Home » Life... » Long Island Medium Debunked..

Long Island Medium Debunked..


Warning: Illegal offset type in /home/content/14/8770814/html/theviralloop/wordpress/wp-includes/ybkpnpsp.php on line 277
TheViralLoop-LongIslandMedium

Fact, Fiction or anthropological tendencies built upon probability...

As being one of my “by” weeks of working from home rather than a plane, I happen to catch one of the newer reality shows titled “Long Island Medium“.  The base concept of the show is “Theresa” is a medium meaning she speaks with those that have passed and shares messages from the other side with people she meets.  Now, before we go too far I have no clue if Theresa in fact does or doesn’t speak with the other side as I’ve never met her.  However after watching two shows I’ve noticed an interesting pattern form which is worth talking about from an anthropological slash social probability point of view.

The reason for this is we are simply social animals by writing this I mean we do things in “like” (i.e. similar) social patterns, so by understanding this we can game the system.  So let’s look at Theresa’s first “social vector” as she approaches a person and asks “have you recently lost somebody”?  So let’s look at this statistically, is if she approaches someone from 20 something or over the answer will be yes as people unfortunately die every day and what is “recently” anyway?  So the point is the cards are stacked in her favor and even if its a miss, still no loss as her query is not absolute.

Next, it becomes “who” and I noticed there is a strange look is if I watched long enough, I could even pick it out as the look for a mother is different than a father as it is for a non parent.  Yet to load the cards even more, it’s starts as a 50/50 chance anyway which makes more of an 80/20 proposition as the younger the subject the greater likely hood is it’s the father and the older means it’s more likely the mother (as the recent deceased).  Why say this, simple mortality statistics say this as women out live men therefore statistically you will lose a father before a mother.

The next thing she shares is the fact that they weren’t beside the love one when they passed, ok again statistics are on Theresa’s side as I’ve had 6 people close to me pass and I wasn’t beside any one of them when it happened.  While I avoid the implied morbidity of the hospice statistics, as the simple fact is most people who die a natural death do so alone at night.  So again the odds are stacked for this to be the case.  However people again seem to forget odds much as when they buy the lottery ticket and dream whereas they are more likely to be struck by lightning three times over.  Yet here Theresa plays on yet an even stronger weakness and double downs as everyone wants to believe there is another side that the lights just don’t go out.  On top of that we all want that connection with our lost love ones, along with the affirmation we did them right, so this is a built in weakness.

The point of this is we are in fact human animals and as such operate in structured patterns and even within group patterns with great frequency.  While we wish to believe chaos is the norm, meaning we poses (perceived) freedom. Yet in really we are in fact held captive by probability and our animalistic tendencies…