Should "clairvoyants", "psychics", etc. need a license?

[Einzige]

I'm inclined to think so. Typically I operate under the assumption that most businesses are basically honest, and ought to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, even though most businesses certainly are duplicitous on a minor scale. I make exception to this principle, however, when it comes to cold readers: in my opinion, their 'industry' ought to be legally regarded as a confidence scam and regulated under the same laws which apply to all such cases.

There are instances where such activities become a legitimate public nuisance. Perhaps the most notorious 'psychic' in modern times who has literally had a negative impact on the public is Sylvia Browne. I'm thinking in particular of her infamous appearance on The Montel Williams Show in 2003, in which she told the parents of Shawn Hornbeck, a boy missing from his Richwood, Missouri home, that he was dead and that his body could be found in a certain location. Hornbeck was found alive and well three years later, in a location totally different from the one she described after being held hostage by a man who was nothing like what she said he'd be. In the interim her lies caused a police diversion in which, treating her statements as if they were authentic, the local police force spent precious manhours searching the region, of course to no avail.

It seems obvious to me that they ought to be licensed. I'd suggest a system such as this:

1. All clairvoyants must be licensed, and no television station, radio station, or other host of advertisement under public regulation may place an ad with the clairvoyant without such a license.

2. No unlicensed clairvoyant may appear in any media formate without a license and prior FCC consent.

3. Clairvoyants must prove they have the abilities they profess to have, through any test they deem suitable.

(Of course, I'd argue this ought also apply to 'faith healers', televangelists, and other such frauds, though unfortunately there is absolutely no political will at all to do this in the United States, and there will likely be none in my lifetime.)

[Serafina]

The last condition makes the whole thing redundant - so far, no one has ever demonstrated any such abilities under a rigorous test.

My opinion:
These people are frauds who prey upon the superstitious. Not only do they take money for doing basically nothing, but such activities can cause further harm.
Forbidding such things, at least those operating on a greater scale, would be a good thing.

[Nathaniel]

They should definitely be licensed. And made to go through regular professional examination in a properly controlled environment so that they're all banned from spouting their shite onto tv and radio. Throw in the homeopaths, faith healers, and all the others who think it's ok to make objectively false claims.

[Einzige]

The last condition makes the whole thing redundant - so far, no one has ever demonstrated any such abilities under a rigorous test.

Precisely.

Still, outright banning them from practice would probably be struck down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, particularly by our present, socially conservative Supreme Court. So a licensing system that required they prove themselves through rigorous testing, just as a new drug must be approved after rigorous testing by the FDA, is probably still skirting the limits of political feasibility in this country.

[Serafina]

Precisely.

Still, outright banning them from practice would probably be struck down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, particularly by our present, socially conservative Supreme Court. So a licensing system that required they prove themselves through rigorous testing, just as a new drug must be approved after rigorous testing by the FDA, is probably still skirting the limits of political feasibility in this country.

I do not know the US laws well enough to make a truly qualified comment on that, but surely there must be a method to sue them for fraud? After all, they promise something they do not deliver.

Merely enforcing accountability for that should be enough to seriously reduce such fraudulent behaviour.

[Einzige]

I do not know the US laws well enough to make a truly qualified comment on that, but surely there must be a method to sue them for fraud? After all, they promise something they do not deliver.

Merely enforcing accountability for that should be enough to seriously reduce such fraudulent behaviour.

Nope. Not one. In fact, there isn't even a strictly legal mechanism to get a refund from these shucksters; a dissatisfied customer is at their mercies in such an instance, as one of my uncles found out in going through his divorce. Our laws are ridiculously lax in this area, because our public is willing to permit any sort of abuse if it is justified by the supernatural.

The first two stipulations of my proposal would certainly be workable, because regulatory bodies have broad powers within narrow parameters. The third was added almost for laughs.

[adam_grif]

The police believing her story is the police's stupid fault, not hers. There's mountains of evidence against psychics being legit, and a police force of all things should have been aware of this before going on her "evidence". If we can't sue these fuckers into oblivion for fraud, then there aren't really grounds for requiring that they be licensed.

Last I checked, publicly lying, even publishing news articles with known inaccuracies was totally legal. This is as bad/worse as this crap. Requiring "clairvoyants" be licensed isn't going to fly unless I've missed something here.

[Einzige]

The police believing her story is the police's stupid fault, not hers. There's mountains of evidence against psychics being legit, and a police force of all things should have been aware of this before going on her "evidence". If we can't sue these fuckers into oblivion for fraud, then there aren't really grounds for requiring that they be licensed.

Last I checked, publicly lying, even publishing news articles with known inaccuracies was totally legal. This is as bad/worse as this crap. Requiring "clairvoyants" be licensed isn't going to fly unless I've missed something here.

In this instance I agree with Justice Holmes in Schenck v. the United States (which is ironic, as I disagree with the decision itself as applied to that particular case):

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.

I would argue that decision applies in the scenario of a fraudulent clairvoyant knowingly lying and, in the process, doing harm to the public good. Now, perhaps my initial proposal was too ambitious, but there must be some way to regulate the activities of confidence scammers. Sending an e-mail saying that you are the Prince of Nairobi and that you have mountains of cash for the recipient if they turn over their Social Security number is not legally protected by free speech provisions, either.

Here's a more concrete case: in late 2006, Sylvia Brown appeared on Montel Williams and advised his viewers to invest in property. This, at the tail end of the economic bubble. How much did her predictions contribute to the crisis? I won't say it caused it (ridiculous), or was even a major factor, but still, a case could be made that she ought to be held responsible.

[Lagmonster]

These kinds of entertainers should not be banned, but they should be required to heavily, heavily advertise the fact that their services are for entertainment purpsoes only, and they should never under any circumstances be allowed to tell anyone that the powers are real or that they are performing a supernatural activity as opposed to simply putting on an act or a trick. Sylvia Brown is dangerous because she believes, not because she does a decent job at a centuries-old carny trick. It's not hard to find people who do cold reading, spoon-bending, and other magic and mentalism tricks as a performance.

The difference - as with many things - is in the sale, not the product.

A really amusing comparison to the psychic problem is to look at stage magicians, who are enormously similar to psychics in what they're doing, and whose origins are somewhat similar. Magicians rarely tell the audience it's an act, as psychics do. They refuse to divulge how they did their trick or engage in diversion or lies to hide the mundane truth, as psychics do. But yet everyone knows the stage magic is just an act - nobody but nobody suspects that David Copperfield or Criss Angel have actual supernatural powers, despite the fact that their feats are infinitely more spectacular than anything Sylvia Brown or Miss Cleo has ever done. Everything a magician does is put forward in a very nudge-nudge way; The audience knows they're being fooled and they allow the mystery as part of the entertainment. The same is not said for psychics; I could not tell you why, but the obvious difference, which may have something to do with it, is that one performer knows it's an act, and the other believes it's real.

[Stuart]

On the subject itself, yes, all homeopaths, faith healers, clairvoyants, mediums etc etc etc should be strictly licensed, the issue of their license being conditional on them demonstrating their ability under scientifically-controlled tests validated by experts in the field of fraud detection (the latter caveat is because scientists are actually quite easy to fool as James Randi has often demonstrated).

On the police issue, this is a little less clear. According to the LEOs I've talked to (which is quite a few at local, state and Federal level) none of them have ever used a psychic in an investigation, ever used information from a psychic in an investigation or ever even heard of a psychic being involved in an investigation. However, there have been lots of claims of psychics being involved in cases where what really happened is that they walked into a police station, gave their information whereupon it was tossed into the garbage. It was suggested that this was helpful to the police because

A - Anybody who walks into a police station claiming to know intimate details of a crime is automatically a serious suspect (This is actually why the police don't discourage "psychics" from walking in. They are very viable suspects and its easier to have them walk in than go out and chase them.

B - The presence of a psychic is a useful cover for a deep-level informant. Asked where a particular piece of information came from, a detective can always answer "we got it from a psychic" when what he really meant was "the boss's lieutenant ratted him out"

C - A sniper trying to drop an important witness might hit the psychic by mistake.

In one case I saw personally (in a Washington bar), a "psychic" gave an impassioned speech about she had provided vital assistance to a Federal LEA on a particular investigation when, unknowingly, she was talking to the special agent in charge of that investigation. We all had a really good laugh over that.

[Broomstick]

These kinds of entertainers should not be banned, but they should be required to heavily, heavily advertise the fact that their services are for entertainment purpsoes only, and they should never under any circumstances be allowed to tell anyone that the powers are real or that they are performing a supernatural activity as opposed to simply putting on an act or a trick. Sylvia Brown is dangerous because she believes, not because she does a decent job at a centuries-old carny trick. It's not hard to find people who do cold reading, spoon-bending, and other magic and mentalism tricks as a performance.

The difference - as with many things - is in the sale, not the product.

^ This.

I've done tarot readings and the like purely for entertainment and make no pretense that fortune telling is real. I've known other people to do the same at parties or local carnivals/fairs. I've never done it for money. I've known some who did, who had costumes and patter and the whole nine years but did a straight reading and never asked for anything beyond a token fee such as any entertainer might get for a performance, or even just tips. Those aren't a problem.

It's the difference between a street performer performing card tricks for entertainment and a card shark conniving people out of their money. One is being paid for entertainment, the other is using entertainment to steal.

(There is also, in Pagandom, a religious use for things like tarot cards but the rule there is to take NO money or any form of compensation for it... specifically to remove the profit motive. Such people may be self-deluded, but they aren't scamming others. I don't think that's what the OP is referring to)

But yet everyone knows the stage magic is just an act - nobody but nobody suspects that David Copperfield or Criss Angel have actual supernatural powers, despite the fact that their feats are infinitely more spectacular than anything Sylvia Brown or Miss Cleo has ever done.

Actually... I've known a few folks who do believe Criss Angel and the like have genuine supernatural powers. Not the most functional individuals. While Angel and Copperfield probably don't care about such people such gullibles are precisely those who are most likey to be scammed by the unscrupulous.

I could not tell you why, but the obvious difference, which may have something to do with it, is that one performer knows it's an act, and the other believes it's real.

I'm going to quibble with that - while I think Brown really does believe in her own powers there's quite a few scam artists plying tarot cards, cold readings, and tea leaves who are completely aware that what they're doing has no basis in reality, they're just playing the marks for money. The most insidious con artists are those who know the con is fake but can play it like its real, they're great actors.

Seriously - I know the drill. It's tempting to hang out a shingle and start telling fortunes for a living. It just feels... dirty to me on a certain level. If I did it I would know it's not real, but I'd also know a significant percentage of folks coming to my door would believe it's real. The only consolation is that I'm too damn honest for my own good, I wouldn't be emptying anyone's bank account.

So... I think "psychics" should be obligated to disclaim all over the place that what they do is STRICTLY for entertainment. You're not going to stop amateur fortune tellers, but anyone taking money for it needs to be regulated and prevented from holding out as anything other than entertainment.

[Lagmonster]

It's the difference between a street performer performing card tricks for entertainment and a card shark conniving people out of their money. One is being paid for entertainment, the other is using entertainment to steal.

Which is why I oppose licensing, because it creates a standard to which true believers can aspire, giving them legitimacy and telling them that even if they don't earn their license, it must only be because their powers are too weak, not because they aren't real. Thus they're likely to keep operating under the table on the belief that they're demonstrating a public service. The curative is public education.

But yet everyone knows the stage magic is just an act - nobody but nobody suspects that David Copperfield or Criss Angel have actual supernatural powers, despite the fact that their feats are infinitely more spectacular than anything Sylvia Brown or Miss Cleo has ever done.

Actually... I've known a few folks who do believe Criss Angel and the like have genuine supernatural powers. Not the most functional individuals. While Angel and Copperfield probably don't care about such people such gullibles are precisely those who are most likey to be scammed by the unscrupulous.

To be precise, the insane and the parents desperate for news of a kidnapped child are similar in that they could both fall for the psychic, but only the former believes in the magician.

I could not tell you why, but the obvious difference, which may have something to do with it, is that one performer knows it's an act, and the other believes it's real.

I'm going to quibble with that - while I think Brown really does believe in her own powers there's quite a few scam artists plying tarot cards, cold readings, and tea leaves who are completely aware that what they're doing has no basis in reality, they're just playing the marks for money. The most insidious con artists are those who know the con is fake but can play it like its real, they're great actors.

I made the assumption without telling anybody, that we were talking about people who were at least trying to be honest; I figured it was an unspoken agreement that criminals looking to take advantage are always wrong, whereas a stage magician putting on a show and a true believer psychic are both working under the assumption that the customer is aware of what they're paying for and getting a decent product.

[PeZook]

B - The presence of a psychic is a useful cover for a deep-level informant. Asked where a particular piece of information came from, a detective can always answer "we got it from a psychic" when what he really meant was "the boss's lieutenant ratted him out"

That's pretty interesting...there are cases every year in Poland where the police are said to have used a clairvoyant to find a body or hideout or whatever (they are, of course, always widely publicized)

I always wondered why our police are so stupid, but I never thought they may simply be covering their informants this way.

[Simon_Jester]

C - A sniper trying to drop an important witness might hit the psychic by mistake.

If (B) is interesting, this is hilarious.

The psychic as a meatshield for the real witness... lovely.

[Shroom Man 777]

The ensuing media shitstorm, with the woo-woo crowd thinking that the psykers are so awesome that the mob put a hit on them, would be a total pain in the ass though.

[Kanastrous]

Yes, they should be licensed.

And the license test should consist of a big lottery-type rotating drum filled with license cards, each bearing a unique six-digit number.

You pass the test by predicting which six-digit numbered card will be pulled from the drum, after a spin.

Everybody else is denied the license, and prosecuted vigorously for fraud if caught accepting money in exchange for the exercise of their "gifts."

[Sarevok]

They should be licensed by the James Randi Education Foundation.

[Ziggy Stardust]

What the fuck would licenses solve? All it would do is give some of these people false claims of legitimacy. The whole POINT of the clairvoyant/psychic bullshit is that it is not a legitimate business, based on trickery. Why create some sort of endorsement? It's easier just to punish the ones who do harm if and when they do it.

[Kanastrous]

Sort of the same thought as the Marijuana Stamp Tax: you create the requirement for the stamp with the express intent of witholding the stamp, thereby making anyone doing business without one open to prosecution.

[CJvR]

Should "clairvoyants", "psychics", etc. need a license?

How are we to arrange that? This is a state approves fraud but this other one isn't? University degrees in Astrology, homeopathy and spoonbending? There alreaddy is one such scam in operation - religion, no reason to add more...

[Kanastrous]

Well, perhaps one benefit of licensing psychics etc might be to get congregants thinking about whether their pastors' operations ought to be subjected to the same scrutiny and standards. It's a very long shot but one can always be hopeful.

[General Zod]

I don't really see a point to issuing a license. Just enact legislation that fines anyone claiming their "powers" are for anything more than entertainment purposes unless they can prove to be legitimate and use fraud regulations as a guideline for appropriate punishment. You're claiming to provide a service that doesn't really exist, therefore you're liable for fraud. If they want to get out of the charges they can either prove their "powers" are legitimate (lol) or change their advertising and fees appropriately.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't really see a point to issuing a license. Just enact legislation that fines anyone claiming their "powers" are for anything more than entertainment purposes unless they can prove to be legitimate and use fraud regulations as a guideline for appropriate punishment. You're claiming to provide a service that doesn't really exist, therefore you're liable for fraud. If they want to get out of the charges they can either prove their "powers" are legitimate (lol) or change their advertising and fees appropriately.

^ Seconded.

The whole licensing thing only serves to promote fraud, not discourage it.

[Oskuro]

These people are frauds who prey upon the superstitious. Not only do they take money for doing basically nothing, but such activities can cause further harm.
Forbidding such things, at least those operating on a greater scale, would be a good thing.

By your description, the current largest such thing to go after would be the Roman Catholic Church.

[Hamstray]

If not banned they probably should be regulated by the same laws which regulate gambling.

Installing a process for issuing licenses based on the proof of ability just creates unnecessary bureaucracy and drains resources better spent on teaching kids to think skeptically.