I think it would be useful for us here to discuss an accepted taxonomy of the different types of self-claimed psychics / mediums and the underlying psychology. If it proves to be a useful discussion we could make this a ‘sticky’ thread and relate to it in the future for reference and for new posters. It could even be developed into an article for the website.
I will kick the ball off with a highly simplistic (though useful) ‘stage’ based framework. I am going to suggest three basic stages or types of self-claimed psychics.
These are:
Stage 1 – The ‘ignorant’ psychic – here the claimant may not be consciously aware of cold reading and other techniques – but they show a clear use of them and are being influence in a manner they may not be fully conscious of. This may help to explain why such people, quite innocently think and feel that they are ‘receiving’ information from the world of spirit or whatever. Please note the term ‘ignorant’ is not meant to derogatory – as it merely refers to the fact that the individual is ignorant to the mechanisms and processes that are influencing their thoughts / decisions. Note also, this type of individual may also be experiencing anomalous sensations and may merely, at this stage, be seeking an explanation for them.
Stage 2 – The cultured psychic. This type of psychic may well have developed from the previous stage but has now started to read around the subject matter, may have attended development circles, the spiritualist church etc, but has now been cultured into accepting many of the metaphors and concepts of spiritualism and will now start to reason with this language and thought structure. An experienced individual at this level may even go on to become a performer – though note, they may not still yet be aware of how their thoughts / feelings / experiences are occurring.
Stage 3 – The Charlatan – a conscious fraudster and someone who is actively employing techniques such as cold reading, hot reading, etc to apply their ‘trade’. This will nearly always be for financial or personal (fame) gain. The individual will employ a tried and tested routine which may appear to ‘work’ for many situations and circumstances – but importantly, there is no psychology of anomalous experience or belief to be explained here – as the individuals real belief system is not in synchrony with that which they claim to promote.
From this we can see that some well known people may be a stage 1 or 2 psychic etc.
An important point is that it may be difficult to prove the existence of a stage 3 claimant because of the apparent difficulty in really showing what people truly believe. However, an unwillingness to be tested, and evidence clearly showing the use of trickery (spoon bending for example) may well strongly implicate it.
There are many problems with this above (both philosophical and practical) – but at the moment let us see if we can develop an agreed upon taxonomy – which is more comprehensive and refined than the simple ‘deluded’ one (which may well be true, but if so, its still just the start of the argument and not the end of it).
I notice there isn't a 'genuinely psychic' category!
I think that it's not needed however, as with trying to gain an understanding of why people believe they are psychic we should begin with the (justified and correct) assumption that the ability isn't real and that the answers lie in psychology etc.
.
The use of stages suggest progression from one to the next, however this may not be so - con artists may have insight throughout their career, simply recognize that a gullible audience is available in the psychic world. Renaming as Class 1a (naive/amateur psychics); Class 1b (educated/professional psychics) and Class 2 (charlatan psychics) might overcome this problem.
For taxonomy to be useful it should help categorize individuals into groups that facilitate management or study. While the first and second groups can at least be readily differentiated, the third group may be difficult to identify clearly.
Is the inclusion of schizotypical personalities in the first group useful? Are most amateur psychics of this ilk, or is this a group that could be readily differentiated and studied separately? As a suggestion, would the occurrence of insights (delusions) at times other than when 'performing readings' be a discriminator for this subgroup?
Actually I think it happens more often than conscious fraud and I was hinting at this with the notion of stages (well spottedOriginally Posted by Pebble
). I do think for the vast majority of people there is a development of interest over time.
You are quite right that people may simply start out as con artists though, with no progression through the earlier stages - my hunch is although we see these people in the media, in terms of the overall level of interest in this field they are the minority. Nonetheless, we do need to navigate around this issue and your suggestions may well be one useful way to do it.
Yes - I think I do mention this above. The Charlatans are, psychologically speaking a distinct group - but i guess there is an important issue as to how people become charlatans.For taxonomy to be useful it should help categorize individuals into groups that facilitate management or study. While the first and second groups can at least be readily differentiated, the third group may be difficult to identify clearly.
It is useful to try to measure predisposition to anomalous sensation and anomalous belief as recurring anomalous sensations would generate an experience which the observer would seek to explain. Paranormal conclusions are just the outcome of that process of explanation (see Maher, 1974, 1988 for an outline of his influential model of delusions as explanations).Is the inclusion of schizotypical personalities in the first group useful? Are most amateur psychics of this ilk, or is this a group that could be readily differentiated and studied separately?
a few more thoughts on this might be useful????
From the few examples I have come across, the idea of being a psychic usually comes from a third party. For instance, someone may 'see' a figure and think it a ghost or simply be puzzled. It is unlikely they think they are psychic. I think that happens when someone well-versed in psychic lore talks to them. I doubt there are many psychics who weren't 'persuaded' they were psychic by someone else.a few more thoughts on this might be useful????
I agree entirely with your description of a progression through stages 1-3.
Peer pressure is largely responsible for such progression – a stage 1 psychic/medium, convinced they ‘know’ things about other people without being told, talks about what they’re experiencing, perhaps reads up on the subject, is introduced to a spiritualist church or development circle and attends, probably with a friend. They attend at first ‘for fun’ - the attraction is the frisson of excitement that comes with finding that many other people have the same experiences and that the cause seems to be something of a ‘magical’ nature.
Encouragement by their new peers to ‘develop’, give readings, give ‘demonstrations’ in front of the congregation all helps to solidify the belief that they are doing something special – after all, everyone else seems to believe it, so it must be true. Enter stage 2.
Some – those who are naturally good at performing in front of large audiences - will progress to stage 3, and begin to cheat because of the pressure to ‘perform’. They may well be aware that they are ‘sometimes’ using cold/hot reading techniques but are able to rationalise because they still believe they retain their unusual ability at core. They may well believe that their experience of ‘reading’ a person is spirit-inspired, not a natural human ability.
Also, they have taken on board a whole belief system which encompasses life after death, the survival of the spirit and also, probably, reincarnation. There is a welter of written material out there to encourage that belief system; not least an entire library at the SPR and another at the SAGB – many of the volumes written by scientists, not religious nuts. Heavens, the SPR and the SAGB are proper, serious charitable organisations, and they wouldn’t exist if the whole premise was wrong, would they?
It is very hard to abandon such a belief system. When one believes that one’s own close deceased relatives survive in spirit, to subsequently deny that possibility feels uncomfortably like abandonment. Not easy to do. And this is a life-style, not just a belief system - what does one replace it with?
Personally, I don’t believe many, if any, start straight in at stage 3.
I have heard (think it may have been the Dawkins interview with Derren Brown), that quite a few of the prominent names at the showbusiness end of the spectrum do indeed come from performing families e.g. circus/variety etc. This suggests that there is indeed a clear category of pure charlatan/showman.
This would mean that it is not necessarily a potentially 'degenerative condition' as the Stage approach would suggest but a condition of the degenerate!
This would support the case for Classes as opposed to Stages. Doesn't the idea of Classes allow for movement between the classifications anyway, for the same sort of reasons Dr.B proposes in the OP?
I'm sure that there is, but that isn't the only explanation. Some people need attention and need to feel special. Someone from a showbiz family who, say, can't act and can't sing, might need to find another way of being centre stage. Not necessarily deliberately fraudulantly. I hesitate to use the name... but David Icke was a pro goalie, then TV presenter, then Green Party PR person, and it is widely thought that he just needed/wanted to stay in the spotlight. David Shayler is another example of someone who has developed increasingly loony claims to try to stay in the public eye. Derek Acorah - pro footballer to magician then 'psychic'. Acorah may well be a pure charlatan/showman but there's also a psychological explanation about wanting to be loved that explains both D-list celebrity psychics and D-list celebs doing reality TV shows.
Agreed, but does that change the issue of whether the classification of types needs to include a pure knowing fraud category where the perpetrator does not move from naif to con as suggested in the original classification by Dr B?
I appreciate that clarity. I would probably extend the title to "belief in being psychic when they are not so." Because anyone who is psychic would surely have an unquestionable right to believe it, lol.
Interestingly we never even broached this topic when I studied behavioral science, however I would guess that believing one is something he/she is not (beyond the obvious psychotic possibilities) would be due more to a subconscious desire to be 'something' more than they are. And I don't think that's limited to those who achieve an element of "celebrity" status, either.
Now I'm wondering if there are actual cases out there where such a question could be answered. As I said, I've never heard of one....
Why didn't I take the blue pill?
And who, based on replicable, reliable and sound scientific evidence, would that be? Evidence is a form of reason. If you have no evidence to believe something then, you have no reason to believe something - so why alter the concepts to factor in something you have no reason to do so???????? This would require justification, and such justification would need to be evidenced.I would probably extend the title to "belief in being psychic when they are not so." Because anyone who is psychic would surely have an unquestionable right to believe it, lol.
which kind of undermines your first point and supports mine does it not?Now I'm wondering if there are actual cases out there where such a question could be answered. As I said, I've never heard of one....
Last edited by Dr B; 7th August 2009 at 01:23 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks