Thyunda said:
Sorry blood, but I don't need to say a word to understand them. I meet someone and I see right through them. I know people before really knowing them. I know when someone's planning something, I know when they lie, and I always know when they've fucked up.
Nobody needs to say a word to me. I'm special. Could be that you are too. Maybe it's actually nothing special at all. I see no reason why not. Maybe everyone can do it, just some of us decide to do it more than others.
Your attitude helps none. Public speakers learn techniques to capture an audience. They learn how to smile, and how to make their eyes sparkle just right. My cousin is a parody of this. His smile...is more like a snarl yet he seems painfully oblivious. The teaching is evident, the learning not so much.
Now I ask you a question. How could it be that I recognised my ex-girlfriend's 'aura' online despite the fake age, nationality and different screenname? And despite the fact she never said a word? This name came up - it was Midnight-something or other, I don't really remember, but it was nothing I'd associate with my ex. Automatically my brain has assigned my ex's name to this character. I told my friend in another conversation about my suspicion, to ensure I didn't accuse myself of retrospective identification, and then proceeded to interrogate the visitor till I found out that yes. It was her. No, sorry, she insisted it wasn't her and was in fact her cousin/friend. The story changed the second time she told it.
OK. Now, there's no way for me to actually disprove what you're saying. But you're aware of the difference between "It's definitely true" and "I want it to be true, I've convinced myself it's true, and I have some circumstantial evidence that fits the narrative I've constructed", right? I don't want to be patronising, and actually I have a bit of a soft spot for the idea of psychic abilities of some description. But for us to be able to take the idea of supernatural (or unsubstantiated preternatural) abilities seriously they have to stand up to a degree of scientific scrutiny - testability, repeatability, blind testing, all that malarkey.
And as ever, Occam's Razor applies. There's the old trick where you get somebody to hold a coin in one of their hands, and hold both closed hands in front of them. Just by looking into their eyes, you can tell with about 90% certainty which hand the coin is in. Now, you could explain this ability by claiming to have some kind of innate dowsing ability that lets you send out a kind of biological radar, and certain objects that are metallic or perhaps are imbued with a certain sentimental value to somebody will tend to resonate and make themselves known to you. Alternatively we could suggest that most people are quite bad at acts of deception and if you look at them square-on, their nose will point slightly toward the coin-hand. Which of those two explanations fits with what we know about the universe, and which ones requires us to fundamentally rethink physics, biology and neuroscience?
To answer your question, what you're describing is a variation on "cold reading" but I think there are probably other details which you didn't tell us (not necessarily because you're trying to trick us, perhaps you didn't feel they were significant). Perhaps you recognised some characteristic way of typing that you associated with your ex, like a typo or an odd way of punctuating or common phrases. Perhaps you already knew that your ex was a user of the site you were on. Could be any of a number of things - basically, I'm suggesting it was actually "warm reading".
Also, if you're really that confident in your abilities, might I suggest you earn yourself some easy money?
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
My finder's fee is a humble 10%
