Status: Psychic mumbo-jumbo
This week Channel Five in the UK will begin airing a documentary about Derek Ogilvie, a guy who claims to be a "Baby Mind Reader." That's right, he can read the minds of infants and tell desperate parents why their little darlings won't sleep, or why they're fussy about eating, or why they cry all the time, etc., etc.
The Scotsman has a pretty sympathetic article about him, describing him as a "respected Scottish medium."
The Sunday Times, however, rakes him over the coals much more, pointing out that:
He used to drive a Rolls Royce and own three of Glasgow’s most fashionable bars until a nightclub venture failed six years ago and he was declared bankrupt. Now he has reinvented himself as a psychic who claims to be able to communicate telepathically with babies.
Ogilvie says that he understands people are skeptical of his claims, but that he's willing to submit himself to rigorous scientific scrutiny to prove his abilities. Yeah, I've heard that before. Psychics and other charlatans say this all the time, but if they ever actually submit themselves to any tests and then fail them (as they inevitably do) they're full of all kinds of excuses: "The negative energy of the researcher blocked my powers," etc.
BadPsychics.co.uk has examined some tapes of Ogilvie in action and concludes that he's simply
cold reading (i.e. throwing out random guesses in the hope that some of them will strike gold). They write that: "It is bad enough to take advantage of grieving people for your own gain, but to take advantage of children and a Mothers love for her children, both dead and alive, is a whole new level of evil." (Thanks to Kathy for the heads up about Ogilvie.)
Comments
We have been watching Derek Ogilvie for some time now, and after last nights TV show I am glad we did.
It was exploitation of the highest degree.
I am not sure who I am more angry at, Derek Ogilvie for peddling this nonsense, or the Production company for making the program.
No, really, you have to wonder about parents who, confronted with a crying baby, turn immediately to a self-proclaimed "mind-reader" instead of a health professional. Guess they weren't paying attention during that particular pre-natal class...
Then again...Jocelynn never cried unless she was hurt as an infant. (Rashes, teething, etc.)
Gotta go now. I have to check out the Free Psychic Reading Google ads at the top of this page.
Anyway, Randi's response was to Captain Al was:
"I don't go out of my way to prove myself, nor do I use my web page for frivolous puposes..."
Very Randi-esque. (I'm also wondering if James Randi thought that 'Captain Al' was me.)
The other reason was to get you some well-deserved and free publicity. I don't think mentioning the Museum of Hoaxes in Randi's weekly commentary would be frivolous.
Unless C5 has actually depicted events in ways which simply did not occur, on both occasions the effect of the "diagnosis" and "remedy" was materially positive. AND this all allegedly after the respective couples had exhausted help from social services and other conventional forms of support.
OK, so maybe his business failures have forced him to exercise his "innate financial genius" a la "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and he chanced upon this ability. Given the positive outcomes, is that such a bad thing? OK, the end may not justify the means, but I haven't observed in these programmes anything that remotely suggests the means themselves were not perfectly reasonable. Both the family situations depicted in the programmes I saw were already dysfunctional - it just took someone with enough perception and courage of conviction (even if born out of the need to make a living!) to analyse the situation and apply the necessary corrective measures. Maybe the professional support agencies' failure was due to their inability to diagnose the underlying problem in the family relationships and/or to enforce a fix. (And yes, no doubt having your dirty linen exposed on prime-ish time TV helps to motivate for a solution)...
http://www.theskepticexpress.com/index.php
Just goes to show seeing is not necessarily believing.
http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/search.php?query=ogilvie&mid=2&action=showall&andor=AND
Now to understand cold reading.
Well cold reading is the very art of making people believe that you know things that you have no way of knowing, sound familiar?
Well it should
Derek Ogilvie uses this technique.
And if you do not understand how it works then you simply cannot dismiss it as a possibility.
We PROVED as fact that Derek lied on GMTV about prior knowledge of someone.
We have shown as fact that he gleans info from the people he reads for.
I am sure he is a nice man, he has to be to trick people.
It must be hard for anyone to accept something they believe in deerly as fake, and sometimes people will ignore the mistakes, and just accept the correct info given.
Look at all the evidence about him, and then ask yourself what is more likely?
He is using KNOWN psychological techniques to convince people he is psychic.
or
He is breaking all the laws of physics and is on a par with Jesus when it comes to his abilities.
What do you think?
I think there maybe somethings that can't be explained. I think that "breaking all the laws of physics" is a very rash statement - remember when the world was flat?
Maybe he gets it wrong sometimes. Does that mean all weathermen are fakes because the also get it wrong a lot of the time?
Why is he on a par with Jesus? Don't remember Jesus doing the sort of things Derek is doing...or did I miss that bit in the Bible?
I did read through your "articles" on him - and I have also read through a lot of other articles on him. I have to say they didn't convince me either way. I have to admit I am still a bit sceptical about Mr Ogilvie however I am far more sceptical about your level of "expertise".
As a father (you do have children don't you Jon?) I can sympathise with the parents that were on the programmes. You will do anything to make your child happy and if nothing else has worked - including the professionals - you will do anything that might. As Derek had such a good effect on ALL the familes, why do you not start up a site called BadSocialWorkers.com?
Just a thought :o)