Speaking of convergence, why don’t more psychics agree in their readings about a particular client? It appears each psychic paints a different picture. How can you believe in one over the others? The distinction lies between merely saying different things about a client on the one hand, and saying inconsistent things about that client on the other hand. Saying different things is not such a big problem. Given the sensitive nature of psychic communication, it should come as no surprise that one psychic would pick up an impending job change and another pick up marriage. Some psychics even specialize in certain types of issues and, from the standpoint of their own sensitivity, they are less likely to pick up on others. Such a situation is no different in principle from different physicians, particularly specialists, telling you different things about your health.
What about contradictions? Again, this is not such a bad thing, although it does give cause for more attention. All economists, psychologists, religious leaders your best friends, and scientists occasionally contradict each other. The reason they give is, with additional information, the contradiction could be resolved. This is applicable to the psychic scene. Very few, if any, psychics would claim to have the whol picture in view. The long-term record of a given psychic is a more significant factor than a short-term contradiction with another psychic.
If you like to play numbers, simply consult a number of the best psychics you can find and let the majority rule.
Contradictions, especially from two good readers whom you trust, also provide an important clue to the dynamic nature of your etheric plane projections and possibilities. You may not have decided, either consciously or subconsciously, which direction you will take at a particular crossroads in your life. Or the direction your Higher Self would urge you to take may not be the same as you are considering. In other words, the contradiction may reside within you, not in your readers. No reputable psychic wants to be put in the position of deciding for you. Their job is to help you see the issue more clearly and to understand the implications of either course of action.
Skeptics will say, psychics’ hits and misses will roughly cancel each other out – which is what the laws of chance would predict. If so, then who is truly psychic? When your skeptical friend presents this line of argument, get ready to establish some important distinctions and ground rules.
To begin, you will have to agree on what constitutes clear hits or misses or neutral zones. Then you will have to decide how many weeks, months or years should be taken into account. A couple of readings is not a fair test for either the skeptic or the believer. Finally, your skeptic friend would have to be prepared to make significant qualitative distinctions within the hit or miss columns you have established. A spectacular hit such as, “You will receive a check for $100,000 next month from an unknown person,” is hardly counterbalanced by an average miss such as, “You are going to have car trouble in the next two months.”
It should be evident that it would be almost impossible for the skeptic to make good on this claim in a reasonably objective manner, given the importance of many preliminary agreements that would have to be reached. However, taking the matter this far misses an important point, namely, whether your reader did you any good.
Suppose your reader made one profound point that actually helped chart your life in a more positive direction, but blew the rest of the reading away with misses or insignificant material. The important question is: “What did you receive in return for your money?” Suppose your reader had been correct with all the less significant material, but missed the big opportunity. Which way would you prefer to have it? These are matters that escape simple quantitative analysis.
One final matter regarding hit/miss ratios deserves attention. Skeptics often point to the high number of spectacular misses registered by psychics who play to the readership of the “National Enquirer.” From what we can tell, there are indeed far more misses than hits with these public predictions. If anything, it represents an inversion of the average 80 percent hit ratio claimed by most psychics. For money, fame or other reasons, some psychics are willing to play the game of high stakes’ predictions, perhaps hoping to make one spectacular call (which they can then fall back on the rest of their lives). Such forced calls at a distance are, by their very nature, more prone to error. But even when there are a large number of spectacular misses, the hit/miss ratio needs to be determined in light, of the total number of calls, obth public and private, over a period of several months. No one appears to have done such a detailed comprehensive study.
Earlier we discussed the charge that ESP and related phenomena h ad not, in fact, been scientifically proven. Part of the rationale underlying that charge is the deep-seated believe that such phenomena just cannot exist because they violate established models and laws which we already know to be true.
Discussions of evidence for and against ESP, or of hit/miss ratios, just miss the point according to this line of reasoning. How, it is asked, can we believe in phenomena that in various facets involve faster-than-light travel (which nothing can do), or seeing a future that does not exist, or healing at a distance (when the energy is all in our heads), or violating the inverse-square law that governs all electromagnetic radiation, or seeing out of one’s body with no physical eyes, and so forth? The problem is not that psychic phenomena have not been adequately explained. It is that the shape of such explanations would necessarily violate other established laws.
This type of skeptical attitude is very difficult to counter, because it is very close to simply refusing to believe in advance. There is no way to convince a person who really refuses to look into the matter. For some, it may be possible to enroll them directly in some project, such as a course in psychic healing, a scientific experiment in clairvoyance, or a reading with a psychic who is completely unknown to them. Personal experience can soften things up.
If your skeptic friend remains at the level of just talking about whether such phenomena are possible, rather than directly experiencing them, it needs to be pointed out that the entire history of science is filled with defenders of established theories who have had to give up in the light of new data. Isaac Newton would have rejected Albert Einstein’s views. As the saying goes, “Today’s magic has a way of becoming tomorrow’s science.”
The challenge is to develop newer and broader conceptual frameworks that will accommodate not just paranormal phenomena, but also the events covered by today’s science. The Holographic Paradigm discussed earlier is one such example, but it is by no means the only one. In the end, it may be just the level of strangeness can subside. After all, television, rockets and computers would probably be no stranger to the ancient Greeks than psychic phenomena are to many today. My prediction in this regard is that, by the year 2,000 A.D., psychic phenomena and the psychic reading will be very much a part of our scientific, personal and practical outlook on the world.
Source: Selecting Your Psychic – written by Victoria lynn Weston and Mark Woodhouse, Ph.D