Psychic FRAUD


KacyRay

Recommended Posts

I hate faith. I hate psychics. I hate that people have faith in psychics. I hate that psychics profit off of the faith that people place in psychics.

I hate that psychics are never held accountable for their fraud.

I'm torn on whether I believe that psychics should be held legally liable for peeling their fraud. I realize that in a free society, people are allowed to peddle their own claims to extrasensory knowledge, and so long as they fully disclose that their advice isn't guaranteed, people are responsible for their own stupidity if they pay for these alleged claims.

But it seems to be like there is a clear fraud being perpetrated here. Even if a psychic tells a customer or client that their predictions and insights are "not always right" and "not guaranteed"... is that really full disclosure? It seems to me that people who buy into this stuff are being duped - not making informed decision.

I absolutely hate these scam artists. Is there a more diabolical thing than providing a grieving family member with false information about their loved one, getting paid to do it, and then having complete immunity from the consequences?

This is why, when people ask me why I rail against religion, I am quick to correct them. My problem isn't with religion - it is with faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think that I would support legislation that required all psychics who receive payment for their services to disclose to their clients that there is no evidence to suggest that the advice offered by <the psychic> would be any better than that of someone offering evidence based on a coin toss.

Paying customers deserve to know what they are receiving in return for their payment. They deserve to be informed that a guess or advice from a psychic is of no more value than a guess or advice from any complete stranger.

I think I would support legislation that enforced a requirement for this disclosure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few separate but related issues here. The first is intent - is there an intent to defraud? Many psychics are so deluded that they actually believe they have supernatural abilities. As a practical matter, it's a frutless endeavor to try to distinguish those who fall into this category from those just trying to make an easy dollar. The second issue is proof - how do we prove that such people do not have supernatural ability? We can't, and that is precisely why a rational person recognizes that such claims are unscientific and shouldn't be trusted in the first place. In contrast, it's a relatively simple matter to prove that an unscrupulous businessman intended to water down his whiskey - just measure the whiskey and water content of the bottle. The third issue is whether it's consensual behavior or not. This is a gray area because, unlike the more common fraud cases, many of those who see psychics either want to be deceived or view the activity as a sort of recreation. Information-sharing (transparency) requirements are perhaps the least invidious type of regulation, but they should still only be enacted when necessary. I don't see a pressing need for regulation of psychics because the vast majority of these transactions seem to be consensual in the broader sense. The remaining cases involve a buyer that is so negligent in his or her own behavior and beliefs that the relatively minor come-uppance of being bilked a few bucks isn't something that requires sweeping state intervention. Besides the obvious First Amendment issues involved in regulating what is essentially a religious practice, any such regulation could be easily skirted simply by relabeling the business as spiritual counseling or moving it under the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying customers deserve to know what they are receiving in return for their payment.

Kacy,

Statements like this creep me out.

:)

You don't care about informing paying customers. There are many ways to inform them without legal coercion You want to make people spend their money in a way you see fit.

It's a control issue. Friggen' busybody.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city of New Orleans went through a controversy of sorts when laws were established to cut down on the number of psychics in Jackson Square. Actually, I think it started with the enforcement of existing laws. The city's reasons were quite different from yours, but the debate and the outcome might be of interest to you. The outcome being that psychics in the French Quarter have limitations on where they can do business, and whether or not they can charge a fee for their services if they are unlicensed as a business. At the time, the psychics were claiming their right to free speech was being prohibited.

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/sep/08/nation/na-quarter8

http://www.southerner.net/fast/dntexlaquarter.html

The articles linked above are about New Orleans from 2003 when the debate was fresh. The article linked below is one I came across accidentally. It caught my attention because it cites a specific (and recent) court ruling against the relabeling of psychic services as reiligious counseling.

http://wildhunt.org/tag/psychic-services-and-the-law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few separate but related issues here. The first is intent - is there an intent to defraud? Many psychics are so deluded that they actually believe they have supernatural abilities. As a practical matter, it's a frutless endeavor to try to distinguish those who fall into this category from those just trying to make an easy dollar. The second issue is proof - how do we prove that such people do not have supernatural ability? We can't, and that is precisely why a rational person recognizes that such claims are unscientific and shouldn't be trusted in the first place. In contrast, it's a relatively simple matter to prove that an unscrupulous businessman intended to water down his whiskey - just measure the whiskey and water content of the bottle. The third issue is whether it's consensual behavior or not. This is a gray area because, unlike the more common fraud cases, many of those who see psychics either want to be deceived or view the activity as a sort of recreation. Information-sharing (transparency) requirements are perhaps the least invidious type of regulation, but they should still only be enacted when necessary. I don't see a pressing need for regulation of psychics because the vast majority of these transactions seem to be consensual in the broader sense. The remaining cases involve a buyer that is so negligent in his or her own behavior and beliefs that the relatively minor come-uppance of being bilked a few bucks isn't something that requires sweeping state intervention. Besides the obvious First Amendment issues involved in regulating what is essentially a religious practice, any such regulation could be easily skirted simply by relabeling the business as spiritual counseling or moving it under the table.

1st Point - I don't think it matters whether a snake-oil salesman really believe his product works. If he advertises that it does, yet it does not, then there is fraud.

2nd point - I agree with what you're saying, which is why I was specific in my wording. I wouldn't support a statement saying "psychic abilities don't really exist." or "This person is not a true psychic". Instead, I phrased it as such: There is no evidence to suggest that the advice offered by <the psychic> would be any better than that of someone offering evidence based on a coin toss." and "a guess or advice from a psychic is of no more value than a guess or advice from any complete stranger." - both of which are verifiable, testable statements. And they are true.

But the disclosure statement could simply read:

"I understand that the reading, advice, or insights I am about to receive come from a professional psychic, and that actual extrasensory abilities have never been demonstrated in any scientific setting by anyone at any time. I understand that there is no regulated accreditation system for self-proclaimed psychics and that the psychic whose services I will commission cannot in any way be held responsible for any incorrect information provided."

Or something like that.

Third point - I'm not really talking about regulating psychics. I'm talking about ensuring that their clientele receives full disclosure on the reality of so-called psychic ability. If they receive this disclosure, they are free to go ahead and pay for the psychic's services as much and as often as they choose - no one is stopping them. If they want to be complicit, that is their prerogative. But we aren't doing anyone any favors by withholding this disclosure. I don't think that the grieving mother who Sylvia Browne lied through her teeth to in the link I provided really wanted to be complicit in this fraud - I think she was just a typical sheep person whose vulnerability is exactly what those piece-of-shit psychics prey on. People like that deserve to at least be told the truth. Then they can choose to be lied to if they like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few people go for psychics. Many people go for things that are just as fraudulent as psychics.

Examples please. TIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying customers deserve to know what they are receiving in return for their payment.

Kacy,

Statements like this creep me out.

:smile:

You don't care about informing paying customers. There are many ways to inform them without legal coercion You want to make people spend their money in a way you see fit.

It's a control issue. Friggen' busybody.

:smile:

Michael

Correct. But notice how it is Kacy's fidelity to "Reason" which powers his sails. It is only natural to conclude that if Reason is our guiding star, that the judicious application of it to social problems would allow for and demand governmental oversight. Anything less would be....uncivilized.

And we are thus left with a technocratic-bureaucratic managerial elite making centralized decisions on the basis of "science." It would seem this is a natural and organic development once one has enshrined Man's Power of Reason as the ultimate value.

George Lakoff made the point in the video I posted that it was precisely the Enlightenment and it's corresponding faith in Man (after having killed God) which was the seed and genesis of the modern Progressive movement.

Think about that one, O Mighty Objectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously we are running out of things to talk about.

--Brant

Brant - Faith and the supernatural are Kacy's pet issues. He's been talking about them for a long time and will be for a long time to come. For reasons SB and I may never understand, someone working part-time out of their apartment as a "psychic," harming only idiots who want to be harmed, receives the full force of Kacy's ire while the policymakers in Washington perpetrating massive economic frauds (e.g., bank bailouts, Keynesian stimulus) on all of us receive virtually none of his online time and energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few people go for psychics. Many people go for things that are just as fraudulent as psychics.

That's the truth. Can you 'teach' reality by warning and legislation?

If anything, the opposite effect is achieved.

No. Laissez-nous faire, however distasteful are those damn psychics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying customers deserve to know what they are receiving in return for their payment.

Kacy,

Statements like this creep me out.

What??? You disagree? You don't think people deserve to know what they're paying for?

How in the name of shizzle can you disagree with the idea that if someone advertises something, they ought to be required to provide it of someone else has paid for it? If someone advertises that they possess a knowledge on various topics, then don't you agree that they should either have to provide that knowledge or fully disclose that they don't have that knowledge in the first place?

Even financial advisers and investment brokers disclose the fact that their advice isn't guaranteed to work out in all cases. Shouldn't psychics have to do so as well?

You don't care about informing paying customers. There are many ways to inform them without legal coercion You want to make people spend their money in a way you see fit.

It's a control issue. Friggen' busybody.

So you don't think Sylvia Browne is a fraud? She's an honest businesswoman offering a legitimate service?

And why do you think I'm being disingenuous in what I'm saying here? I see people being taken advantage of by snake-oil salesmen, and mostly it's people who are in very vulnerable times in their lives.

What I *want* is for Ms Browne to be put out of business forever, as well as all psychics. But as there's no ethical or legal way to make that happen, I'd settle for them just having to provide their clientele complete information and full disclosure on what they're actually getting when they pay for psychic services. They're getting an uneducated guess from a non-legitimate source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn... lotsa folks sticking up for the frauds. Not one word of concern for those defrauded.

Very well. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying customers deserve to know what they are receiving in return for their payment.

Kacy,

Statements like this creep me out.

:smile:

You don't care about informing paying customers. There are many ways to inform them without legal coercion You want to make people spend their money in a way you see fit.

It's a control issue. Friggen' busybody.

:smile:

Michael

Correct. But notice how it is Kacy's fidelity to "Reason" which powers his sails. It is only natural to conclude that if Reason is our guiding star, that the judicious application of it to social problems would allow for and demand governmental oversight...

George Lakoff made the point in the video I posted that it was precisely the Enlightenment and it's corresponding faith in Man (after having killed God) which was the seed and genesis of the modern Progressive movement.

Think about that one, O Mighty Objectivists.

Not that there's nothing to think about - and I shall sure pay attention to the Laker video now - but Rand was there first..

"The two sides of the same counterfeit coin" she called it (ItOE) - 'Mystical-intrinsicism', and philosophical skepticism.

Fundamentally, from God to secular collectivism. (And back again, sometimes.)

-A Mighty Objectivist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few people go for psychics. Many people go for things that are just as fraudulent as psychics.

Examples please. TIA.

Probably none that you would accept. There are many emperors without any clothing. I mentioned some of these plenty of times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st Point - I don't think it matters whether a snake-oil salesman really believe his product works. If he advertises that it does, yet it does not, then there is fraud.

If there is no intent, then there is no fraud in a legal or moral sense. This is a critical distinction to make.

2nd point - I agree with what you're saying, which is why I was specific in my wording. I wouldn't support a statement saying "psychic abilities don't really exist." or "This person is not a true psychic". Instead, I phrased it as such: There is no evidence to suggest that the advice offered by <the psychic> would be any better than that of someone offering evidence based on a coin toss." and "a guess or advice from a psychic is of no more value than a guess or advice from any complete stranger." - both of which are verifiable, testable statements. And they are true.

But the disclosure statement could simply read:

"I understand that the reading, advice, or insights I am about to receive come from a professional psychic, and that actual extrasensory abilities have never been demonstrated in any scientific setting by anyone at any time. I understand that there is no regulated accreditation system for self-proclaimed psychics and that the psychic whose services I will commission cannot in any way be held responsible for any incorrect information provided."

So anyone who belongs to a church should logically be required to sign your paperwork as well? Is the popularlity of the belief system the metric? This seems dangerously close to infringing upon people's religious and economic liberties at the whim of an enlightened elite of policymakers who decide what truth is. In this specific scenario, you would be part of their top-down "consensus," but be warned that you would very likely find yourself on the receiving end of their policy stick in others.

Third point - I'm not really talking about regulating psychics. I'm talking about ensuring that their clientele receives full disclosure on the reality of so-called psychic ability. If they receive this disclosure, they are free to go ahead and pay for the psychic's services as much and as often as they choose - no one is stopping them. If they want to be complicit, that is their prerogative. But we aren't doing anyone any favors by withholding this disclosure. I don't think that the grieving mother who Sylvia Browne lied through her teeth to in the link I provided really wanted to be complicit in this fraud - I think she was just a typical sheep person whose vulnerability is exactly what those piece-of-shit psychics prey on. People like that deserve to at least be told the truth. Then they can choose to be lied to if they like.

Paperwork and disclosure requirements are regulation. There are more direct ways of regulating the "profession," but it is regulation. Presumably then we'd need a government bureaucracy to enforce and process these new requirements, otherwise they'd be dead-letter law. While I might defer to you on certain military matters, I would suggest I might be a bit more familiar with how regulatory schemes take on a life of their own and become ends in themselves over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I *want* is for Ms Browne to be put out of business forever, as well as all psychics. But as there's no ethical or legal way to make that happen, I'd settle for them just having to provide their clientele complete information and full disclosure on what they're actually getting when they pay for psychic services. They're getting an uneducated guess from a non-legitimate source.

James Randi did a good job on Ms Browne. He offered her a million dollars if she can proved her psychic ability. What more is required?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Randi did a good job on Ms Browne. He offered her a million dollars if she can proved her psychic ability. What more is required?

What's required is honest business practices. At least it ought to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone at all here agree that psychic readings are fraudulent?

Psychic readings may or may not be fraudulent. It depends both on intent of the psychic to deceive and whether the customer is a knowing and willing participant in the activity. Then there are the issues of extent of actual harm, how to prove that fraud occurred, and how to practically enforce the regulations you would like put in place.

What's required is honest business practices. At least it ought to be.

The progressive wants the entire world carpeted while the libertarian prefers to put on shoes. I'm not saying you're a Progressive in totality, but your position is indistinguishable from the progressive position in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third point - I'm not really talking about regulating psychics. I'm talking about ensuring that their clientele receives full disclosure on the reality of so-called psychic ability. If they receive this disclosure, they are free to go ahead and pay for the psychic's services as much and as often as they choose - no one is stopping them. If they want to be complicit, that is their prerogative. But we aren't doing anyone any favors by withholding this disclosure. I don't think that the grieving mother who Sylvia Browne lied through her teeth to in the link I provided really wanted to be complicit in this fraud - I think she was just a typical sheep person whose vulnerability is exactly what those piece-of-shit psychics prey on. People like that deserve to at least be told the truth. Then they can choose to be lied to if they like.

This reeks of paternalism.

--Brant

well, Rand complained about "living in a world of children"--I wonder why--not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone at all here agree that psychic readings are fraudulent?

Naturally - cognitively fraudulent - but how much is my business, or the government's? I genuinely may feel sorry for anyone who falls foul of them - because of his/her grief, for example. But should I, or the State, be responsible for shattering his/her belief - or for restricting or punishing the psychic?

I also don't 'approve of' some products in the market. So what? The free market isn't Utopian.

(Arthur Conan Doyle was into psychics btw, for all his brilliance.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st Point - I don't think it matters whether a snake-oil salesman really believe his product works. If he advertises that it does, yet it does not, then there is fraud.

Snake oil is still with us but is usually not recognized as such. Do you want to shut down 3/4 of the medical profession?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now