5 ms·

Pavlina is not exactly a reputable source. His ex-wife and business partner is a telephone psychic, and he takes her 'job' seriously in many blog posts. They'r

Pavlina is not exactly a reputable source. His ex-wife and business partner is a telephone psychic, and he takes her 'job' seriously in many blog posts. They're either both cranks, or scammers. In either case you shouldn't take him seriously.

gojomo 13y ago
Your "cranks, or scammers" assessment raises an interesting question. Let's assume psychic powers don't exist. If someone who believes in them calls a for-pay psychic hotline, with which of the following 'telephone psychics' will their interests be best-protected? (a) a psychic true-believer, who also cares about the caller (b) a psychic true-believer, who simply wants to maximize their own income at the caller's expense (c) a non-believer willing to pretend they are psychic, but who also cares about the caller's welfare (d) a non-believer willing to pretend they are psychic, who simply wants to maximize their own income at the caller's expense The 'psychics' of (a) and (b) are irrational/superstitious (or maybe even outright insane): that is, 'cranks'. The 'psychics' of (b) and (d) are amoral criminals: 'scammers'. But (c) is kind of an interesting case. They're telling pleasing lies to someone, but that might be the best the caller can get. (Compare the 'white lies' often told to children, or people in psychological distress.) But the 'psychic' is still sane and empathetic. For example, they're not going to tell someone with a real health issue to skip professional treatment for just 'manifesting health'. They might give reasonable advice... under cover of 'psychic insight'. They won't view the solution to every issue as 'pay our hotline more money until you're broke'. I have no idea about the details of Mrs. Pavlina's practice. I just think that given the existence of devoutly-believing psychic-seekers, and the existence of magical-thinking (a)- and (b)-type 'psychics', and cynically exploitative (d)-type psychics, the most compassionate response by rational and ethical people might not be just debunking/avoiding the whole enterprise. It might involve some practicing (c)-type 'psychics'... a little like harm-reducing clean needles for drug addicts.
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  That's a very fascinating breakdown, and it's sort of a sad testament to American society and attitudes towards mental healthcare that case (c) might actually be a legitimate way to provide counseling to people who otherwise would not have sought it out. And perhaps it's cheaper, too.
- tynan 13y ago
  I went to Steve and Erin's house and talked with them for a few hours once. Erin is absolutely in category A.
jere 13y ago
I have to agree. I used to be a huge Pavlina fan for the personal development and productivity stuff, but over the years got really turned off by all the posts about law of attraction and solipsism (though he disputed that's what he was going on about).

gojomo 13y ago

Your "cranks, or scammers" assessment raises an interesting question. Let's assume psychic powers don't exist. If someone who believes in them calls a for-pay psychic hotline, with which of the following 'telephone psychics' will their interests be best-protected? (a) a psychic true-believer, who also cares about the caller (b) a psychic true-believer, who simply wants to maximize their own income at the caller's expense (c) a non-believer willing to pretend they are psychic, but who also cares about the caller's welfare (d) a non-believer willing to pretend they are psychic, who simply wants to maximize their own income at the caller's expense The 'psychics' of (a) and (b) are irrational/superstitious (or maybe even outright insane): that is, 'cranks'. The 'psychics' of (b) and (d) are amoral criminals: 'scammers'. But (c) is kind of an interesting case. They're telling pleasing lies to someone, but that might be the best the caller can get. (Compare the 'white lies' often told to children, or people in psychological distress.) But the 'psychic' is still sane and empathetic. For example, they're not going to tell someone with a real health issue to skip professional treatment for just 'manifesting health'. They might give reasonable advice... under cover of 'psychic insight'. They won't view the solution to every issue as 'pay our hotline more money until you're broke'. I have no idea about the details of Mrs. Pavlina's practice. I just think that given the existence of devoutly-believing psychic-seekers, and the existence of magical-thinking (a)- and (b)-type 'psychics', and cynically exploitative (d)-type psychics, the most compassionate response by rational and ethical people might not be just debunking/avoiding the whole enterprise. It might involve some practicing (c)-type 'psychics'... a little like harm-reducing clean needles for drug addicts.

Apocryphon 13y ago
That's a very fascinating breakdown, and it's sort of a sad testament to American society and attitudes towards mental healthcare that case (c) might actually be a legitimate way to provide counseling to people who otherwise would not have sought it out. And perhaps it's cheaper, too.
tynan 13y ago
I went to Steve and Erin's house and talked with them for a few hours once. Erin is absolutely in category A.

jere 13y ago

I have to agree. I used to be a huge Pavlina fan for the personal development and productivity stuff, but over the years got really turned off by all the posts about law of attraction and solipsism (though he disputed that's what he was going on about).