The PEA membership is a diverse body that can't be presumed to speak with a unified voice on this issue. Of the great mentalists I know, every one that I respect implies the use of powers or mental skills in excess of those he actually posesses. Curiously, the same holds for magicians that I respect. This probably says more for my aesthetic views than for anything else. I would hasten to add that many of the mentalists I am thinking of, perhaps most, do sincerely believe in the existence of those same powers.

You ask if some of us are claiming powers not available to the general public. I would think that inherent in most mentalists' spiels is the implied claim that these powers are indeed avaiable or 'latent' in all, not the other way around. This is a common subtext to mentalism performances.

For my part, I believe that one of the things mentalism is particularly capable of accomplishing as a performing art is the critique of the overwhelming arrogance inherent in 'belief systems.' It does this by forcing us to confront real mystery, the possibility that much of what we think we know about the functioning of the world may be false. One of the ways to accomplish this goal, I think, is to suggest or imply that that there may be some reality lurking beneath our feats, even if that reality is only a part of the total explanation. It is important to note that this mystery is presented in a theatrical context, a world where reasonable people should expect that things are often not as they seem.

--Chris

This may be excellent and thought provoking conversation
but the behaviour it masks is totally reprehensible.
A relative tells Doctor A about the medicine
that Doctor B has put him on. Would Doctor A tell his relative that it was a placebo? Would he tell him that there was no proper medicine for his illness?
Of course he wouldn't.
Would he go away and write a book exposing the use of placebos?
I don't think so.
This is, even to me, overly dramatic but here is my real point:
Do Doctors have a rule about not writing books about placebos written into the code of ethics?
I don't think so
They are supposed to behave ethically in all situations. If there is ANY doubt about the ethics of their behaviour, they seek the guidance of their peer group.
If people were sincere in wanting to help vulnerable people they would put their stuff up on the internet for free access.
Putting it out in books, videos and lectures for money??? I ask you.

Let's revisit a definition of exposure.

Here's the scenario. I decide to get in on web chat room that is devoted to psychic discussion. As I am chatiing, I decide to give a "c" reading knowing that the person I am chatting with really believes in all this.

After I make a number of hits and the individual believes I have a psychic ability, I explain that I am not a psychic, but rather simply using psychological principles to convince them of my ability. I don't tip anything in particular.

This isn't a hypothetical scenario. I have done this while researching the issues.

Is this exposure in anyone's opinion?

Terry

Not exposure IMO as it is a disclaimer about YOU.

The difference between that, and your original question of "attempting to educate people about fraud and deception", is that the latter goes beyond making a personal disclaimer. Making a blanket disclaimer for others is not only presumptuous, it's futile.

For example, if you are of the belief that John Edward is a fake and is just using CR techniques (another debate in itself), talking about the method either directly or indirectly with lay people does not really prove that is what he does. It only exposes the method you used.

So why do it?

Lots of food for thought on these post BTW. Much appreciated.

JR

I agree, not exposure. You didn't "expose" anything. Now, had you said, "I'm not really psychic, I was just CRing...that, by the way, means that I was....blah blah blah" THEN it would be exposure.

Exposure? I don't know.

Patronizing? In my opinion, yes!

--Chris