"You had an accident when you were a child involving water."

[Curious3141]

Anyway, I would like to ask people to post reports of their accidents during childhood involving water. Just about everyone should have one.

I can think of numerous incidents that would qualify - ranging from a jellyfish attack in the sea (most serious) to slipping on a wet floor. The thing about Barnum statements and cold reading in general is that the statements are almost never highly specific when viewed by a rational observer.

This "water accident" thing can mean:

- scuffing your toe in a swimming pool
- striking the bottom of a pool in a bad dive
- near drowning incidents in a pool
- near drowning incidents in the sea
- attacks by myriad sea creatures
- slipping on a puddle
- being in a car that crashed due to wet roads
- dropping a glass that contained water with or without attendant injury from the glass shards
- spilling water on precious water-sensitive equipment, causing its destruction
- being scalded by boiling water/hot liquids
- non-drowning injuries of any sort on any water craft - ranging from toe-scuffing to whiplash
- chipping a tooth while going down a water slide (my colleague's contribution when pressed)
-...

Obviously, this list is nowhere near exhaustive, but it suffices to show how non-specific the "water accident" thing really is. Pretty much anyone would, if they put their mind to it, be able to recall *something* from their childhood that was unpleasant and had to do with water. This is because:

- children are generally highly active
- children are often relatively uncoordinated
- children engage in more physical risk-taking behaviour on average, possibly because they haven't become averse to many things...yet. That comes with experience
- we are exposed to water almost ubiquitously
- the human brain has a remarkable propensity for correlating data and making associations (ties into recalling such an incident)
- lots of people have an innate or ingrained desire to "please" or at least agree with others, which will lead them to dig around in their minds until they come up with a "hit" in answer to the psychic's question.

In relation to the last point, I'm not sure if there's any sort of pre-selection that goes on with the live audience on a "psychic show". But I've read that there may be some vetting going on (e.g. with questionnaires or plants in the pre-show crowd) when they decide who sits in the first few rows, at least. Add to that the fact that most attendees at a psychic show are likely to be predisposed to irrational beliefs anyway and you have all the makings of a very "convincing" display, at least to a naive or gullible audience.

If a "psychic" makes this sort of vague prediction to me, I would laugh in their face and deride their lack of specificity. It would take a prediction that identified the exact nature of the experience and the year/age it took place to truly impress me. So if, on the other hand, said psychic told me I suffered a severe jellyfish attack while swimming off the coast when I was seven, causing me to be laid up in bed for a week (true story), I would be very impressed, since it's not public knowledge. Of course, I'd still be thinking of ways the psychic might have winkled that piece of information by non-supernatural means, because I'm still fundamentally a rational and skeptical person. But I would be impressed, all the same.

 

[kzvrso]

That's OK, you have a great avatar.

Thanks lol

I drew it myself in ms paint while bored. I named it "angry dog"...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Add to that the fact that most attendees at a psychic show are likely to be predisposed to irrational beliefs anyway and you have all the makings of a very "convincing" display, at least to a naive or gullible audience.

Here's something I wanted to point out earlier. Suppose you go to a party in college and something unpleasant happens. The story of the specific unpleasant thing will get around, and the next day you are sure to run into someone who comments, saying something general like, "I heard something unpleasant happened at the party last night." They phrase it vaguely, but in fact they specifically heard that you got so drunk you threw up into the punch bowl. Their vagueness is a sort of invitation for you to explain it from your perspective, despite the fact they have actually heard a clear, detailed story already. Or, you're leaving school and the principal stops you and takes you into his office. He says, "I heard there was some trouble on the playground at recess. Want to tell me about it?" Actually he heard a much more specific story, but wants to hear your side.

I think most of us have experienced something like that enough times so that if a 'psychic' said, "You had an accident involving water when you were a child," the first thing we'd assume, in the absence of any knowledge of cold reading or other tricks, is some uncanny and detailed picture in their mind of the exact incident you had in real life. The effectiveness of this particular Barnum statement is its resemblance to the vague characterization of "incidents" by people who actually have a much more specific idea of what happened. You realize exactly how vague it is, but you assume that vagueness is a front for a clear, specific, detailed picture.

So, you don't have to be gullible so much as simply ignorant of psychic techniques to be spooked that they seem to know something personal from your past. It takes advantage of a linguistic mannerism we associate with people who actually do know details.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks lol

I drew it myself in ms paint while bored. I named it "angry dog"...

It's a masterpiece! I could completely tell it was a dog, and I could completely tell it was angry.

 

[kzvrso]

lol it ain't that good

I messed up his back legs there slightly smaller than his front legs. All good though

 

[zoobyshoe]

lol it ain't that good

I messed up his back legs there slightly smaller than his front legs. All good though

His back legs are smaller because they are farther away from the viewer. That's called "perspective."

Your style reminds me of the drawings of Mark Twain. Only I think you're even better than him:
http://www.twainquotes.com/InstructionsInArt.html

 

[kzvrso]

True that's why I made them small lol

Interesting link there. Didn't know Mark Twain drew

 

[kzvrso]

The full image btw:

 

[Simon Bridge]

Consider: water is very common: it is piped into our homes, it falls from the sky in different forms, and it lies about the landscape.
"Accident" is non-specific - what counts as an accident in this context? A sip or fall, a minor cut, or a major thing involving ambulances and concerned people in white coats?
"Involved with" is another vague term - "involved" in what way?

Consider how many children pee in a swimming pool, or in a lake or in the sea... that could be described as "having an accident involving water". But so could spilling a glass of anything containing water - or making any kind of mistake where water was present in any way at all.

The main thing is that the person hearing the statement makes the connection according to what is important to them. The answer takes on significance due to personal association.

Why did you immediately think of that particular accident and not the myriad others that no doubt happened.

When a Barnham statement does not immediately get a hit, you can probe a bit to turn it into a hit, maybe widen the target ... go back to the ones who have not reported a hit and they should all be able to come up with something on second thoughts. FWIW: I can think of dozens off the top of my head.

Derrin Brown's shows come in two kinds - the magic shows and the Houdini-style exposey stuff.
The magic shows involve trickery and misdirection and the ones on the street may have some selected sampling: you don't see the times it does not work. Usually the camera is not positioned in such a way that you can see the trick - the idea being to give you the mark's perspective.

The exposey shows do not involve any hidden trickery on Derrin's part and seem to include segments which are not so flattering to him.
Certainly all the information is correct - and you can find a local skeptics club with members adept at this sort of trickery who can demonstrate it for you. They can even teach it to you.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Perhaps the water-accident recollection thing could be a vote?

 

[zoobyshoe]

The full image btw:

If you crop it to a square and upload it that way, then the nose won't get cut off when you use it as an avatar. I found that out the hard way.

 

[Medicol]

...
...Consider how many children pee in a swimming pool, or in a lake or in the sea...

That sounds unfair. No one knows who pees in the pool. No one knows if any is suffering from fecal incontinence. I don't know how the chloride in the water treats E.Coli or urinary bacteria. I guess they will soon die under UV.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Derrin Brown's shows come in two kinds - the magic shows and the Houdini-style exposey stuff.

Oversimplification here. Quite a few of his segments are primarily demonstrations of hypnosis, and you're forgetting the series called "The Experiments" and most of the "Trick or Treat" episodes, that don't fall into the category of magic or expose.

Also, he has many segments that are calculation and memory demonstrations. He's quite a mnemonist and can remember long strings of digits, he can count odd piles of things amazingly quickly by sight (like "Rainman" and the toothpicks), and he can cut a deck of cards into any two piles you specify pretty quickly by sight (if you say, "pull off 37 and leave 15," he can do that by sight). He can count cards with four decks in play. His stage shows usually have a long segment demonstrating his calculation/memory skills. And, of course, he uses these skills in other tricks that aren't directly about these skills.

 

[Simon Bridge]

I am clearly thinking of magic shows differently from you, but I think my meaning is clear - you seem to have understood it.

If Derrin is achieving a remarkable aim by means other than what he says then he is using trickery, which I am characterizing as "magic shows".
The trick or treat shows are examples. But I won't dispute the "oversimplification" point as a whole.

I was hoping to point out that not all Derrin's shows involve trickery as the main course.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I am clearly thinking of magic shows differently from you, but I think my meaning is clear - you seem to have understood it.

If Derrin is achieving a remarkable aim by means other than what he says then he is using trickery, which I am characterizing as "magic shows".
The trick or treat shows are examples. But I won't dispute the "oversimplification" point as a whole.

I was hoping to point out that not all Derrin's shows involve trickery as the main course.

No, I didn't catch your definition from what you said, but I understand it now. Your classification system breaks down really fast though, because he debunks using trickery. Messiah is a prime example of this. The overall drive of that show was to debunk psychics and faith healers by getting respected psychics and faith healers to sincerely endorse him as "the real thing," thereby exposing their self-delusion. Using "psychology, magic, hypnosis, misdirection, and showmanship" he convinces the various people that he has extraordinary powers, and they give him their stamp of approval.

"Magic" has a fairly specific definition to the people in that field, and it encompasses only certain kinds of effects, with certain kinds of props, and certain kinds of techniques. Hypnosis is outside that, as would be "channeling the dead" effects.

I think the two broad categories you actually want would be entertainment vs debunking. Some of his episodes have no higher goal than entertainment, and others have an aura of socially responsible exposure of frauds and charlatans.

 

[davenn]

only just found this thread

was ~ 14 or 15 on a family picnic to the local river
an almost drowning incident for me, got saved in time

Dave

 

[Simon Bridge]

"Magic" has a fairly specific definition to the people in that field, and it encompasses only certain kinds of effects, with certain kinds of props, and certain kinds of techniques. Hypnosis is outside that, as would be "channeling the dead" effects.

- though if I had to use the in-house definitions I'd end up with a long list. I kinda wanted to be quick (didn't work).

You are correct: Derrin is hard to categorize since part of his schtick is to mix the themes in a single show.
It also leads to the suspicion, particularly by believers, that Derrin may be using more underhand tricks to make the skeptical viewpoint seem more plausible.

Entertainment vs debunking works OK - but there are psychic/medium shows with the disclaimer "entertainment only" but the central claim is that paranormal acts are really being performed ... I would not want someone to mistake my meaning in that direction, so I try to err the other way.
No matter what I choose for a glib comment, I'm going to have to explain to someone. I can only hope that the people I want to get the message get it. It's why I included the Houdini reference since he did similar things.

Maybe "debunking vs theatre"? It's the second one that's trouble: "paranormal show"?

 

[zoobyshoe]

- though if I had to use the in-house definitions I'd end up with a long list. I kinda wanted to be quick (didn't work).

You are correct: Derrin is hard to categorize since part of his schtick is to mix the themes in a single show.
It also leads to the suspicion, particularly by believers, that Derrin may be using more underhand tricks to make the skeptical viewpoint seem more plausible.

Entertainment vs debunking works OK - but there are psychic/medium shows with the disclaimer "entertainment only" but the central claim is that paranormal acts are really being performed ... I would not want someone to mistake my meaning in that direction, so I try to err the other way.
No matter what I choose for a glib comment, I'm going to have to explain to someone. I can only hope that the people I want to get the message get it. It's why I included the Houdini reference since he did similar things.

Maybe "debunking vs theatre"? It's the second one that's trouble: "paranormal show"?

I don't see a pressing need to divide his stuff into only two categories. As I said earlier, there are more like 5 different categories of effects he focuses on. However, if you have to have two categories and "entertainment" can't be one of them, then the next best thing might be "Showmanship vs Debunking". The point of the "showmanship" centered episodes is to dazzle, mystify, entertain, while the "debunking" episodes aspire to something more serious and socially responsible. The difference between them, though, is more a matter of intent than content. His debunkings demonstrate a high level of showmanship.

You may already have seen this one.



It's probably best classified as a debunking episode, but his showmanship in setting the subjects up is impeccable. He seems the epitome of a sincere astrologer/psychometrist, and they all buy it right up to his revelation of hoax. (He wrote the "personality analysis" himself several months before, and I would love to have a copy of it. I could go into business as an 'aura reader' or something.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

only just found this thread

was ~ 14 or 15 on a family picnic to the local river
an almost drowning incident for me, got saved in time

Dave

FWIW, this brings us to 16 out of 18 respondents.

 

[Pythagorean]

My children regularly spill water. Pretty much daily.

 

[davenn]

LOL Py

 

[lisab]

My children regularly spill water. Pretty much daily.

I think this means you're not giving them enough milk.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't want to give them anything to cry over.

 

[mfb]

We can ask Greg, but I'm pretty sure a "view" is when a person new to the thread opens it. Once you've opened it, your later visits to the thread don't change the view count. I've tried: I've opened and left the thread three times without the view count changing. As of now there are 232 views. I take that to mean 232 separate people have opened the thread.

Multiple views from the same person count as different views - the view count is not updated continuously, so those quick checks will lead to a wrong answer.

However, it's quite possible those who've viewed the thread have had accidents and simply chose not to post.

I would expect a bias in the opposite direction - those without accidents are less likely to post because nothing happened.

So if, on the other hand, said psychic told me I suffered a severe jellyfish attack while swimming off the coast when I was seven, causing me to be laid up in bed for a week (true story), I would be very impressed, since it's not public knowledge.

Now it is ;).

No water accident here - unless you count various scrapes and similar stuff, but then the statement becomes completely trivial. "You used to breath air as a child ... oh wait, you still do!".

 

[zoobyshoe]

Multiple views from the same person count as different views - the view count is not updated continuously, so those quick checks will lead to a wrong answer.

Check out what Greg said here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/view-count.776090/

I would expect a bias in the opposite direction - those without accidents are less likely to post because nothing happened.

I think there's a big problem with all polls, which is that, whatever their opinion or experience, people may simply be disinterested in participating in the poll. If it's true that a statement applies to about 80% of all people, there has to be some other, very natural, way of finding that out.

I was talking to a girl once about the paranormal. She leaned toward belief due to the percentage of people who reported paranormal experiences. "What about ghost stories?" she said, "Who doesn't have a ghost story to tell?" In my experience, she was right. I had never been in a situation where the subject came up where everyone didn't have an incident to relate, even if it was their auntie's experience rather than their own.That's the kind of natural, informal poll you could build a Barnum statement on: "Im sensing that you...or maybe someone close to you...has already had a visit from someone who has passed over. Someone trying to communicate, to manifest in the physical plane by sound, sight, movement. You know who I mean (?)." However, her experience and my experience could easily be non-representative of "most" people. How can you really check if 80% of people have a ghost story to tell?

No water accident here - unless you count various scrapes and similar stuff, but then the statement becomes completely trivial. "You used to breath air as a child ... oh wait, you still do!".

To constitute a good Barnum statement most people would have to have had an accident involving water that was somehow memorable. Once it's suggested, 80% of people should be instantly sure what the 'psychic' is talking about. Otherwise, it's a risky direction for the psychic to take. I'm still not comfortable this particular Barnum statement has a 4 in 1 chance of succeeding.

 

[Monique]

First thing that comes to mind is a friend pushing me down under water, leading to distress. I also once cut my hand in the lake that led to an infection, or an inflatable boat that was punctured and it was sinking in the Amsterdam canal, but that doesn't stand out as clearly as the first event. I guess people could take it as far as seeing bedwetting as an accident involving water.

 

[fluidistic]

When I was about 5 years old I was in the shower with my younger brother and I think he increased the flow of hot water which burned me a little bit for a few seconds.
I can't find any other "accident" related to water in my whole life.

 

[Kerrie]

At the age of 8, I could not swim. I was pushed in the 'deep end' of a pool (6ft), and panicked. Thankfully I was near the edge and grabbed on. It wasn't long before I learned to tread water after that experience.

 

[Borg]

At the age of 8, I could not swim. I was pushed in the 'deep end' of a pool (6ft), and panicked. Thankfully I was near the edge and grabbed on. It wasn't long before I learned to tread water after that experience.

I had a very similar situation at 8 except that I wasn't pushed. I went down a slide that I didn't realize went in the deep end. Plus, it was an unattended hotel pool at night. I was lucky to get back to the side of the pool and also learned to swim after that. oo)

 

[Psinter]

Anyway, I would like to ask people to post reports of their accidents during childhood involving water. Just about everyone should have one.

Indeed. When 5 years old I just threw myself into a pool because it didn't seem deep. Fell straight to the floor and while struggling to breath and about to take the water in my uncle got into the pool and pulled me up. He laughed and said: "You are okay now." and I was okay. It never affected me, I mean, life continues.

EDIT: I was like meh.

 

[jz92wjaz]

I can't think of anything for myself. No near drownings, no gaping wounds, no burns, no damaged electronics. I've never even had a substantial injury on the ice or snow, in spite of all my antics.