11 Ways to Talk to the Dead

November, 2002
Analysis of Transcript Excerpts of James Van Praagh (JVP) "readings" done on the "Larry King Live" show.

Introduction

On Larry King Live, April 25, 2002, psychic James van Praagh appeared, together with actor Ted Danson, to talk about the two-part TV-series called "Living With The Dead."

I don't have cable TV, so I was unable to see the show. My analysis is based solely on the transcripts, which lack the facial expressions and voice stresses available in the actual show. Such information would offer more insight into the "reading" process. I would ask anyone who saw the show to try to remember how things were said, which words were stressed, and what kinds of facial expressions were made by JVP during the "readings".

How it is done

I see several techniques used by JVP in these excerpts. There may be more, but I'm trying to keep things simple.

1. Redirection - pushing the focus of the "reading" in a direction desired by JVP
2. Disclaimer - a statement made by JVP which absolves him of "misses"
3. Insistence - repeating a guess even if it is not "validated" by the caller
4. Pressure - placing pressure on the caller to "validate" any given guess
5. Shifting the Burden - making the caller responsible for making connections to the guess or making a "hit"
6. Subtle Questions - questions in the form of a statement, sometimes followed by "Okay?" or "All right?"
7. Direct Questions - no guessing, just plain direct questions asked of the caller
8. Baiting/Fishing - a statement made by JVP intended to prompt a response from the caller
9. Misdirection - a statement made by JVP to confuse the caller
10. Platitudes - banal statements about spirituality, forgiveness, holiness, etc.
11. Inflating the Chances - making a statement that is statistically very likely to be true, and/or adding to that statement with another guess with high chances of being correct.

The important thing to remember about such "readings" is that every question and statement from JVP has a purpose, which I will point out below. JVP's guesses follow logically from each piece of information known. These guesses are not made at random, and they do not require communication with dead people.

Excerpt number 1

CALLER: I lost a daughter in 1987, and I'd like to hear from her.
KING: How old was she?
CALLER: She was 15.

Comments: Thanks to King's question, and the caller's answer, JVP now knows how old the girl was. With this information, and the sound of the caller's voice, JVP can reasonably guess the age of the caller, and the caller's gender. Depending on the caller's accent, JVP could also reasonably guess where the caller is from. JVP, knowing the girl's age at death, can also narrow his guesses as to cause of death. JVP can also make reasonably accurate guesses as to what items the girl might have owned, what interests she may have had, etc. This is important information and could guide his later guesses.

JVP: Was this cancer condition at all?
CALLER: No.

Comments: Direct Question. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. The caller's "no" answer allows JVP to narrow his guesses again. If the caller had said "yes", then JVP could have pursued the cancer diagnosis with more guesses. Obviously, he didn't "get" the cause of death at all, but knowing the cause of death still gives him something to work with, as we'll see later.

JVP: Was it blood related?
CALLER: No.

Comments: Another Direct Question. "Blood related" could include many different diseases, all of them among the top ten leading causes of death in the U.S. Death statistics for the U.S. are available here.

JVP: How was she killed?
CALLER: Hit by a car.

Comments: Direct Question. Shifting the Burden. Having failed on his guesses, JVP just plain asks for the information. He now knows the age of the girl, the year of death, the cause of death, the gender of the caller, and the approximate age of the caller. JVP has already shifted the burden to the caller.

JVP: What's her first name?
CALLER: Christy. Her first name or mine?
JVP: No, her first name.
CALLER: It was Christy.

Comments: JVP continues asking direct questions. Notice that JVP hasn't given any "reading" at all. He didn't even guess the dead girl's name. The caller, not JVP, has supplied all the information about the "spirit" JVP is supposed to "contact": female, died in 1987, age 15, hit by a car, first name Christy.

JVP: Let me ask you something, because I don't - you know, I just get what I get, and I can only give you something that I get. Was there a baby born after she passed over? In the family?
CALLER: Yes.

Comments: Disclaimer. Redirection. This is a clever move. First, he states a disclaimer - "I just get what I get," etc. This serves to absolve JVP of any wrong guesses he makes, and shifts the burden to the caller to make the connections. Again, he asks two direct questions. These questions are almost guaranteed to be a "hit", because any baby born in any part of the extended family will count as a "hit". It's extremely likely that a baby would be born in the period between 1987 and 2002, a span of 15 years. All it has to be is "after she passed over", which may seem to mean soon after, but is actually open-ended. JVP now knows that a baby was born. It doesn't matter when. Most importantly, JVP has now redirected the "reading", completely avoiding having to produce genuine messages from the late Christy.

JVP: Because this might sound very strange to you, but she wants me to tell you that she's a guide for this baby. I don't know if it's a brother's baby.
CALLER: There's been three.
JVP: Okay. Does the brother have a baby?
CALLER: Let me see - there's been four girls born since her.

Comments: Baiting. Direct Question. Subtle Question. JVP, instead of producing a clear message from Christy, uses the "spirit guide" angle. There is nothing in his statement that would show that he was receiving anything from Christy. He specifically says that he doesn't know whose baby it is - this is actually a subtle question in the form of a statement. The caller, however, does not say one way or the other if one of the brothers has a baby. This "brother" could be anybody's brother in the family. JVP is fishing for information. If the caller had confirmed that Christy had a brother by answering the baby question in the affirmative, JVP would have had more information to extrapolate from. JVP now knows that there have been four baby girls born since Christy's death. Again, the information comes from the caller, not from JVP.

JVP: Okay. Well, there's a baby there that the brother has, that she's a guide to, also. I'm going to tell you that someone in the family is a teacher, okay, or wanted to go into teaching. All right? I'm going to tell you that this girl - she forgives the person that did this to her, very much so. And I'm telling you she's telling me she came to your dreams just recently?
CALLER: I very seldom remember my dreams.

Comments: Insistence. Subtle Question. Direct Question. Pressure. Shifting the Burden. Poor JVP. He's missing completely. Again, he fishes for information by making guesses and asking questions in the form of statements - note the phrase "…someone in the family is a teacher, okay, or wanted to go into teaching,. All right?" These are questions, both subtle and direct. "Okay" and "All right?" are used in common speech as interrogatives, although they can be interpreted as efforts to make sure that the other person understands what is being said. In this case, they are used to pressure the caller. JVP also applies pressure to the caller by his insistence on his statements. JVP uses a "forgiveness" platitude that again proves nothing. It is, again, a subtle question - JVP may have been trying to find out who killed Christy, and uses pressure to get the caller to respond with something about Christy's character. JVP claims that Christy came to the caller's dreams. This is almost guaranteed not to fail, but it proves nothing. In this case, the parent hasn't remembered any such dream, but few people do. If the caller had affirmed that Christy had appeared in dreams, JVP would have scored an easy hit. It would not be unusual for a parent to dream of a child they had lost.

JVP: Well, she said she's been in your dreams. And I also see a kitten. And I don't know why I'm being shown a cat, or kitten. But I don't know if she had a kitten or a cat?
CALLER: I called her "cat." Those were her initials.

Comments: Shifting the Burden. Direct Question. Insistence. Failing the dream guess, JVP insists that the girl had been in the caller's dreams. It can't be proven either way, so he can't lose. Again, JVP asks direct questions, and scores a lucky "hit". This kitten or cat could have been anybody's cat, or even a stuffed animal, or one of those silly clocks. Any cat motif would do. I don't think he was speculating about Christy's initials. I think he was using a common motif, possibly in a bid at redirection. At the least, JVP now knows that Christy did not have a cat.

JVP: Okay. Well, maybe that's why she's showing me this. But that's what I'm being given you. I'll tell you right now, she's there at night a lot around you in your dream state. I'm going to ask you also, did you have a little vegetable garden when she was alive?
CALLER: Her grandmother did.

Comments: Insistence. Direct Question. Redirection. JVP continues to insist upon the dream business. Very likely, the parent will now have dreams of Christy, since JVP has repeatedly pushed the idea. Again, JVP asks a direct question and the caller supplies important information. JVP now knows that there was a vegetable garden, and that the grandmother had the garden. It is almost a given that someone in the family had a vegetable garden. This is another redirection of the "reading". JVP is in complete control of the process.

JVP: Okay. And is her grandmother in spirit now?
CALLER: Yes.

Comments: Direct Question. Redirection. Another blatant question, with a very high chance of being a "hit", if it were an actual message instead of a question. The girl died in 1987 at age 15. Fifteen years have passed. Given a reasonably accurate guess as to the caller's age, JVP could reasonably guess the grandmother's age, and could reasonably guess whether or not the grandmother was alive. JVP plays it safe by again making the caller do the work. Regardless of the caller's answer, JVP has redirected the "reading" yet again by pursuing the grandmother lead. One has to wonder about the credibility of JVP when he has to ask such questions.

JVP: Okay. She's talking about helping her with that garden. Do you remember her helping with the vegetable garden?
CALLER: Yes.
JVP: You remember that?
CALLER: Yes.

Comments: Direct Question. JVP states the obvious. This follows logically from the answers previously given by the caller. Again, JVP is directing everything. He now knows that the girl helped the grandmother, and reinforces this "hit" by asking the caller if they remember it, even after the caller has "validated" his direct question.. Everything that follows is based on that knowledge.

JVP: With tomatoes and carrots, and she's talking about helping grandma doing this. She's with this grandmother, which must be your mother or something.
CALLER: Yes.

Comments: Insistence. Baiting. JVP reinforces his "hit" for the third time. Mother "or something"? Guaranteed "hit". The "or something" qualifier is the key. Grandma could have been any woman, given that condition. The caller doesn't respond to the "tomatoes and carrots" bait, but those are common things in most backyard gardens in the U.S. JVP now knows that the grandmother was the caller's mother. He repeats the part about Christy helping with the garden; this is reinforcement of the notion that he scored a "hit", when he did not.

JVP: She's connected with her, with you.
CALLER: Yes.

Comments: Insistence. JVP again states the obvious. Grandmother, by definition, is a family member, and JVP already knows from the caller's information that the grandmother had direct involvement with Christy. JVP also knows that the girl helped with the grandmother's garden. JVP knows that grandmother is the caller's mother. A connection? No kidding! JVP is keeping the focus on the grandmother by doing this. Please note that the caller's original request, to hear from the daughter, has been pushed aside.

JVP: Okay? I'm going to tell you something also. I don't know if there's a watch of hers you have and also a locket of some sort, but she's talking about that. I also want to tell you one more thing. Is there a footstool in your house?
CALLER: No.

Comments: Direct Question. Baiting. JVP tries to get hits by guessing at a watch and a locket "of some sort". It is common for people to have keepsakes left by departed loved ones. Elderly women often wear a combination watch/locket. JVP fails on his footstool guess, even though footstools are a common piece of furniture, especially for older folks.

JVP: Well, who puts their feet up? She helps someone put their feet up with a pillow underneath their feet. I don't know if she's helping grandma, but she's showing me putting a pillow underneath someone's feet.
CALLER: May have been my mother.
JVP: I think - would you check that out?

Comments: Insistence. Direct Question. Baiting. Shifting the Burden. JVP uses insistence once again. JVP has failed on the watch and locket guess, and on the footstool guess, so now he tries using pillows as bait. He still fails. Again, JVP makes a reasonable guess based on what he already knows, as evidenced by his reference to "who puts their feet up?" Obviously, he means the grandmother. The caller can't "validate" his guess, so JVP just tells her to "check that out". One has to wonder how the caller would be able to do that, since both the daughter and the grandmother are dead. The caller never received any clear messages from her daughter...or her mother…or from JVP, for that matter, who has scored two or three very weak "hits", if we use an extremely liberal definition of "hit".

Excerpt number 2

CALLER: . . . I lost my mom in December '97, my dad in January 2000. I was wondering if you...
JVP: I'm going to tell you there's somebody here with a cancer condition. Was it your dad?
CALLER: Yes.

Comments: Inflating the Chances. Direct Question. JVP uses the cancer ploy. Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the United States (cancer caused 20.3% of all deaths in 1999, second only to heart disease at 30.3%.) JVP relies on the safest guess possible. These guesses are actually questions. JVP directly asks if it was the caller's dad who had cancer. He really doesn't know! The caller has only affirmed that it was her dad that had cancer. The mother's cause of death is not mentioned. What JVP does next follows from the information the caller has given him. As previously mentioned, JVP can make a reasonable guess as to the age, gender, and ethnicity of the caller, based on voice alone, and from there a reasonable guess as to the age of the dead parents. This allows him to narrow his guesses and gives him other possibilities to guess at.

JVP: Because I feel cancer. And I feel lungs, also. I feel with him also, it could be emphysema at one point, too or trouble with his lungs breathing.
CALLER: The lungs it was my mother.

Comments: Inflating the Chances. By including respiratory illness, JVP increased his chances of a hit. Chronic lower respiratory illness is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. He now has more information to use. Respiratory ailments are frequently associated with heart disease. JVP's chances of a hit are well above 50%. Please note that JVP has missed on this guess by saying it was the father who had respiratory ailments.

JVP: Well, I am getting lungs and trouble breathing here. I also want to tell you that these two are very connected. I don't know. Did you say they passed very closely in time?
CALLER: Two years apart.

Comments: Insistence. JVP states the obvious. Lungs and breathing trouble connected? Obviously! Mom and dad connected? Obviously! JVP already knows when mom and dad died - by asking this seemingly pointless question, he can redirect the reading. When he says, "I don't know," it's the truth…

JVP: One of them had a brother over there who met them when they passed over. Hadn't seen this brother for a very long time, Okay.
CALLER: Yes. That would be my father, he had a couple brothers.

Comments: Baiting. It is unlikely that two only children would be married to each other, thus, JVP has high chances for a "hit" with part one of this two-part guess, especially if he's arrived at a reasonable guess as to the age of the dead parents. Older folks often have siblings who have died. The guess about them not having "…seen this brother for a very long time,…" is not affirmed. It cannot be proven that mom and dad were met by one of dad's brothers "over there". The caller does not respond to the bait about this particular brother (who would be the caller's uncle.) JVP now knows that dad had "a couple" of brothers, and that the mother did not.

JVP: Well, there was a brother there for a long time. He hadn't seen him. He was very impressed - he was very happy to see this guy. Your father, by the way, didn't believe in this sort of thing. Very skeptical of this sort of thing. But he is a true believer now. A name Joseph comes in also. Or Joe. And that's interesting, very strong in front of me.
CALLER: I don't know who that is.

Comments: Baiting. Platitude. JVP's platitude about how happy dad was to see his brother can't be proven, of course. Besides, who wouldn't be happy to see a loved one in the afterlife? JVP brings up a guess/question (a "guesstion"?) about someone named Joe, but fails, even though Joseph is the one of the most common names in the United States. In 2001, it was the sixth-most-popular name. JVP slips in a subtle jab at skeptics. This is done to bolster his credibility and to bait the caller for a response about dad's skepticism. Anyone would become a "true believer" if they discovered that there is an afterlife.

JVP: Did you have to give your mother medications?
CALLER: Did I have to give her?

Comments: Redirection. Failing on Joseph/Joe, JVP redirects the reading by asking about medications. Older folks are extremely likely to be taking medications for various conditions. Please note, once again, that the question always precedes the guess or purported communication. JVP's question is a given, based on the information already known, i.e. the lung problems, and the age of the parents. He really can't miss on this one; the answer is already obvious. Unfortunately for JVP, the caller did not administer any medications, and his guess fails.

JVP: Who gave her the medications? She's telling me that there were medications that she had to receive.
CALLER: She did have a lot of medications, nothing I gave her directly.

Comments: Insistence. Pressure. Shifting the Burden. JVP insists upon the medication issue. Apparently he's desperate for a "hit". JVP knows that the mother must have been taking medication, given her illness. Again, older folks are extremely likely to be taking medications for various conditions.

JVP: But there was a schedule of medications she had to get. Every hour. She had to receive medications. I also want to ask you, is there a box of hers you have? A jewelry box?
CALLER: No.

Comments: Insistence. Pressure. Shifting the Burden. Redirection. Again, the medications business is a given, based on what is already known of the mother's illness. Having no real success with the medication angle despite his insistence, JVP pushes the "reading" in another direction by asking about a jewelry box, something commonly passed down from elder women. Based on this question, one can guess that the caller is a woman, because it's not a question JVP would have asked a man. JVP's chances of a "hit" are very high with this one. Remember the first reading and JVP's questions about the watch and locket? This is the same thing. JVP fails again, though.

JVP: Who has a box of hers, like a jewelry box of some sort?
CALLER: Oh, god, I don't - I don't know.

Comments: Insistence. Pressure. Shifting the Burden. Having failed on the guess, JVP now tries to better his chances by widening the possibilities, probably thinking that someone in the family must have something left by the departed mother. It's clear that he doesn't know and that he's receiving nothing from the dead mother.

KING: We are running out of time.

Comments: Lucky for JVP. He was really embarrassing himself. Lucky for us, too - the nonsense is almost over.

JVP: Well, I'm being shown it, and it has flowers on it.

Comments: Insistence. JVP, unwilling to take his lumps, gets the last word and goes out insisting that he's being "shown" the jewelry box, and throws in a flower motif. This is just more bait for the caller to make a connection with later.

Postlude

These examples show that, at least on TV "call-in" shows, giving a performance as a psychic medium is not complicated. A logical method can be seen in the seemingly random questions asked and statements made by the would-be medium. As long as the caller or "sitter" is willing to volunteer information in response to such prompts, the would-be medium's performance is made much easier.

As I said at the beginning, the list of tricks is brief. There are other techniques which you may discover on your own. The next time you watch someone who claims to receive communication from the dead, see if you can find the pattern in their patter.

If you wish to try these methods yourself, have the courtesy to inform your "victim" that you really don't possess psychic powers. Keep your act simple. Ask direct questions, guess at common ailments, throw in a few platitudes, redirect if your guesses go wrong, make the sitter do the thinking, insist that your guess is correct, and never let the sitter have the last word.

Above all else, never forget that you're pretending, lest you be caught in your own game.

Posted by: Pyrrho at 12:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 3866 words, total size 29 kb.