No Sacred Cows

by David G. McAfee

  16. Olaf Blanke et al., “Neurological and Robot-Controlled Induction of an Apparition,” Current Biology 24, no. 22 (November 17, 2014): 2681–2686.

  17. V. Tandy and T. Lawrence, “The Ghost in the Machine,” Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 62 (1998): 360–364.

  18. C. T. Herbst et al., “How Low Can You Go? Physical Production Mechanism of Elephant Infrasonic Vocalizations,” Science 337, no. 6094 (2012): 595–599.

  19. Sarah Fecht, “FYI: Why Do We Get Goosebumps and Chills When We’re Scared?” Popular Science, October 28, 2011, www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-10/fyi-why-do-we-get-goose-bumps-and-chills-when-were-scared.

  20. Evan V. Symon, “6 Things I Learned Owning A ‘Haunted House’ On Reality TV,” Cracked.com, May 30, 2015, www.cracked.com/article_22310_6-things-i-learned-owning-haunted-house-reality-tv.html.

  21. Diana Deutsch, “Phantom Words,” Psychology Today, June 26, 2009, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/illusions-and-curiosities/200906/phantom-words.

  22. M. A. Nees and C. Phillips, “Auditory Pareidolia: Effects of Contextual Priming on Perceptions of Purportedly Paranormal and Ambiguous Auditory Stimuli,” Applied Cognititive Psychology 29 (2015): 129–134.

  23. John E. Buckner V and Rebecca Buckner, “Talking to the Dead, Listening to Yourself: An Empirical Study on the Psychological Aspects of Interpreting Electronic Voice Phenomena,” Skeptic Magazine 17, no. 2 (2012).

  24. Sharon Hill, “Amateur Paranormal Research and Investigation Groups Doing ‘Sciencey’ Things,” Skeptical Inquirer 36, no. 2 (2012).

  25. Information from the Parapsychological Association at www.parapsych.org.

  26. James Randi, Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1982).

  27. “Koestler Parapsychology Unit,” University of Edinburgh, December 17, 2014, www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/index.html.

  28. I personally tried to recreate the parameters of the ganzfeld experiment, which includes mild sensory deprivation and is reported by some to cause vivid hallucinations, but experienced no results. This is not surprising, however, considering independent replication of the procedure has never been achieved.

  29. Julia Santomauro and Christopher C. French, “Terror in the Night,” The Psychologist, August 2009, thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-22/edition-8/terror-night.

  30. “Hallucinations During Sleep—American Sleep Association,” American Sleep Association, September 2007, www.sleepassociation.org/patients-general-public/hallucinations-during-sleep/.

  31. Alexandre-Jacques-François Brierre de Boismont, Hallucinations: Or, The Rational History of Apparitions, Visions, Dreams, Ecstasy, Magnetism, and Somnambulism (Lindsay and Blakiston, 1853).

  32. “Sleep Paralysis Treatment,” Sleep Paralysis Project, www.thesleepparalysisproject.org/about-sleep-paralysis/treatment/.

  33. Molly A. Phelps and Peter L. Forster, “Assessment of Psychotic Symptoms: Distinguishing between Functional and Medically-Induced Psychosis,” Crisis Intervention 6, no. 2 (2000): 101–107.

  34. Arianna Cohen, “Seasonal Affective Disorder for Doors,” New York Times, March 25, 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/garden/26fixx.html?_r=0.

  35. Sidney Zisook and Katherine Shear, “Grief and Bereavement: What Psychiatrists Need to Know,” World Psychiatry 8, no. 2 (2009): 67–74.

  36. Allan A. Bailey and Frederick P. Moersch, “Phantom Limb,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 45, no. 1 (1941): 37–42.

  37. Agda M. Andreotti et al., “Phantom Eye Syndrome: A Review of the Literature,” Scientific World Journal 2014 (2014).

  38. G. Jayakrishna Menon et al., “Complex Visual Hallucinations in the Visually Impaired,” Survey of Ophthalmology 48, no. 1 (2003): 58–72.

  39. Anne W. Hauge et al. “Effects of Tonabersat on Migraine with Aura: A Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study,” Lancet Neurology 8, no. 8 (2009): 718–723.

  40. Marco Mula et al., “The Role of Aura in Psychopathology and Dissociative Experiences in Epilepsy,” The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 18, no. 4 (Fall 2006): 536–542.

  41. A. J. Harding et al., “Visual Hallucinations in Lewy Body Disease Relate to Lewy Bodies in the Temporal Lobe,” Brain, 125, no. 2 (February 2002): 391– 403.

  42. Anthony P. Morrison, Lucy Frame, and Warren Larkin, “Relationships between Trauma and Psychosis: A Review and Integration,” British Journal of Clinical Psychology 42, no. 4 (2003): 331–353.

  43. This same question can be modified and asked regardless of which supernatural force is assumed as the source of the experience.

  11

  PSYCHICS AND OTHER SO-CALLED SEERS

  “The conjuror or con man is a very good provider of information. He supplies lots of data, by inference or direct statement, but it’s false data. Scientists aren’t used to that scenario. An electron or a galaxy is not capricious, nor deceptive; but a human can be either or both.”

  —James Randi

  There isn’t a single recorded instance of a psychic phenomenon or force being demonstrated under observable and repeatable conditions. If psychics are real, this means every single one of them goes to extensive lengths to hide their extraordinary abilities, dismissing any and all opportunities to test, record, and prove them to be true despite the fact that any person who succeeds in this type of groundbreaking study would fundamentally revolutionize the way we understand the world, and the very laws of physics themselves. That person would also benefit humanity in an unimaginable number of ways, make a lasting impression on the scientific community, and even earn large cash rewards from organizations dedicated to testing such claims.1 It’s possible that these supersensory powers exist, but until someone steps forward with scientifically tested proof, psychic abilities can and should be treated the same way as every other allegedly prophetic (yet often conveniently nonprovable) assertion.

  So, if “real” seers have never been shown to exist, then why do people continue to believe in psychic powers that have been claimed, investigated, and debunked more times than I can count? In many cases, belief in psychics is linked to the Forer effect, which was named after psychologist Bertram R. Forer and describes how individuals will rate vague and generalized personality tests as highly descriptive of themselves. In 1948, Forer gave such an assignment to his students, claiming that the statements they received were individualized personality analyses. Although each student received the same paragraph descriptor, which he had compiled from various horoscopes, the average rating was 4.26 on a scale from 0 to 5.2 Forer’s study further noted that “similarities between the demonstration and the activities of charlatans were pointed out” by the students once the deception was revealed. The fact is that psychics, astrologers, and other pseudoscientific fraudsters have taken advantage of this simple, evolutionary human trait for most of human history. Our earliest ancestors were practicing the art of fortunetelling,3 and people continue to do so today—often with disastrous (and profitable) results.

  YOU’RE GETTING COLDER

  For so-called mind readers, the primary process by which they administer Forer’s personality test is called cold reading. During a cold read, the alleged psychic uses vague guesses based on common concerns and personal traits to create the illusion of deeper knowledge. But that’s not the only tool in their arsenal. Most psychics use a combination of cold readings and hot readings—guesses based on visual cues or background research—to convince their customers that they have otherworldly powers.

  Not all people who purport to be psychics need to use cold or hot reading—or even the Forer effect. Some take the gambit one step further, eliminating all liability for their false conclusions by servicing only pets that can’t communicate right or wrong answers whatsoever. Melissa Bacelar, for example, is a well-known “celebrity pet psychic” who promises to be able to “connect to pets, living and dead.” She has had a lot of success in convincing people that she can speak to animals o
n earth and from beyond the grave, but not everyone is so sure of her abilities. In October 2015, Bacelar, who has appeared on TMZ and Anderson Cooper Live, and was even said to have been hired by Miley Cyrus,4 was sued by three former customers who accused her of fraud and unfair, unlawful business practices that led to the death of at least two puppies.5

  “HONEST” PSYCHICS

  This process of reading people is particularly interesting because how it is perceived is all about the perspective of the observers. If you utilize cold and hot reads and call yourself a magician or an illusionist, the audience asks, “What’s the trick?” But if you use the same techniques and call yourself a psychic, a similar act is seen by many as “definitely supernatural!” I obviously prefer mentalists who are honest about their approach.

  One of my favorite mentalists is Banachek, who has been featured on CCN Live, The Today Show, and more. He is not only one of the world’s leading mind readers and the author of several books on mentalism,6 but he also served as the director of the JREF’s One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. I had the opportunity to ask Banachek about his work and how he is able to successfully mimic psychic phenomena using methods and techniques that are completely natural.

  McAfee: You are perhaps best known for tricking scientists, including psychiatrist Berthold E. Schwarz, into believing you had psychic powers throughout the course of a four-year, $500,000 paranormal investigation project in the 1980s. What can you tell me about “Project Alpha” and how you were able to convince the researchers that your abilities were genuine?

  Banachek: In 1979, James S. McDonnell, board chairman of McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft and devotee of the paranormal, gave $500,000 to Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, for the establishment of the McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research. Now scientists had lamented for years that there was no evidence of ESP under proper scientific control due to lack of funding. Here was an opportunity to show that this was not the case. It was mine, Randi’s, and Mike Edwards’ opinion that the scientists had a pro biased opinion on the matter and that got in the way of their ability to perform proper experiments to prove that ESP was either genuine or a farce. Also we believed that they would think they were too smart to be fooled by a magician and therefore would not accept the help of people who were not academics yet qualified to detect such trickery. With no training from Randi, Mike Edwards and myself as teenagers were able to enter the McDonnell Laboratory and convince them for 180 hours over four years that we could bend metal with our mind and perform other feats of psychic abilities. When we revealed the hoax, it made a huge splash in all the newspapers and changed the way parapsychologists approach such research. For many years we were in every college basic psychology textbook. The experiment became known as Project Alpha and can be read online.

  McAfee: What prompted you to become a mentalist? Was it something you were introduced to by your family or did you fall into it on your own and teach yourself?

  Banachek: I was abandoned at the age of nine in South Africa with my two brothers, ages one and three. I pretty much raised them by myself until I was 16. It was while in South Africa that I heard on the radio a man by the name of Uri Geller. Uri claimed to be able to bend metal with his mind. Because any adults I did know believed in him, I did too. I remember trying to bend a pin with my mind while I listened to him on the radio. I convinced myself I was able to bend it minutely. Years later at the age of 16 I picked up a book by the Amazing Randi. Now Randi said that the truth about Uri Geller was he was using tricks. As a result, I simply said if he can do these things then so can I. I set to creating methods for doing the same types of tricks and created my own methods way beyond much of what Geller was doing. I figured a way to make the school bell go off early so we got out of class early, and kids would steal the silverware from the cafeteria for me to bend; they went to plastic silverware ’til I graduated. I got in trouble for those things, but I was creating my own effects and a show as a result. I am pretty much the first mentalist to start as a mentalist and not a magician. In fact, back in those days I did not know there was a category of magic called mentalism. I only knew there were people who used tricks to con and convince people they were psychic.

  McAfee: It’s my understanding that you take an active stance against purported psychics who claim to summon and communicate with customers’ deceased loved ones. Is that true? How is that process harmful, in your opinion?

  Banachek: I believe that psychic mediums are scum. They cross over that line of personal sanctity for profit. They halt the important grieving process. Yes, many say they make people feel good about a loss but I can give crack to a junkie. It will make him feel good but it is not good for him. The grieving process allows people to go on living without a loved one and it is important. I once had a friend who lost her son; he was ten years old and died of cancer. A medium convinced her that he could communicate with her son. That he could fill that hole in her heart. As a result, she communicated with her dead son and stopped communicating with her living daughters and husband. She almost ended up in a divorce as a result. Luckily she came to her senses. These people do harm, not good, and they do it all in the name of putting a lot of money in their pockets. This is not the only way they do harm.

  Once a person depends upon a medium, that medium opens a door to other forms of pseudoscience. “If speaking with my dead relative is real, then other spiritual things like psychic readings and homeopathy must be real. Surely that holographic bracelet has psychic abilities that will make me feel better so I don’t have to go to the hospital and have that cancerous tumor removed. Don’t tell me it isn’t real; you did not believe a psychic could talk to my dead son. There are many things we cannot explain in this life and we should accept that. So that psychic bomb sniffer just might work and we should spend millions and let our troops use them to sniff out bombs. And if it kills someone, well that is their fault for not believing in the power.”

  Think about it this way: would you trust your retirement fund to a man who claims he will make judgments about how to invest the money based upon his personal psychic’s advice? If the answer is “no,” then why would you trust the sanctity of your relationship with your dead relative to such people? Talking to the dead goes back to the Fox Sisters; it started with them in the USA and they even admitted it was a hoax. So the art of being a medium is based upon a lie.

  McAfee: I read that the JREF’s Million Dollar Challenge has been altered since 2015 and that it will continue to be used “as a means for educating the public about paranormal claims.” Will you still serve as the director of the challenge? Can you tell me about what changes have been made?

  Banachek: The JREF challenge went through changes prior to Randi stepping down. I tightened up the loopholes where, if we were to find a mistake in protocol that allowed someone to cheat, we could not fix it in the formal stage. I made it easier for people to apply. Recently we closed the challenge down. The JREF is making a major change to becoming a real educational tool. As a result, we want to make sure that the challenge is used as a tool to its maximum capacity. We plan on opening it up again, but there will be some major changes and it will be easier for people to understand the science behind it and how one goes about applying for a real scientific test of one’s powers. This is something most people applying have never understood.

  McAfee: Have you ever had someone stubbornly insist that your abilities are supernatural, despite the fact that you admitted to tricking them? How do you handle a situation like that?

  Banachek: Many mentalists find disdain in the fact I use a disclaimer in my mentalism shows. I feel it is the right thing to do. Those same magicians say that, in a play, the actor does not stop and say, “Oh, just a reminder, I am an actor playing the part of Macbeth, I am not really Macbeth.” To me that is a silly inaccurate example to explain why we should not use disclaimers. People coming to a play know it is not real. But when they see a mentalist, they do not know if it is real or not. The pers
on on stage doing these impossible mind reading things becomes the authority, much as if a neurosurgeon was giving a talk on the same stage. It is all about context. Now I know there is a group that comes to my shows that will not believe no matter what I do, and there are those who will believe no matter what I do, but I have a responsibility to those in the middle. Those who have not cemented a side in their mind, those who are listening to me for an explanation. It is for those people that I say I use my five known senses to create the illusion, that I use verbal, nonverbal communication, lots of magic, and also perceptual manipulation. It is for those people that I remind them a few times it is simply entertainment and I am not a psychic and that there are people who do these things who will tell you they are psychic but it is my belief that they are either lying to themselves or lying to their audience and more likely the latter.

  Now, after a show, sometimes someone will still come up and insist I must be psychic. It is those people I remind that Criss Angel does magic with beautiful women, Siegfried and Roy did magic with lions and tigers, I do magic with information and it would not be a good trick if it did not look real, but I have a million dollars for anyone who can do anything psychic under proper scientific controls and no one has taken the money yet.

  McAfee: Do you think gullibility is a trait all humans share, or that it is specific to certain individuals? Have you ever come across a person you couldn’t stump or deceive?

  Banachek: It is easy for people to be thought of as gullible and maybe we all are to a point. We all want that easy fix, we all want to be happy, and we all want to think that there is more to this life than there is. The secret to conning someone is to find their weakness, and most of us have the same weakness: we want something for nothing. And that equates to greed. However, the real big con comes in when we find out what that greed is to an individual. Once you find that weakness anyone can be conned. One of the easiest ways to do it is to create overconfidence in someone. This is one of the reasons that, when someone says to me I should teach a scientist some of my tricks so they can detect the trickery, I tell them I have 10 ways to bend a key and make it look psychic. If I teach a scientist one of those ways, when he sees one of the other methods used he may very well think that presentation is psychic because he “knows the trick method and this is not it.” A little knowledge is a bad thing as it breeds overconfidence.