These Articles are designed to guide readees and clients alike for a better understanding on psychics and psychic readings. Many psychics and readers may also be able to benefit from them too.
This article, which is tied in with the
Simulated Readings, offers a personal perspective of the differences and parallels between "hot" and "cold" readers. This is in response to a post I saw on one of the forums I regularly visit (but am not a member of) regarding the same topic.
Note: This article has been modified from its original form due to (unfounded) claims of "copyright violation" regarding cited material.
The post (now deleted from the forum) implied that ALL hot readers and cold readers were not legitimate and that Forer's Effect was a technique used by psychics, making them fraudulent or deluded.
First of all, not ALL hot and cold readers are fraudulent, as implied. Hot readers require their information prior to a reading (whatever source they use). Psychics who are just starting out will often fish for information until they can establish their own method of channel and use generic statements to establish a more tangible connection. Diviners can be considered as hot readers because they rely (in part) on the general information obtained from their tools, which they then translate into more applicable information. Cold readers usually require NO information and base their predictions on energy or "spirit guides", and some may utilize information-fishing for initial connection or conversation purposes.
Body language helps in certain situations, but that does not play an integral part in cold readings. Many online psychics can be considered as cold readers because they cannot utliize body language and often use generic connection statements in the beginning, so have to rely on whatever information they obtain from the outset for a more direct connection during the session.
John Edward can be considered as a hot reader because he often garners information through "wish fulfilling" statements and questions. Sylvia Browne can be considered as a cold reader because, in the past, she has not required information beforehand. Are they fakes just because they use these hot and cold techniques, as implied? No, not at all.
Secondly, most psychic readings require a give-and-take relationship, where questions are asked and then simple, logical advice on life, love or career, etc. is given, sometimes providing more indepth, insightful answers. There is NO way to gauge certain information without observing body language, asking specific questions, listening to inflections in voice or the way people talk ("phonology"), studying the way a readee or client types ("fontology"), or without some foundation on the actual answers given in response to the readee's answers. After all, the term "psychic" stems from the Greek word "psyche" meaning "mind or soul".
A psychic with fewer years experience WILL use hot techniques to establish themselves because often their self-confidence is not as established as those who have been practising for much longer. Does that mean that a new reader is fake because they NEED to rely on generalizations, prompts and psychological methods first? It's unfair to compartmentalize ALL psychics in such a fashion because each works differently, using different methods and with different perspectives, and not ALL psychics are fakes because their methods differ.
Thirdly, the Forer Effect is a part of "experimental parapsychology" (loosely), which only defines how easy it is to apply general statements to many people. The "original" Forer Test was giving several "experimentees" the same generic sentences, then recording which ones those people said applied to their lives. As a further expansion of this "effect", specific methods of "autosuggestion" were used to determine how a person could be influenced by certain general statements and find some application to his/her life. The statistics gathered from Forerian parapsychology cannot be applied to the overall statistics to determine "real" from "fake", as it isn't a measured scientific study. Statistically, 90% of psychics employ some form of Forer Effect to their readings in order to "influence" the way a person thinks, especially when the readee has become so entrenched in his/her rut that they cannot see the "light at the end of the tunnel". So are they all fake also, as implied?
The poster implied that TV psychics are fake because they utilize many hot techniques and "mentalist" methods, and because the shows are edited for television purposes.
Not all TV "celebrity psychics" employ deceptive methods to gather information about members of the audience, as implied. All TV shows need to be edited, especially for television viewing, because not all content will be appropriate or relevant.
When we watch TV or movies, knowing that it's Hollywoodesque, do we stop watching TV knowing that they use props and other special effects to make their shows and movies? Is that fake because their message is portrayed through hot methods rather than cold methods? Not at all. Movies and TV shows are for educational, informational and entertainment purposes only.
In the end, the "true", underlying message (or storyline) that each show is trying to convey (or how it is presented as is) is sometimes more important than the actual show or movie itself. And, regardless of the methods used, if the audience members attending these types of shows feel that they have benefited from the "reading", then the celebrity psychic's job is complete. And THAT is the purpose of their visit to the show: To find closure or answers, to seek guidance or insight, or to be entertained.
The poster implied that only "true psychics" are capable of connecting to their readees and that "fake psychics" fish for information, guessing the answers rather than using direct methods of connection, then feeding the information to the client without method.
That may well be true in some cases, but to imply that only "real psychics" can provide any valid insight is also an unfair assumption. And, if a new reader or one lacking in self-confidence needs to "stumble through" a reading and "fish for information" because, perhaps, they are afraid to tell the readee that they simply do not know the answer or cannot connect at that time, would they be fake, as implied? No, not at all. It simply means that the reader is not as confident as a more experienced psychic, who will usually admit when they are wrong or cannot provide the additional information requested.
Psychic work takes many years of dedicated experience and practice to reach a "level" where they are confident enough within themselves to be able to read without using specific methods for establishing connection. It's like riding a bicycle: At first, you need stabilizers and are unsteady at steering, but the more you practice you have, the more confident you become. In time, the stabilizers will be removed and you can maintain your balance on two wheels instead of four, therefore building self-confidence. Eventually, with enough practice and confidence, you might be able to ride your bicycle in races, in busy cities and on traffic-heavy roads, or even attempt mountain trekking.
I am a cold reader. I use no tools, need no names or dates of birth or other information, and rely on Spirit, Spirit Guides and energy (perception) for the answers. Does that make me a fake?
Frequently, during a session, I'll ask questions, converse with the client, and gather additional information. I've found that this sets the clients' minds at ease and ensures that they are comfortable to "open up" more. Does that make me a fake?
I teach both hot and cold methods to my students, many of whom have only the fundamental knowledge of "psychicism", and *require* the use of Tarot cards, astrology or other tools to initiate connection. Does that make my students or myself a fake?
I've taken investigations where I have NO information whatsoever about the cases themselves beforehand, yet I have presented information completely from "cold" with NO knowing its accuracy, later finding out that, yes, I was correct. Does that make me a fake?
I have got information wrong on occasion, of course, sometimes have been way off, and have had to fall back on the hot readings using divinatory tools. Does THAT make me fake?
Frankly, I'm shocked and appalled at such generalizations, assumptions and implications. When attempting to "educate" people, you should emphasize that they are general statements or personal findings. By stereotyping and making broad statements that imply that ALL such types of readers can be automatically categorized as "fake", just because they don't fit the generally accepted or dictionary definitions of "hot" and "cold", is unfair. This does not taking into consideration others' perceptions, beliefs or experiential findings.
The more established, most experienced readers CAN be considered as "hot readers" because they had to start somewhere and had to find their mark by asking "wish fulfillment" questions, using divinatory methods and tools, etc. They can also be considered as "cold readers" because the information that they receive - whether from natural ability or from tools - is translated to the client with NO other information, which is especially true with online readings.
ALL psychics are either hot readers or cold readers, irrespective of the incidences of charlatanism attached thereto. This also means that by definition of the poster's statements, he/she implies that ALL are fake, therefore that ALL psychics are fake too, including him/herself. (One could further imply that the poster also falls under the same category because the information cited was from
Wikipedia - known by some as the "Skeptic's Encyclopedia" since its contributions are mostly reader-based - for snippets of information and definitions.)
However, where does personal experience, perception, scientific research and statistical evidence factor into the equation?
In the end, however, they are just LABELS to define something that most psychics do naturally and without regard to the "proper" definitions. Psychics are quintessentially counsellors, who can draw on their own life experience to help others in their times of need. Without these experiences, and the knowledge of how to overcome those obstacles, psychics would not be able to offer their services to the best of their abilities.
Relying on "dictionary definitions", therefore, for stipulating what IS and what is NOT within psychic-related planes do NOT factor into that equation such things as personal experiences, experimentations, generational and personal training, and a plethora of other experiential factors.
This article has been modified from its original form due to claims of "copyright infringement" and all direct citations have been removed. All information provided in this article is an original work written and composed by Companion Wulf to clarify the misrepresentations arising from the original forum post. This article also complies with the "Fair Use Statute, Section 107, of the Copyright Act, 1976".
