this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
665 points (98.7% liked)
People Twitter
7835 readers
578 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you read the article, the rules were only that both parties have to agree on a test and if someone passed the test they won the prize. There wasn't a "gotcha" clause like "Oh since you did it it's clearly allowed by physics and we don't have to pay up!" So like if someone showed they had psychic powers sufficient to pass an agreed upon test it doesn't matter if there's a natural explanation for it, they would have still won the prize.
I think it’s entirely possible this person is being honest while also just not having a firm grasp over what actually happened, due to having a psychotic break from psychedelics. The paramedic simply agreeing to whatever they said (if the conversation did happen—I’ve been unsure whether a conversation I thought I had was real or not just from smoking too much weed) could have been interpreted as much deeper and more profound than it was.
None of this requires ill intent. The mind is just incredibly bad at making and retrieving memories in the way we want (infallible, like a video) even when you aren’t on drugs.
It could also just be cold reading. People who haven't been exposed to that can find it eerily accurate, even though it's just a combination of random guessing with reinforcing the guesses that got reactions. It's the kind of thing that both parties could participate in without either being explicitly familiar with the technique.