A look at the role and meaning of spiritualist meetings.

Emma-Louise Rhodes © 2008.

A cross section of society?

In general, more women attend psychic readings, Spiritualist churches and clairvoyant evenings than men. It would be interesting to take a survey and find out exactly why this is so. Do men feel that Spiritualism is too effeminate for them, due to its association with angels, crystals and spirit guides? Certainly there are plenty of men who are themselves mediums, yet commonly the majority of Spiritualist supporters at a gathering at any given time will be female.

Looking around a typical psychic meeting it is very apparent that the majority of the audience is made up of pairs/small groups of women. Many are parties of friends who, due to the popularity of TV programmes such as Most Haunted, Sixth Sense With Colin Fry and Haunted Homes (the target audience of which is predominantly female) are interested in the supernatural and the possibility of contacting the dead. Others are local healers, Spiritualists or novice psychics who attend the evenings regularly and support the various local groups. Others still are those who have lost loved ones and are looking for an earthly reunion.

The age range of the audience tends to vary from mid-thirties to mid-seventies, younger people usually attending with older sisters or parents. Of course, every crowd is different and it would be a huge error to judge the audience of every psychic evening based on such facts. Location, population and average income all contribute to the type of people present at these events at any given time and in any given town. Nevertheless, it is generally safe to say that in very few cases men outnumber women at such gatherings, unless they are themselves mediums.

The attendance of the working class is always apparent. This may simply be down to the type of venue the evenings are held at, or it might echo back to the fact that subscribers to the early Spiritualist faith (not including table rapping, which was widely practised by the middle/upper class during the Victorian era) were predominantly working class. The founder of the first church in the UK was the socialist reformer David Richmond and the Seven Principles of Spiritualism were allegedly dictated to Emma Hardinge Britten, whilst in a trance, by the dead spirit of Welsh socialist Robert Owen.

Despite the popularity of psychics in the media in recent times, there is still a stigma that goes with being present at clairvoyant evenings, and, perhaps, a well respected local businessmen might think twice before attending. There are several reasons why this is the case. Firstly, it could be due to the fact that trying to conjure up the dead is still seen as slightly risqué in certain circles and not really ‘the norm’. Secondly, the lack of credibility that is achieved in being shown to believe in such doubtful phenomena is a very good reason for a prominent member of the community to reconsider an invitation to such a gathering. Lastly, the fact the Spiritualist movement is still viewed as a dubious splinter group of the Christian faith makes valued men and women alike turn from such ideals without a second curious glance. All of these factors are crucial in the understanding of exactly who attends these evenings and who shuns them.

Faith is meant to be classless, yet regardless of this, Spiritualism still generally attracts the working class. This established, it is interesting to note exactly what is said by the medium(s) during clairvoyant evenings and the level of belief that is required to embrace the attitudes of the Spiritualist faith.

Professional patter

The evening that I partook in was, in my opinion, a good representation of what usually takes place. The medium, a personable man in his early fifties, dressed in a smart dark suit and open neck shirt, amiably flitted from one audience member to the other, giving them an abundance of names from Fred to John to Joan to Elizabeth. Commenting that he didn’t like to give typical names, he continued to do so, presenting his audience with information that could well have related to anyone in the hall at any given time.

Listening intently, I placed myself in the position of every person spoken to and, sure enough, it was very easy to ‘take’ as my own some of the information given to everyone visited by the medium. However, the fact that people were all too ready to accept these statements without question, was even less plausible than the weak utterances of the medium in question.

The many events that I have attended, be it at Spiritualist churches or private evenings, have hung somewhere between being quite polished cold readings and shabby attempts at conjuring up the dead by amateur psychics. The ironic thing with this is that sometimes the most well meaning mediums (those who truly believe in what they are doing) perform poorly, whereas the more calculating psychics (those who are fully aware that they are providing nothing more than cold reading) execute accurate and believable readings.

However, the most important thing, as any comedian or used car salesman will readily tell a novice, is patter and, in order to sustain believable, constant contact with the spirit word, rapid spiel is the best thing to prolong the audience’s interest. Regardless of whether the information given is entirely false, if this is followed up speedily with another torrent of messages from spirit, the sitter in question will hopefully forget the bogus facts that have been presented before.

Regardless of whether the psychic in question is skilled in the art of cold reading, or if they are in fact (sometimes slightly more worryingly) listening to the voices in their head and giving inaccurate information accordingly, their style and manner is extremely important and plays an integral part in how the audience respond and react to them.

Thus my psychic evening trod the tried and tested grounds of mediumistic chatter, inaccurate cold reading and (what is sometimes overlooked but relatively important in terms of clairvoyance) comic quips from the world of spirit.

The usual suspects

The first woman that the medium approached was known to him as a local healer. He told her to keep up her healing and to concentrate more on tuning herself to listen to spirit voices. In fact, this was said to the majority of audience members approached – one of which was told that her tinnitus was actually spirit trying to contact her (whether she actually suffered from the condition was not revealed).

An older couple who had got to the venue quite early and sat right at the front, were approached and given a message from someone in the air force (although they revealed that they both been affiliated with the navy during the war). A woman wearing a cross was told that there was a nun in spirit who wanted to connect with her, and another was asked to contact her sister with whom she hadn’t spoken for a while. The evening progressed very much in the same style, with no surnames, personal information or incredible revelations given. The raffle was then drawn and an announcement of the date of the next meeting made. Most of the audience certainly seemed happy and interested in what they had heard and certainly not begrudging of the £3.50 spent.

The formula used for the evening was quite basic, yet the majority of people there were pleased with what they had witnessed and, furthermore, had attended before and would be there again the next time. The room was arranged cabaret style, with people sitting at tables, the majority of who had got drinks from the bar beforehand. On entry, raffle tickets could also be purchased (the prizes of which were small potted plants and Easter Eggs) and there was generally the air of pleasant chit-chat and friendliness.

Before the medium spoke, the evening’s organiser (a woman in her sixties who was credited herself on her business card as ‘clairvoyant, healer and confident’) briefly addressed the audience, asking them to ‘speak up’ if the spirits chose to come to them, as it was important that ‘they hear your voice and what you have to say, so that the spirits can reply accordingly – a bit like a psychic telephone’. This is commonly asked by mediums and it has always appeared to me that, in speaking, the sitter will no doubt give way additional information in order for the psychic to give them a slightly more accurate reading.

The medium then commenced his forty-five minute first half, spending up to fifteen minutes on a responsive person, but only two or three on a member of the audience who could not connect with what he had to tell them. He was keen to point out, before he even began, that sometimes the spirits are not clear as to who exactly they want to contact and he might well give information to the wrong person. Therefore, he asked his audience to raise their hand if, in fact, they thought that the message was intended for them and not the person he was addressing. Again, I have heard this many times before and it is a perfect representation of a medium hedging his bets and trying to get away with some unconvincing cold reading.

If, at any point, he faltered in what he was saying or got something hugely wrong, the medium would laugh that the spirits were distorting things or joking with him. This is a commonly employed tactic by psychics (even in churches) that allows them to relax and bond with the audience whilst, at the same time, smiling their way through any unfortunate mistakes.

After the break, the same patter continued as before – the last sitter responding badly and not being able to ‘take’ any of the information presented. After this, the medium closed the proceedings quite swiftly, apologising to those who had not visited and informing the audience that he thought ‘that was about it’ from the spirit world for the night (the spirits, who in these cases tend to be keen clock-watchers, finished right on nine-thirty).

Spiritual connection or cheap entertainment?

After the medium had left, the organiser made her way around each table to canvas opinion on what those new to the evening made of it and if they would be coming again. Along with this, she distributed her own personal card to those interested in a private reading at her house.

The general feeling in the hall both before and after was that of expectation and waiting. Will he come to me and, if so, what will be said? Did he give the correct information to those he gave a reading to and, if he did, were they comforted? These thoughts, no doubt, go through the minds of most attending such events.

Regardless of the shortage of solid evidence presented during the evening, the audience, surprisingly, did not seem to be too discouraged. The lack of questioning and the apparent promises from those who attended that they would return, illustrated the fact that the audience might well have been there purely for entertainment. Certainly, admission to such evenings is quite reasonable and cheaper than a theatre or cinema ticket and gives an inexpensive option for a night out.

Undoubtedly clairvoyant evenings are a source of income for the organisers who put them on. The audience figures are usually high and the hire of the halls relatively low. The very fact that the general public pay on the door makes it seem much more like entertainment (not dissimilar to a psychic theatre show with a famous medium, but on a much smaller scale) and the presence of a bar or refreshments of some kind, steer the evening well away from any form of religion. These events also quell the need felt by many to dabble with the spirit world in a very safe manner, without the formality of prayers, hymns and readings. Not unlike the séances held in parlours over a hundred years ago, the evening provided a diversion from the dullness of day-today existence and (for some) experiment without religious connotation.

In essence, clairvoyant evenings are simply an innocent, if not slightly naïve, form of entertainment, where the curious can while away a few hours for a couple of pounds. Conversely, as with any form of Spiritualism, there is always the risk of bringing back upsetting memories to the sitters or false hope, without there being any real substance in what is being said. Maybe, though, the most harmful thing about such events is purely the lack of analytical enquiry that so often accompanies them, along with the startling willingness by the audience to believe in what is sometimes nothing more than bad cold reading presented by an ever cheery con man.

www.emmalouiserhodes.com

We don’t normally take part in these ‘skeptics versus believer’ debates as they usually turn out to be of little value – skeptics often being included simply to provide some token opposition. UKS forum member Richard Sutherland decided that he would, however, represent the skeptics’ side of the debate; and this conversation turned out to quite different to the usual:

The first point of note was that the radio station were not doing the programme simply to promote the psychic. Host Joe Finnegan actually sounded rather sceptical of psychics’ claims himself and did a good job of allowing both sides of the debate to be heard.

The second point of note was the the psychic, who calls herself ‘psychic Anna’ (Anna Brennan), agreed live on air to take the JREF $1,000,000 paranormal challenge.

Listen to the broadcast here:

UKS Media: listen to the skeptic vs the psychic programme (MP3)

Despite the usual insults and personal attacks by the psychic (“you’re negative”, “you’re cold”, “I’d like to know what happened to you as a child to make you this way”, “I feel sorry for people who can’t open up to possibilities”, etc.), Richard did a superb job of getting information pertaining to the debate over and did a sterling job in representing skeptics and skepticism.

The main purpose of this commentary, however, is to leave a permanent record of ‘psychic Anna’ (Anna Brennan) agreeing to taking the JREF $1,000,000 challenge live on air.

It is extremely unlikely that she will actually go through with this and if she’s pressed on the issue will undoubtedly come out with the old and tired excuses – but we do have a record of her agreeing to it.

Chillzero © 2006

Catherine (Chillzero) writes from the perspective of scepticism, with an established background of belief in the paranormal. Having examined how psychics arrive at their predictions – from both sides of the fence – Catherine reveals here how they perform. It may be worth highlighting here that any psychic who appears on the media is granted permission to do so only under the laws that govern entertainment, and so the word perform is most appropriate.

I used to believe I had psychic abilities. I gave tarot readings, I consulted my spirit guide, and believed in the spirit of nature as being a force in all things. I would not consider the old me to be a con artist – I was not intentionally deceiving people. I honestly believed I was given the ability to interpret signs, and that I was using it for good. So I believed I was genuine, as did plenty of other people. I could read the traffic around me uncannily well, knowing when a driver was about to turn suddenly, or not turn where they signalled to. I was good at reading tarot cards and at helping people come to decisions about events in their lives. I would spook people by telling them who was calling when the phone rang, or that someone we were waiting for had just come into the bar although my back was turned to the door – that sort of thing.

However, even as I did all this, I constantly came up with questions about what I was doing, and how I managed to do it. Why could I only get instinctive flashes about things? Why could I not use this ‘power’ when I concentrated hard on something important? What about the times I was wrong (although they were freakishly few – even looking back as a hardened sceptic) – what happened then?The new-age people I was involved with had no tolerance for such curiosity. They felt I should just accept my gift unquestioningly, and use it to the best extent I could. But I was never satisfied with this. Finally, guided by some sceptics, I tested myself on what external information I could possibly have noticed, and realised that I am more of an expert on body language, or verbal subtleties than most. I soon realised that I was very good at picking up subliminal signals from people, or noticing things in the distance. In traffic I could see reflections in streetside windows, or a change in the lights on the ground of the road where a car was approaching unseen. Phone calls were often a matter of logical assumption and deduction – it was all a matter of fast critical/ logical thinking. With doing readings I realised I was getting a lot more information about a person’s situation from them or their friends – often before we even met to read. I wasn’t asking for it or actively seeking it out, but I picked up on things that were said, or more – the way they were said. I filed information away and didn’t even fully realize that this mental library was where I was drawing information from when I spoke to them later. As I read tarot I could discern from the other person’s reactions whether I was on track or completely wrong, and was horrified to realize during one reading that I had adjusted what I told them accordingly. This realization rocked my self perception completely, and I felt unable to continue the deception. Continuing on this path would have made me a con-artist, without question.

The more I investigated, the less paranormal my abilities seemed to become. I revisited old acquaintances from the new-age shops and conventions I used to frequent and was disappointed to find that I could apply the same reasoning to what they did. I could reasonably determine what they would tell others, and where they had identified that information. Some of my associates were of the sincere belief that they had genuine powers, and that they worked for the powers of good. Some others, however, became obvious to me as frauds, who knew that they were able to read and manipulate people and situations to their own benefit or profit. This benefit is not necessarily monetary; it could come in the form of barter, time, advertising (even just by word of mouth) or gifts. One woman in particular was very good at convincing people that she wished to have no reward, no publicity, and so on, and yet the way she did this gained their further confidence and admiration, and ensured that they raved about her to just about everyone they knew. From conversations I had with her, I know this was a deliberate and very effective ploy.

Consider this: if a psychic contacts you about your missing family member, then they are obviously aware of your story, and therefore your control over this situation is non-existent. They may have heard radio appeals for information, or seen the news bulletins. They may have read the newspapers that covered your plight. They may even have actively researched all of these. They may contact you via a family member or friend. The point is that they already know something, and even if they tell you that they have only been made aware of the smallest bit of information about you – why would you believe a stranger? How can you know how much they have actually managed to learn, or whether they have contacts within the police? If they come to you through a close associate, then no matter how well intentioned your friend/relative may be, you can’t know how much information they may have passed on – even unintentionally and unwittingly. Even if this psychic genuinely believes in their ability, you can never be certain that they haven’t been exposed to more information than perhaps even they realize.

Then there is the information they provide. There is no documented evidence that any psychic has ever provided information that led directly and accurately to a missing person. There are plenty of stories of psychic leading police to the general areas where bodies have been found, stories of psychics determining the final fates of people, or identifying a vague description of a perpetrator. These stories are not substantiated by evidence that could confirm that psychics are any more accurate than a non-psychic making an educated guess. And much of this information cannot be verified because of the incredibly high percentage of unsolved cases.

Finally, there is the approach that psychics take. At first, most psychics will be incredibly friendly and open. They need to do this to build a semblance of trust between themselves and you – they need you to relax, and to feel that you can open up to them. That way you will give out more information and signals than you realize. I know this from experience, although I never realized at the time how manipulative the reading situation could be. I believed I was merely trying to set the other person at ease, but there is definitely a little more to it. Next, psychics tend to be unshakably confident that they are right, or must at least be deferred to. I have never yet seen a self proclaimed psychic defer to anyone else’s knowledge on any subject, or admit they were wrong. This was where my problems with my abilities began to shake a little; I knew I wasn’t an expert in everything, and was reluctant to insist upon my answers in the face of someone who could possibly know better. A person’s confidence in a statement they put forward can make it very difficult for you to consider it critically. It can be frustrating to attempt to discuss it, and that kind of discussion is less likely to happen between you and a psychic when you are already in an altered state of reality; whether from grief, confusion, lack of sleep, or even years later, lack of closure; and desperate for information.

You may like to believe that people in general are not that manipulative, and ask why should psychics be singled out for such criticism? My answer is this: find your local area’s most successful salesperson – an estate agent, a car salesman, or even a higher priced clothes retailer for example. Go and observe them selling items. Listen to what they say about their products. Watch how they read signals from their clients, and how they adjust their approach to match different types of client, determined by the client’s dress, speech, confidence, or the car they arrived in. See for yourself how much information can be gleaned about a person and their current situation – without the benefit of press coverage. Now think, why should psychics be any different?

You will be approached with an offer of help. The insinuation will be that you cannot possibly turn this away, because it is the closest thing to walking away from your loved one when you see them wave a hand for you to find them. This is nothing more than manipulation of your emotions. You should feel no guilt for ignoring these ‘leads’ that do not arise from any established evidential route. They may claim that they cannot rest, that they cannot quiet the voices, until they give you the information. This makes a direct connection to your own sleepless nights and lack of closure. It is a play on your grief that should not be tolerated.

I never lost a family member, but I had several continuous years of incredible misfortune, and I can personally vouch for the negative side of believing in psychic ability. I got plenty of help initially, but this waned as my misfortunes just continued and increased. I suffered for years as my new-age associates explained karma to me: everything happens for a reason/ everything you do comes back to you/ things only happen to you that you deserve to experience. In other words, when bad things happen to you, you personally did something to deserve it – maybe not even in this lifetime. All events are lessons to learn, and if things don’t get better, then you are clearly failing to learn the correct lesson. I consider this attitude highly abusive, and it cost me many years of personal growth and comfort when I was made to believe that basically I deserved everything I got and that I wasn’t doing the right things to make things go right again. My mental health suffered dramatically as a result, because it was frustrating and depressing in the extreme to experience what I was going through, let alone to be made to feel that it was all my own fault anyway. I am here now to tell you that this is wrong. It is not your fault that this terrible thing has happened. You are not being punished for past life sins, and nor is your loved one. You have no cause for guilt if you turn a psychic’s offer of ‘help’ away.

If a psychic contacts you to offer their help, hand them a load of posters to distribute, or bring them on a land search if you are still at that stage. Make their help be productive to you, and consider why they would not join in this kind of effort if they really ‘felt’ your plight as they claim to. They may ask you to weigh up what they have to gain against what you have to lose, for a simple conversation. Well, just think about this for a moment. They usually gain publicity, even if they do not perform well. They will always have apologisers to justify whatever they may get wrong. Even if they are completely wrong they can still gain sympathy with believers because at least they did their duty to try to help. They also step into your life for a while. They gain involvement in your personal trauma, and become involved in a drama outside their own lives. What do you lose? You lose time. You spend energy that you need for yourself and those that are still around you. You get distracted from your control of your situation; having to incorporate new opinions and ideas into the steep learning curve that you are already having to cope with. You may get ideas for new areas to pursue – this may even led the police in new directions. Those directions could, unfortunately distract effort away from the correct areas for concern.

There are no genuine mediums. There are people with genuine intentions, but not psychic powers. There are people who could be helpful if you were discussing difficult choices you needed to make, but often your friends can do that for you without the mumbo jumbo. It’s a matter of reading, yes, but not reading cards, or signs, or what spirits show you – it’s a matter of reading the environment and the person before them. And then there are the con artists who read the newspapers, audience listings, area information, web sites, etc to glean what they need – as well as reading the people around them. Don’t waste your time and energy trying to distinguish between them. Your focus should remain on your loved ones, and not on placating a snubbed psychic, or inviting more strangers into your very personal situation.

John Jackson © 2008

Background information.

Derek Ogilvie is a self-proclaimed psychic whose speciality, or gimmick depending on how you view him, is that he can communicate telepathically with pre-verbal children. Derek claims that by tuning into a child’s mind, he can ascertain family problems and issues from the child’s point of view: in other words, acting as the voice of the child. This information can be used to improve family relationships by making the parents aware of which issues (usually their own) are problematic for the child and which cause bad behaviour etc.

This alleged ability was used in the Channel 5 series The Baby Mind Reader in 2006 although it should be noted that in communication with OFCOM, who were investigating the series because of complaints, Channel 5 made it clear that all advice that Derek gave in the series was not a result of his telepathic ability after all – it was all based on facts which he had established were true by asking the children’s parents.^[1]

We normally see Derek doing his readings whereby he visits a child with its parents then tunes into the child’s mind and does his psychic reading for the parents by interacting with them. The idea is to find out what issues are affecting the family relationships, from the child’s point of view, so that advice can be given and changes made to improve situations. Derek, like many psychics, is usually successful in convincing the parents that he has access to information that he ‘couldn’t possibly have known’. It all looks quite convincing.

Criticism

Of course, appearing to be psychic and actually being psychic are two different things. There’s no doubt that something is going on here but is it really psychic ability that Derek is using or is there another explanation?

Skeptics have noted that although Derek claims he’s tuning into the mind of the child, it’s the parents whom he does the reading for. It’s the parents he interacts with and it’s the parents who give feedback and validate or repudiate Derek’s information. So, perhaps Derek is reading the parents and the telepathic link to the children doesn’t actually exist.

This leaves us with an obvious test. Can Derek read information from a child’s mind when its parents are not present? Two tests of Derek’s claimed ability were shown in the programme: one with Professor Chris French in London, and one for the JREF $1,000,000 prize with James Randi in Florida; both of which were based on the idea of Derek being able to read the child’s mind in the absence of its parents.

Cold Reading

Skeptics often use the term ‘Cold Reading’ when explaining how psychics manage to read for people. Cold Reading simply means to read a person without prior knowledge of them; however, it’s often used as an explanation for how psychics read people: the techniques and methods they use.

Readings are not usually a case of psychics simply giving information to their clients in a one-way process; readings are normally an interactive communication between two people. In short, psychics will make many, usually very vague, statements and then rely on the feedback they get from the client to guide them where to go next. This can give the illusion to the client that they are being told some very specific and personal information, as people tend to personalise vague information as being very specific when it’s given meaning by themselves: a process known as ‘subjective validation’.^[2]

Does Derek Ogilvie use cold reading?

In short, yes he does; but he may not do so intentionally. It is often assumed that knowingly fraudulent psychics use cold reading, whereas the genuine psychics (those who genuinely believe themselves to be psychic) do not. However, this is not the case. If we accept cold reading as being a set of techniques then it is quite possible, indeed highly likely, that people who operate as psychics will hone in on cold reading techniques either by trial and error or on ‘psychic development courses’ where they’re taught which things work and which things don’t.

Derek uses a lot of what’s known in cold reading as ‘trivia stats’. These are little pieces of information given out that are quite common to most people, such as ‘you have a scar on your left knee’, ‘you have a single earring as the partner to it is missing’ or ‘you’ve had problems with your car – left rear wheel/tyre’ (interestingly Derek used that one in the programme yet it’s a classic cold reading trivia stat). Trivia stats serve only one purpose: they’re little ‘clinchers’ designed to convince the client that something psychic is going on. Derek often gives out lot of information like, “mummy has a scar”, “mummy had a sore tummy”, “mummy has an issue with shoes”, etc., and these are all trivia stats. They have no relevance to the intended purpose of the reading but they can be useful in getting the client to accept something psychic is going on. Derek relies quite heavily on this cold reading technique.

Test 1

Professor Chris French of Goldsmith’s College, London, did the first test of Derek’s ability. Derek’s task was to read six children’s minds in the absence of their parents and write down the information that the he got telepathically from the children. The rationale of this test is that if Derek really is acquiring information from the minds of children then he should be able to come up with a report containing information that is specific enough for the parents to recognise their own child from the information.

There were six children, six readings, six reports made by Derek, and six parents. Each parent was given all six reports and they had to choose the one that they thought was most relevant to their own child.

Of course, there’s always a chance that parents could pick the correct report for their own child purely by chance (they have a 1 in 6 chance of doing so) so how can it be known whether a report was picked because it was accurate or simply by chance? Well, for any single case we don’t know; but as there are six parents doing the picking it becomes increasingly unlikely that they would all choose the right one purely by chance. Fortunately, statistics can be used to tell us how likely it is that any given number of readings will be picked correctly purely by chance. When six people choose one from six reports at random the most likely outcome is that one of them will choose the correct one. For four or more parents to pick the correct one by chance the odds of this happening are 115 to 1 against. Four or more correct answers was the required level set by Professor French as the pass mark for the test. This means that if four or more parents picked the correct report for their own child then we can say that Derek’s claims are supported (but not proven) as the result was unlikely to have arisen by chance.

An important point to note at this point is that one test does not prove or disprove psychic ability. Four parents could have chosen the correct reports purely by chance (115 to 1 against is not colossal odds). This is why such tests need to be replicated. If a psychic could pass tests at this level consistently then it would be very difficult indeed to keep arguing that it is down to chance.

As it turned out, only one of the parents from the six matched the report for their child to their child correctly. This is exactly at chance level.

What can we conclude from this? Well, if Derek really had the ability to connect telepathically with a child and glean information then we would expect the parent of the child to be able to recognise their own child by the information that is specific to them. As the parents failed to match any reports above what chance guessing predicts then we can conclude that in this test there was no indication or evidence that Derek can connect psychically to children as he claims he does.

It was interesting to note that during this test, Derek was complaining that he found it difficult to read the children when their parents weren’t present. This is consistent with skeptics’ observation that Derek is cold reading the parents, not telepathically connecting to the child. Further support for this view was that Derek started reading the childminder (who was present with the child during the tests) resorting to his more familiar pattern of reading where he’s used to getting feedback. Feedback being a non-psychic interaction from the client which helps the reading enormously – in fact, it’s actually where most of the information comes from in a psychic reading (not the psychic).

Test 2 – The JREF $1,000,000 challenge

The next test we see Derek undertake is the JREF $1,000,000 challenge in Florida. James Randi devised a test along similar lines to the one described on the UK-Skeptics website.^[3]

Again, the idea is that if Derek can tune into the mind of a child then he should be able to state which toy the child is currently playing with.

This time, the child was chosen by Derek as one whom he could connect with telepathically. Derek was shown the 10 target toys that he would have to pick up on during the test and then he was placed in an isolated and soundproofed room. A toy was chosen at random and given to the child. Derek’s task was to connect to the child and state which toy he was playing with. This was repeated ten times and at the end of the trials Derek’s answers were checked against the toys the child actually played with.

As $1,000,000 was at stake, the odds of success were set higher than in Professor French’s test. Derek would have to successfully match 6 or more toys for the result to be considered a success (6,807 to 1 against doing this purely by chance). Derek had agreed to the test conditions and the odds as being fair before the test commenced.

Derek scored 1 match out of 10 – exactly what chance guessing would predict.

So again, we can conclude that Derek’s claim to be able to communicate telepathically with children doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

When testing a claim like this it is imperative that the thing that is under consideration (in this case Derek’s claim to be able to connect telepathically to children) is the only thing that is tested. It is quite easy for Derek to claim to be connecting to children’s minds when there are no test conditions imposed (and he could be cold reading the parents etc.) but test conditions require that when testing for telepathy that telepathy, and only telepathy, is what is being tested. This is why the strict conditions are imposed during testing.

The finale

Up to this point the programme had been a much better than normal (for a TV programme) at looking at psychic ability. However, TV programme makers never like to shut the door on such things and always like to leave something ‘open’ – let’s say ‘for balance’ rather than an excuse to make more similar programmes with an eye on future advertising revenue…

The final sequence showed Derek having his brain scanned by Dr. Gerald Gluck. Gluck advertises himself as an “energy healer” (i.e. a quack). This does not mean that he can’t use an EEG machine properly but his belief in non-physical cause and effect should be borne in mind when his interpretation of the evidence is presented.

Derek was connected up to an EEG machine, which measured his brain-wave patterns whilst he was doing a typical reading of his (a child with its parents present). The results of the test showed that Derek had a much higher than normal level of activity in one area of his brain: the area that deals with non-verbal communication (imagery, body language, emotion, etc.)

This is where the programme became rather unsatisfactory and reliant upon ambiguity and obfuscation. Gluck was asked what these results meant and he replied that they were consistent with what Derek was claiming. But we weren’t told with which of Derek’s claims!

Derek claims that when he’s communicating telepathically he gets images, pictures or movies in his mind and it’s these that he interprets whilst giving a psychic reading. Now, if we accept that Derek does indeed get vivid mental imagery in his mind (and this is not anything unusual) then the results of his EEG scan are consistent with this.

They are not consistent with psychic ability, however, simply because Derek failed to show any psychic ability: the results cannot explain an ability that does not exist! The EEG results are consistent with a person having rich, possibly even hallucinatory, mental imagery but for them to be consistent with, or a possible explanation for, psychic ability that ability would have to have been demonstrated in the first place.

The programme did not make this point clear and this was probably done on purpose as it all seemed designed to imply that the EEG results meant a psychic ability was there. All it really provides is a possible explanation as to why Derek believes he has psychic ability even though he clearly doesn’t.

Conclusion

There are many reasons why psychic abilities can appear to be real: the interactive nature of readings, people’s confirmation bias, subjective validation, and prior beliefs, for example. To test for psychic ability, and only psychic ability, these other factors need to be controlled for (eliminated from the investigation). The scientific experiment, or hypothesis testing, is designed to do this. In hypothesis testing only one single variable should be tested for at a time (although there are more complex testing procedures that can do more) so that when the results of the experiment are examined, they can only be due to the single thing being measured.

This was done twice with Derek Ogilvie. Twice extraneous factors were removed and tests designed so that he could only pass them by using the telepathy he claims to have. In both tests he scored at exactly chance level. This indicates that his claimed psychic ability doesn’t exist and that any positive results he gets out ‘in the field’ are due to psychological and interpersonal factors rather than psychic ability. In other words, when Derek is operating in his own way (with no test conditions imposed) then he’s simply cold reading the parent(s) of the child.