Monday, 26 January 2009
Dan Hemmens was going to call this one “Restrictions of the Medium”
Uh-oh! This is in the Axis of Awful...
~
I see your little Philip now, he's tall and short with black fair hair. His deep brown-blue eyes shine so bright, he plays all day without a care.
Philip Jeays, 'Little Philip'
The first thing I want to say is that I have a deep seated, abiding hatred of “psychics.” Possibly it's because I hung out with the alternative set at university and approximately 40% of my friendship group believed they had some kind of supernatural power. Possibly it's because I'm a jaded old cynic who has lost his sense of the wondrous.
Mostly, though, I think it's something to do with the whole “conning bereaved people out of money by making them think you can talk to their dead children” aspect of the whole deal.
So let's get this out in the open. Psychics, particularly spiritualists, particularly the kind who offer to put you in touch with dead relatives for money are the worst kinds of frauds, charlatans and conmen. They're cynical parasites who feed off human misery. They specifically target the most vulnerable of people and exploit them. They're filth.
And if anybody is even considering drawing the comparison between these vultures and legitimate religions, go away and do some cursory research. Spiritualism always was and always will be a scam, one which very specifically uses the most cynical and manipulative techniques of stage magic and street hustling to get money out of the grief stricken.
One such bloodsucking cynical con-artist is Allison Dubois. Allison Dubois is a psychic who managed to convince a gullible moron who works in broadcasting to make an entire TV series dedicated to making her look like the fucking messiah.
The TV series Medium is about a psychic called Allison Dubois (the real Allison Dubois being credited as a “consultant”) who gives up her not-actually-very-promising law degree to use her “gift” to “help” people by giving meaningless information to the police which, by the magic of television, becomes the key to solving murders and (frequently) stopping rapists, serial killers, and serial killing rapists.
The series has problems both as the television show it pretends to be and as the despicable, reason-hating propaganda it actually is. It's sort of a mystery show, except it isn't, because there is not (and can be) no actual investigation of the mystery. Allison “just knows” things and the structure of an episode will always be about her convincing people to accept these things she knows. She never works anything out (it isn't the role of the medium to interpret what she is told) and there is never any other evidence (the show doesn't like evidence) so every episode is just a question of waiting for Allison to tell you what happened.
Let's be more specific about this.
Every episode follows the same basic formula: Allison will have a vision. It will be completely fucking useless (more on this later). She will go to the DA (for whom she works as a consultant) and tell him about the vision. The DA will say “well that's great, now we know exactly what happened, but we need to find a way to prove it”. Then somebody else will say “but you can't base your case on a psychic's prediction”. Then the DA will go out and dig up some evidence that supports Allison's prediction, then the other guy who doesn't believe in psychics will either (a) immediately decide that she's totally real after all and beg for her forgiveness or (b) turn psycho and yell at her, at which point Allison will whisper, very quietly, something like “you can't intimidate me Mr [BLANK], I'm not the girl you raped in college” at which point they will be rightly cowed.
Every. Single. Episode.
I found the early episodes of Medium fascinating, for roughly the same reasons I find Holocaust Denial fascinating. It's an insight into a totally alien worldview and there's a certain amount of fun to be had pointing at the glaring holes in the logic (not least of which is “not everybody who doesn't believe in psychics is a rapist”). The interesting thing about it is that it basically presents a world that works exactly the way psychics try to con you into believing it works: the spirits of the dead contact Allison with maddeningly vague information and then, through the magic of television, events arrange themselves to show that she was totally right all along.
And that's sort of the problem with the show as drama. Because its primary function is to promote and justify the work of psychics and spiritualists, Allison can never, under any circumstances, be wrong about anything. Nor can anybody use any method other than her visions to solve the crimes she is out to solve (because that would undermine the value of their resident psychic). What this means is that every episode basically revolves around seeing exactly how Allison will be proven right this week.
What's even more interesting is that the ways she is proven “right” frequently revolve around classic cold-reading techniques. For instance in one episode she is given the cryptic message “Australia” and then notices that a mole on her husband's back (which he is having to get biopsied) is “shaped like Australia”. In another she dreams that she is being chased through an airport by a wolf, and at the end of the episode she is chased by an evil policeman called Detective Wolfe. Now on the one hand this is quite clever narrative construction, on the other hand it's exactly the sorts of methods that real “psychics” use every day to convince people they know more than they do. “Not a wolf, but a man named Wolfe, or a wolf-like man” is a short logical step from the old classic “I'm getting a message from an older man … your father? No? But … he was like a father to you.”
The scam that is spiritualism relies on the mark's belief that the spiritualist has absolute authority. The subject willingly allows the psychic to dictate their own feelings and emotions on a subject, in order to help the construction of a lie they desperately want to believe in. In the same way, Allison is allowed to entirely dictate the “reality” of the series. What she says is true, is true, and we are frequently asked to accept it without evidence.
A particularly insulting example of this came in the last episode I could bear to watch before giving up entirely and going to play World of Warcraft. In this particular episode Allison meets a man who is presented to her as a model citizen. He meets her because he reports a burglary, gives an accurate description of the subject, agrees to testify in court and generally acts like a standup good citizen. Allison, however, is convinced (by her gift) that he is actually - you guessed it - a serial rapist and murderer (“he's drawn to their innocence. He rapes them, bathes them, rapes them again, then when he can no longer convince himself that they are still innocent, he kills them”). But however much she gets the cops to look into this guy she can find no evidence that there's anything wrong with him. She also “knows” (remember she “knows” things) that his first victim is a red headed college girl named “Sharona” but again nobody can find any evidence of this Sharona in any missing persons reports.
Anybody care to guess how this one ends? Remember how I said that the interesting thing about Medium is how it relies on the classic tricks of cold reading? Well how about this one: “and you've just recently had somebody new come into your life - a man with, give me a moment, with dark hair. No? No, you're right. The spirits are telling me that this person will come into your life, very soon…”
Yes, the resolution to that particular episode is that this guy is going to become a sexually sadistic serial killer in the future.
What's scary about this episode is that the audience is expected to take this entirely at face value. When Allison confronts Mr Wonderful and says “I know you haven't killed anybody yet, but you want to, and I know you want to” we are, as always, expected to utterly respect her authority. We are expected to condemn this guy as a serial rapist and murderer because Allison Dubois says he is.
In a purely fantasy TV show, I would have less of a problem with this. I loved Buffy and Angel, I was totally down with Doyle and Cordelia getting visions, and Angel using them to save people. I'm actually quite into prophecy as a plot device on the rare occasions that it's handled well. The problem with Medium, though, is that the show is transparently written by people who genuinely believe in this shit (the pilot opens with a white-on black splash screen saying “There really is an Allison. Really.” And of course she's a consultant on the show). That's all kinds of scary. The idea that the moron who commissioned the series might (say) divorce his or her partner, or hell, accuse somebody of being a rapist, just because Allison Dubois has a funny feeling about them and that scares the fuck out of me.
Themes: TV & Movies
~
bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit
~
Oh, and I seem to recall that they had no problem with saying "yeah, your son's definitely dead, he was hung by a nasty man over in those woods" directly to the family.
I recently saw a play performed called "Repressed Desires" about a woman who had fallen under the spell of crap "psychology", and went around trying to convince people that completely arbitrary actions on their part- dropping a plate and breaking it, for example- was a sign that there was something deeply wrong in their lives, and they just hadn't realized it yet. This ended up leading to everyone she talked to being absolutely miserable because they were now afraid that something was horribly wrong, even though they had been perfectly happy before this woman came bursting into their lives. The idea that someone could convince themselves that what they were saying was true- even if it wasn't- and that they were helping people by promoting this bunk is, I think, even scarier than a conman posing as a psychic, because someone like that would be much harder to stop. Greed is one thing; belief is another.
On the opposite end of the crap-medium spectrum, I recall that Kelley Armstrong writes a "psychic" character in one of her books who knows perfectly well that she's lying through her teeth, but soothes her conscience by telling herself that she's helping the families get closure by saying that their loved ones are happy in the afterlife. That could be argued for or against, but since she isn't pretending to solve murders, she's much less harmful than this Dubois person.
I believe there are still Spiritualists who will do cold readings for free, as part of standard Spiritualist Church services. (My great-grandfather was one.) You wonder whether they're as conscious as the Armstrong character, or whether they've tricked themselves into believing that cold reading is the dead talking to you, as opposed to you half-consciously picking up on people's cues.
And they're right.
(ON that note, anybody else watch "Psych"? I'm still not sure what the cops in that show think about their "psychic"- whether they believe in him because of his success rate or are suspicious of him because of it.)
Hello, everyone, by the way. I've been lurking for a few months now, and just figured out how OpenID works.
This is way off base but, by sheer coincidence I was recently reading a book about Victorian spiritualism (The Darkened Room, or something) which was fascinating; it's main thesis - which I shall recount badly now - was that spiritualism offered a way for women to act outside the normal limitations of their class and gender, while paradoxically also being circumscribed by the same limitations since women were thought to be good mediums precisely because of their innate passivity, the same quality that made them - according to the conception and construction of gender roles at the time - incapable of coping with the world at large and better off staying at home all the time. I mention this mainly because it's interesting; and even now mediumship (if that's the term) seems to me to be still be very much a female-dominated sphere.
Also welcome to Fb, it's lovely when lurkers come out to play - and isn't Open-ID awesome? Thanks to Rami. I haven't seen or actually heard of Psych ... but I just looked it up on Amazon and it looks fun. Also, isn't that President Bartlet's assistant on the box cover? Shouldn't he be at work?! ;)
This certainly seems to be the case, although I'll note that as far as mediums who break onto our TV screens go the field tends to be very male dominated; Derek Acorah from Most Haunted is the guy who springs to mind, and I seem to remember that most of the guest mediums he brings on are guys too. The team of people who meddle in missing persons cases that offended Julian and I are mainly dudes, if I remember right, and most of the cold reading shows I've seen that actually make it to television-land are hosted by men.
I don't know whether this means that men have taken over the field since Victorian times, or whether it just means that male mediums are more inclined to accept fat cheques and wide publicity for their work. (It's notable that none of the shows I've seen bother to make any mention of the Spiritualist Church, in fact, so it may be that TV psychics tend to fall outside of the traditional establishments mediums previously flocked to.)
. . . I'm sorry, that was wildly off-topic. *slinks away*
Still, I wouldn't be quite so fast to ditch psychic phenomena as a possibility. As far as I know, it's never been disproved, and while the concept seems silly from our modern Western-educated perspective, we know that if history is anything to go by, many of today's wild fancies will be solid facts in a hundred years' time, and many “solid facts” we know today will turn out to be complete rubbish.
My understanding of scientific skepticism is that it espouses doubt but rejects certainty, because we can never know with absolute certainty that we're right. This is as true for the nonexistence of psychic phenomena as their existence.
Not defending psychic charlatans (a category which I'm pretty sure includes 99.9% of self-identified psychics); just saying that just because someone who claims to be an alien is demonstrably terrestrial does not in itself disprove the existence of aliens.
Sure, and once the psychics are able to achieve feats comparable to the discovery of vaccination and the moon landings they'll be able to claim that they are closer to truth than professional scientists.
I'm not even saying I necessarily believe psychic powers exist; just that I'm careful not to get dogmatic about claiming they don't.
I hope you later read The Minority Report... :)
Nobody has ever "proved" that nobody has psychic powers, because you can't prove that kind of thing. On the other hand people have regularly proved that specific individuals do not have psychic powers.
Once you are presented with a choice that goes:
a) Psychic powers exist, but they have somehow miraculously escaped reliable detection and observation, despite the fact that a great many people have made great efforts to do so.
b) Psychic powers do not exist.
Then choosing (b) isn't dogmatism, it's pure application of Occam's razor. Keeping an open mind about the existence of psychic powers is like keeping an open mind about whether the sun will rise in the morning.
See also: http://www.xkcd.com/373/
Maybe I will, sometime. I've read the Wikipedia summary of both the original story and the movie. Sounds like it could be a good story, anyway.
Nobody has ever "proved" that nobody has psychic powers, because you can't prove that kind of thing.
Which is precisely why, while I staunchly believe that God does not exist, I'm careful to stop short of claiming to know that God does not exist.
And I ascribe to neither a) nor b). I just recognize the possibility that Psychic powers might exist—in a wildly less flashy and mystical way than Hollywood depicts, which might account for the fact that nobody has been able to find them so far (assuming for the moment they do exist): everybody's been looking in the wrong places. It's also worth remembering, every once in a while, that we can never know with 100% certainty that the sun will rise in the morning.
(Thanks for the link; that was pretty funny)
I'm not trying to convince anybody here, just trying to explain my reasoning. I just feel like there's a lot of arrogance in modern Western educated thought, thinking we know pretty much how the universe works by now, and what is and isn't possible, when the likelihood is that a lot of the stuff we take for granted today will turn out to be complete bollocks farther down the road.
That'll do for the film (which I remember mostly for the really impressive amounts of product placement), but the story really deserves a read. (But then so do most of Philip K Dick's stories (except the ones littered with really really obvious Catholic allegory)).
As FB's biggest fan of Dick (HURR HURR) I've got to correct you on this:
- PKD wasn't a Catholic. He was a billion different things, especially in his last years when his religious views changed on a daily basis in response to the pink laser that controlled his mind.
- PKD was not the C.S. Lewis of New Wave SF. Had Lewis survived to read Faith of Our Fathers or The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch he'd have probably had a bad case of the vapours and would have needed to write another Space Trilogy to recover, like when Lindsay's A Voyage to Arcturus gave him a crisis of faith.
If anything, whenever God shows up in PKD's work a) a hell of a lot of time he's not disguised by allegory or metaphor (although he might be disguised by holographic trickery or hiding at the bottom of a bong) and b) he's usually being a huge douchebag to people. Except when he's female, in which case he's all wispy and unattainable and benign and totally not Dick working through his dead sister issues.
And I ascribe to neither a) nor b). I just recognize the possibility that Psychic powers might exist—in a wildly less flashy and mystical way than Hollywood depicts, which might account for the fact that nobody has been able to find them so far (assuming for the moment they do exist): everybody's been looking in the wrong places.
So psychic powers might exist, but if they do they don't look or behave or work in the way people believe psychic powers do? One would question the utility of calling them "psychic powers" in that case...
It's also worth remembering, every once in a while, that we can never know with 100% certainty that the sun will rise in the morning.
Yes, but if someone acted as though the Sun might not come up tomorrow they would still be bugfuck crazy.
I also am a big fan of Dick.
(this joke will never get old).
I don't like The Pre-Persons either - it's far and away his worst (I can't think of any story of his which comes close to being that bad) - and aside from the politics it also comes across as horribly petty and vindictive, about as subtle as a brick.
Psychic powers, if they exist at all, probably do not consist of reading minds, throwing around furniture like so many toothpicks, or see the future. However, I am open to the possibility that people might, with some mental sense as yet undiscovered, be able to intuit other people's emotional states, or produce small but measurable microkinetic changes.
Most importantly, I think any psychic powers which do exist (if they exist) would be scientifically explainable. Sure, such a discovery would probably provoke an upheaval on the order of the tectonic plates or the wave/particle revelations, but after the furor had settled down we'd be back on track.
Certainly, I don't live my life as if psychic powers were real. Even if scientific studies published reports which seemed to suggest psychic activity, I'd be highly skeptical. However, I don't want to be like those skeptics who went to their deaths denying that the Earth's crust rests on tectonic plates or that particles have wave functions and vice versa, no matter how much evidence other scientists produced. One of the ways I see of protecting myself from that kind of thinking is to remind myself often "Well, you don't know for sure."
Getting back to the Dick discussion (and pointedly circumnavigating any double entendres, I suppose I really shall have to look into his stuff at some point. If I can find it on audiocassette at one of my local libraries, then probably somewhere in the next 6-12 months. If not ... maybe somewhere in the next decade.
Oh, and that article Arthur cites is almost three years old. If he hasn't shown up to trouble us anywhere in the mean time, I doubt there's any reason for concern. (*tempting fate*)
If you don't mind me asking, arkan, is there a particular reason you prefer audiobooks?
Don't mind at all. I learned to read probably a little later than most, so there was a time in my life when audiobooks were either the only way to "read" books or just much easier than the alternatives, so I've always been very fond of them. I don't know that I'd exactly say that I "prefer" audiobooks anymore, but the still have a few advantages; I can listen to them at times when it would not be feasible to read a book, and due to various factors relating to opportunity, studies, and my reading pace, I generally get through audiobooks about eight times faster than regular books. The key thing though is that my reading list is massive (I'm sure you can relate) whereas the list of books that I want to read which are also on audio is much smaller. Any book I want to read which is on audio is one I'm likely to get to a lot quicker than one that's not.