My Psychic Told Me to Date a Psychopath

My Psychic Told Me to Date a Psychopath

Erika Lauren

Then money went missing from my purse. His funds became unavailable. He was unmotivated to work. He began disappearing, sometimes overnight. He was always equipped with a story and they were so convincing that I often took his word. He took college classes but often failed and started at a new school each semester. I began loaning him a lot of money. I seriously considered breaking it off several times, but I wasn’t used to making such big decisions on my own, so I would always visit Karen to see what she had to say about it.

When I thought he could be lying, she said that he wasn’t. When I thought he could be cheating, she would say that he couldn’t. When I thought he might be stealing she would suggest that I leave him some money so that if he was stealing, he wouldn’t have to. When I asked her about the ring, she was sure that I accidentally threw it away in the move. She kept reinforcing that I was in a good relationship, that maybe I was making too many parallels to my past relationship and creating problems in my mind. Was I? I knew that I had a fear of repeating my past and sometimes I projected unfair assumptions of cheating or lying, but this was different, wasn’t it? I kept trying to give them both the benefit of the doubt, that maybe I was creating problems in my mind, but as problem after problem arose, I only felt more confused. I confronted James.

My Psychic Told Me to Date a Psychopath

Erika Lauren

The point being? We already know that some but certainly not all "psychics" and "mediums" are fraudulent. This would seem to be the case here, unless it's an odd outlier where the client's "soul plan" for this life actually includes having a relationship with this particular psychopath, no matter what the cost.

The point being? We already know that some but certainly not all "psychics" and "mediums" are fraudulent. This would seem to be the case here, unless it's an odd outlier where the client's "soul plan" for this life actually includes having a relationship with this particular psychopath, no matter what the cost.

I can't speak for Sciiborg, but I'm not sure it's right to assume there's always a "point" to information that people post here.

It may just be an interesting or informative item that bears on the topic of the site in one way or another. Sometimes it will relate to the "psychic industry," and I think that's something it's worth being aware of.

The point being? We already know that some but certainly not all "psychics" and "mediums" are fraudulent. This would seem to be the case here, unless it's an odd outlier where the client's "soul plan" for this life actually includes having a relationship with this particular psychopath, no matter what the cost.

It was related to parapsychology, and perhaps might serve as a warning to someone who is inclined to believe in Psi without discernment.

Now that the pseudo-skeptical movement seems to be dying surely it's the responsibility of proponents to help guide people away from frauds? We don't want to end up a joke like the pseudo-skeptics, who claimed to be guarding science but missed the fraud, replication failure, ethical issues with corporate influence, etc.

[See Grof's warning about synchronicity as well for a warning in a similar vein.]

It was related to parapsychology, and perhaps might serve as a warning to someone who is inclined to believe in Psi without discernment.

Now that the pseudo-skeptical movement seems to be dying surely it's the responsibility of proponents to help guide people away from frauds? We don't want to end up a joke like the pseudo-skeptics, who claimed to be guarding science but missed the fraud, replication failure, ethical issues with corporate influence, etc.

The skeptics on this forum and the Skeptiko forums have been talking about fraud, replication failures, ethical issues with corporate influence, etc., for ages. Where we disagreed with proponents was whether or not parapsychology was immune to all that. It's still not clear to me that you and others recognize the relevance of all the anti-mainstream science stuff you post to the field of parapsychology.

Linda

The skeptics on this forum and the Skeptiko forums have been talking about fraud, replication failures, ethical issues with corporate influence, etc., for ages. Where we disagreed with proponents was whether or not parapsychology was immune to all that. It's still not clear to me that you and others recognize the relevance of all the anti-mainstream science stuff you post to the field of parapsychology.

Linda

I didn't see much of this criticism occurring "for ages" that I can recall, and most of the responses in this thread - IIRC - were claiming that all the discovered problems just showed science was self-correcting. [This isn't to criticize you personally, I know you've dealt with these topics in varied spaces.]

And yes, I know skeptics have claimed the same issues apply to parapsychology. But given the history of questionable tactics by skeptics I generally only consider neutral sources - for example I've enjoyed MaxB's critiques of varied studies.

I didn't see much of this criticism occurring "for ages" that I can recall,...

I'm sure you didn't. As far as I can tell, you don't see it as relevant. It's been going on since at least 2005.

...and most of the responses in this thread - IIRC - were claiming that all the discovered problems just showed science was self-correcting. [This isn't to criticize you personally, I know you've dealt with these topics in varied spaces.]

The problem is that there is a disconnect between what scientists are aware of and what lay people are aware of. So the recent flurry of blogs about replication, etc., aren't because scientists were unaware of these issues and are only just now finding out about them. It's because there is increasing use of methods which overcome these issues, and greater awareness spreading to other scientists and lay people as a result. And we didn't realize just how large the effect of reduced quality and bias was, on some fields of study, until more formal studies and models were undertaken.

And yes, I know skeptics have claimed the same issues apply to parapsychology. But given the history of questionable tactics by skeptics I generally only consider neutral sources - for example I've enjoyed MaxB's critiques of varied studies.

It isn't that skeptics claim that the same issues apply to parapsychology. It's that there's absolutely no reason to exclude parapsychologists from other scientists. And since we have definitive examples of parapsychologists engaging in the same practices you criticized, as well as parapsychology lagging behind with respect to the implementation of those methods which overcome the issues, every time you criticize mainstream science, you are putting another nail in the coffin of parapsychology unless the field changes. Like I mentioned earlier, I see no recognition from proponents that this impacts the validity of their beliefs.

However, I realize that this is not of interest to you. We mean different things when we say "neutral sources". I personally generally ignore what professional Skeptics or Proponents say, and look instead at primary sources and research articles.

Linda

It's that there's absolutely no reason to exclude parapsychologists from other scientists. And since we have definitive examples of parapsychologists engaging in the same practices you criticized, as well as parapsychology lagging behind with respect to the implementation of those methods which overcome the issues, every time you criticize mainstream science, you are putting another nail in the coffin of parapsychology unless the field changes. Like I mentioned earlier, I see no recognition from proponents that this impacts the validity of their beliefs.

I think proponents are aware of potential issues, though I am not convined parapsychologists are lagging behind.


For example I recall reading this post by Caroline Watt

Historians have suggested that the origins of randomization in experimental design can be found in nineteenth century tests of telepathy – check out this paper by Ian Hacking.

Ted Kaptchuk, the placebo expert,  has argued that testing controversial claims helped to develop placebo and double-blind methods – read more about that here.

Hans Berger developed electro-encephalography in order to search for telepathic brain waves, after he had a seemingly psychic experience. Read more about Berger’s ‘unusual and solitary journey’ to one of the greatest breakthroughs in neuroscience here.

I could go on, but skipping a century or so I’ll finish with a handful of more recent examples. Psychology’s ‘replication crisis’ was in part stimulated by Daryl Bem’s 2011 publication of studies about ‘Feeling the Future’ – read more about the wider importance and ramifications of Bem’s paper here. Psychology responded by starting to debate the need for study registration and introduced registered reports. Meantime, parapsychologists were already ahead of the game. In 1978, the European Journal of Parapsychology introduced registered reports – an editorial policy of accepting papers on the basis of their planned methods, as a way to tackle publication bias. Read about that here. In 2012, Jim Kennedy and I launched a registry for parapsychological studies. So far as we are aware it was the first registry of its kind in psychology – discover more about the KPU Registry here. In 2015, Jim and I published a paper for the wider psychological community making recommendations for how to improve study registration practices in psychology based on our experiences with parapsychological study registration. You can read that here. Finally, next month at the Parapsychological Association convention, Jim and I will be proposing a prospective meta-analysis of parapsychological studies. This is something that occasionally happens in medical research (check out the Cochrane Collaboration), but is rarely found elsewhere in behavioural research. The abstract of our PA paper is here.

I think proponents are aware of potential issues,...

Some Parapsychologists are.  I’ve seen articles discussing the problems and proposing solutions, although not much seems to be happening in that regard. However, I haven’t seen anyone on the Skeptiko forums really buy into the idea that the problems make the results invalid. I think the attitude is more like “sure there are problems, but surely it can’t account for much of it, let alone all of it.”

...though I am not convined parapsychologists are lagging behind.

They are lagging behind. Maybe not behind Psychology, which is doing a mediocre job so far (as the debacle over asking “Feeling the Future” to be retracted showed). Although at least Psychology sometimes performs studies whose quality ratings (e.g. the extent to which risk of bias is present) are very good to excellent, whereas I haven’t seen any in Parapsychology rise above good (and most are poor to fair). Please note that quality ratings and risk of bias are a whole field of study with very specific ratings which are based on the findings from that research. I haven’t seen any Parapsychologists make use of that field of study, when claiming that the quality of Parapsychology research is good. Instead, they make up a quality rating based on a few of the more trivial aspects plus some irrelevant characteristics. The lack of attention to the “risk of bias” research is holding them back.

And while Caroline Watts was forward thinking with respect to the KPU trial registry, it hasn’t made a difference, because publication isn’t tied to registration. So most of the Parapsychology journals still seem to be publishing unregistered studies in which authors are free to make full use of researcher degrees of freedom. They are way behind Medicine in that regard, where the major medical journals have required preregistration for almost 15 years. And looking through the KPU registry, the researchers aren’t even necessarily holding to what was registered vs. what machinations could be used to come up with a “positive” study, anyways. 

http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.e...y_1049.pdf
https://psyarxiv.com/s7uad

Linda

Of course, whether "the problems make the results invalid" needs to be argued rather than just assumed.