the party. I am always very, very careful what I say to them&#8211;I keep my remarks happy and light and try desperately to remind them that &#8220;bad&#8221; cards don&#8217;t really have those nasty implications. I have yet to have anyone freak out or get seriously worried. I suppose that is largely due to the parents (again, educated and skeptical).</p>
<p>Maybe there is hope for the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

