It’s good to see you here! As always, your phrasing is clever; “para-sites” is a brilliant term for what’s going on with many ghost-related reality shows.

I’m not sure what to say about some aspects of the “Ghost Hunters” show. Have you spent much time with Jason & Grant? If you have, you know they’re 100% on-the-level, so if anything is being faked for their show, they’re not part of that scam.

But, this all adds up to why I don’t watch the ghost-related TV shows very often, except to see how bad they’ve gotten, now & then.

The love of money — as well as greed of any kind, including just the need for attention or power — can cause people to make lesser choices. With the amount of money involved at the top of the food chains that produce TV shows… well, that’s a lot of incentive to produce popular — not necessarily good — TV shows.

Sincerely,
Fiona

I wish more people would speak out about this, too. But, in some cases, they may not realize what’s going on. And, when they do figure it out… they’re embarrassed to admit that they were fooled.

The cons can be clever. I recently read an autobiography of an aspiring ghost hunter, who may have written his story to create an authentic-sounding resume. In one chapter, he talks about his dramatic encounter with a ghost in 2001. However, when I checked his story online… well, the encounter took place, but according to others who were there, it happened in 2004. (When I see one attempt to enhance a CV/resume, I suspect that there may be others.)

That’s the kind of subterfuge we have to look for, now. Parts of the stories will ring true, but others won’t. All I can recommend is: Check every reference, and every aspect of it.

As of late 2009, con artists mistakenly think that there’s a lot of money to be made in this field. (They’re wrong. Those of us who are serious about paranormal research generally rely on alternate income sources, so we can provide help free of charge.)

Once the con artists realize that this ghost hunting isn’t a get-rich-quick opportunity, they either move to another area (where their reputations aren’t so tarnished) or they leave the field altogether.

For as long as ghost-related TV shows remain popular, I think we’ll have to deal with this kind of nonsense. It’s not just the opening that this gives to skeptics, but the number of people who lose their faith in the entire paranormal field. Too many good researchers walk away from this work, disgusted.

Those of us who are legitimate paranormal researchers must take extreme measures to distance ourselves from those who are in the field for money, power or both. And, I think we need to speak out about it, so more people realize that many of us are sincere.

In time, the worst of these problems will fade away. They’ll leap on the next popular trend.

I think many of us are looking forward to that day.

Regarding the theater: $30 a person is far better than the $1500+/night that I’ve heard requested by some locations. That said, the shoe seems to be on the wrong foot.

If they’re putting on a show, it’s fine to charge for the entertainment. (Opening the concession stand..? That sounds like a performance, to me!)

However, if they want serious researchers to investigate and confirm (or refute) the hauntings, the sites should be paying the researchers, not the other way around.

It’d be like charging an entertainment fee for a doctor to examine someone, to diagnose symptoms.

I’ll be glad when this silliness concludes, and people once again regard parapsychology as an important field of study, not a fast route to fame and fortune.

Cialdini defines six “weapons of influence”:

* Reciprocation – People tend to return a favor. Thus, the pervasiveness of free samples in marketing. In his conferences, he often uses the example of Ethiopia providing thousands of dollars in humanitarian aid to Mexico just after the 1985 earthquake, despite Ethiopia suffering from a crippling famine and civil war at the time. Ethiopia had been reciprocating for the diplomatic support Mexico provided when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1937.

* Commitment and Consistency – If people commit, orally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more likely to honor that commitment. Even if the original incentive or motivation is removed after they have already agreed, they will continue to honor the agreement. For example, in car sales, suddenly raising the price at the last moment works because the buyer has already decided to buy. See cognitive dissonance.

* Social Proof – People will do things that they see other people are doing. For example, in one experiment, one or more confederates would look up into the sky; bystanders would then look up into the sky to see what they were seeing. At one point this experiment aborted, as so many people were looking up that they stopped traffic. See conformity, and the Asch conformity experiments.

* Authority – People will tend to obey authority figures, even if they are asked to perform objectionable acts. Cialdini cites incidents, such as the Milgram experiments in the early 1960s and the My Lai massacre.

* Liking – People are easily persuaded by other people that they like. Cialdini cites the marketing of Tupperware in what might now be called viral marketing. People were more likely to buy if they liked the person selling it to them. Some of the many biases favoring more attractive people are discussed. See physical attractiveness stereotype.

* Scarcity – Perceived scarcity will generate demand. For example, saying offers are available for a “limited time only” encourages sales.

So many of these points apply to tactics I’ve seen and heard about, lately… it’s chilling. By being aware of our vulnerabilities, we can protect ourselves from the occasional person (or people, since some of them work in tandem) who may try to take advantage of how welcoming, inclusive and supportive we are in the paranormal community.