Why Do Pirates Love Parrots? Read online

  Women are not only more likely to believe in the truth of an intuitive insight, but to act on it. Perhaps the most famous psychic in the United States, Sylvia Browne (http://www.sylvia.org), told Imponderables that women are much more likely to act based on gut feelings that defy rational analysis. While men may have hunches, they will tend to try to back up the hunch with facts and logic, whereas Browne claims that women are more likely to trust the emotional: “Intuition—the gut feeling—is our cell phone to God.”

  Louise Hauck, a “clairvoyant spiritual counselor” (http://www.louisehauck.com) and author of Beyond Boundaries: The Adventures of a Seer, believes that the men who make the most successful psychics have been the ones who are most sensitive (“capable of getting out of their heads and into their hearts”)—in essence, men who possess personality characteristics that Western culture have traditionally deemed “feminine.” Frederick Woodruff (http://zenpop.home.mindspring.com/), author of Secrets of a Telephone Psychic, feels strongly that cultural assumptions are responsible for the relative dearth of male psychics and the disdain with which they are treated by the mainstream press. He wrote to Imponderables:

  Psychics, astrologers, tarot readers, intuitives—all of these belong to the archetype of the feminine, and this explains why our culture…has a hard time accepting the viability of intuitive arts. Sociologically speaking, feminine ways of perception and expression are not honored and promoted the same way masculine principles are upheld. Because survival and security are such compelling drives, the logical, rational, practical approach holds precedence.

  Woodruff is gay, and many of the psychics we talked to mentioned that most of the male psychics they know are gay. While no one claimed there was a link between sexual preference and psychic ability, in his book Woodruff notes that even as a child,

  the driving force behind my fascination with mysticism was an early and abiding attraction to and identification with the feminine realm.

  Psychologists have long confirmed the conventional wisdom that women are superior at reading body language and other nonverbal cues. Skeptics argue that the very qualities that make women more attuned to the emotional needs of others also make them better con artists than men. What good is purveying information if you won’t be perceived as accurate, empathic, or honest? As one female skeptic e-mailed us: “Women are better liars.”

  THE CLIENTS OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHICS

  By all accounts, many more women visit psychics than men (figures most often cited are in the 75 to 90 percent range, similar to the breakdown of the psychics themselves). Gallup Polls consistently indicate that women have a stronger belief in psychic phenomena than men. Might a woman simply feel more comfortable consulting another woman about intimate details of her personal life? Does a female psychic represent a more maternal, forgiving, and nurturing figure? Skeptic W. Rory Coker, a physics professor at the University of Texas at Austin, has studied fortune-tellers and observes that women, in general, seem to feel more comfortable with seeking external help in order to solve problems; unlike men, women do not feel guilty or diminished if they lean on loved ones, friends, or counselors.

  Although there don’t seem to be any formal studies of whether clients of psychics prefer male or female practitioners, scores of studies about the preferences in psychotherapists have been conducted. Is it far-fetched to compare a psychic reading with a psychotherapy session? In Secrets of a Telephone Psychic, Frederick Woodruff muses:

  Why do people reveal so much more, so quickly, to a psychic than they would to a therapist or family counselor? My theory is that most people don’t go to therapists or psychiatrists. Often discourse with a psychic is the first opportunity a caller has had to broach subjects they’ve avoided or denied. I also think that deep down most people don’t really believe in astrology or tarot the same way they “believe” in psychotherapy. And despite all the mental-health experts they’ve watched on the Ricki Lake Show, a good portion of our society still equates psychotherapy with being crazy or dysfunctional.

  Most studies tracing the effect of the sex of a counselor upon clients are inconclusive or are filled with flaws, but a few trends emerge that seem relevant to sex-preferences for psychics:

  1. Female psychotherapists report less discomfort during sessions than males.

  2. Female therapists seem more sympathetic to the problems of their patients; male therapists were notably harsher in their patient assessments.

  3. Female patients report higher levels of satisfaction with women therapists (there is some evidence, certainly not conclusive, that female therapists might be more successful in treating women).

  If female psychotherapists are more empathetic to women, perhaps so are female psychics. Why wouldn’t women want to consult with a reader who is empathetic and nurturing rather than judgmental or combative?

  THE SOCIOLOGY OF PSYCHICS

  Historically, the professional psychic has been a female. Sylvia Browne notes that women were the original shamans. In indigenous cultures, it was usually the women who were the healers, the mystics, and the prophets. Even in modern times, it hasn’t always been easy for women, especially single women without a formal education, to find work that would provide them with economic independence. James Randi notes that in the nineteenth century and earlier, fortune-telling and psychic work was

  a credible way for a woman to make a living, which is why mostly women became psychics—men would simply get a real job, because they could.

  W. Rory Coker feels that these sociological reasons are paramount in explaining the sex differential:

  Historically, this was a career path open to women in the lowest social classes, as well as the low-middle and mid-middle class. Men had many paths to choose from; women did not. The fact that the first mediums were the Fox sisters [who became media sensations in the late nineteenth century; they were eventually exposed as fakes] set the standard. Weren’t women more “susceptible” and “weak-willed” and thus easily possessed by spirits? Most female spirit mediums indeed had male spirit guides, as if female spirits were not forceful enough to possess even a living woman.

  A number of psychics and spirit mediums I talked to started out as habitual attendees at séances, habitual consulters of psychics. And then they had a kind of epiphany: “I can do this myself, which must mean I have some talent. Since I am not intelligent or educated, the fact that I can give people advice must mean that I am communicating with (usually male) spirits without even realizing it.” I have heard this from about half of the fortune-tellers, mediums, and psychics I have had the opportunity to talk to about their background.

  Psychic work offers obvious advantages to women, particularly mothers. The work can be done part-time from out of her residence. The hours are flexible, making it convenient for those with childcare or homecare responsibilities.

  Most of the female psychics we talked to mentioned that because psychics have traditionally been mostly women, men have been reluctant to enter the field, probably for the same reason that men don’t become nurses or elementary school teachers in greater numbers. Even if a man is endowed with talent, he is less likely to enter a woman’s “turf.” Sylvia Browne hastened to add, however, that although women dominate the psychic field quantitatively, many of the most famous psychics, such as Edgar Cayce, Douglas Johnson, Arthur Ford, and James Van Praagh, are men.

  So far, we’ve been lumping together “intuitives” such as Sylvia Browne along with fortune-tellers, even though there are few similarities in the way they operate. In most urban areas, the field of fortune-telling is dominated by female Gypsies (more properly called “Rom,” or “Roma,” the word for man/men in the Romani language.) Sergeant Sean McCafferty, of the New York Police Department’s Special Fraud Squad, has spent years trying to fight fortune-telling scams. Sergeant McCafferty told Imponderables that he has never encountered a male fortune-teller.

  Fortune-telling itself is not a crime, but many storefront operations make money by scaring cl
ients with tales of curses that can be cured only by offerings of money or the purchase of special candles. Once a fortune-teller claims to be able to heal a sitter, a crime has been committed. It is not unheard of for sitters to pay from five to thirty thousand dollars to rid themselves of curses. The cynicism with which the Rom women ply their trade is exemplified by one salient fact: Roma rarely go to other Roma to have their fortune told.

  Not all Roma are engaged in crime, of course, but the pattern for children of fortune-tellers is hard to break out of—girls are usually pulled out of school in the fourth or fifth grade at the latest, and learn how to ply their “trade” by eavesdropping on the palm-reading or fortune-telling sessions of their mothers or grandmothers. As Bob Geis, another specialist in “transient crime,” who left the NYPD to become a private investigator, told Imponderables,

  In the Gypsy culture, females usually earn the money and the men manage the women. Children are not sent to school but they get a great education. Little girls sit behind the curtains and hear their mothers do the readings, thus learning every trick in the book.

  In the Rom culture, it is unmanly to be a fortune-teller, and this belief has feminized the profession in the greater public’s eye.

  Perhaps women believe more strongly in psychic phenomena. And maybe female practitioners have more talent at “reading” others, or at least more skills in conveying empathy. But our money is on the sociological explanation. Frederick Woodruff sees the obstacles to men joining the ranks of the psychics, but is optimistic about the future:

  Imagine a child telling her father, “Dad, I want to be a numerologist when I grow up,” and the dad saying, “Sure! Let me take the money I set aside for your college education and find you a good occultist!

  …But this is starting to change. The oppression of the feminine realm is beginning to lift, and these intuitive, reflective, and imaginative qualities are beginning to reassert themselves into everyday life.

  The skeptic would look at the same set of facts and observe that as feminine values are more highly regarded, and women are given more opportunities in the workplace, women will have less need for the paranormal to help them cope with everyday life. While this transition is taking place, there will still be more female sitters and readers.

  Submitted by Kathryn Rutherford of Grissom AFB, Indiana. Thanks also to Dennis Estes of Cascade, Maryland.

  Who Was Monterey Jack, and Why Is a Cheese Named After Him?

  You don’t know Jack? Neither did reader Phil Hubbard, who admitted that he first submitted this Imponderable as a joke, “assuming that this was still another use of the word “jack” that does not refer to an actual person.”

  But then Phil went to Merriam-Webster’s Web site and found that the dictionary ascribed the etymology to an “alteration of David Jacks, nineteenth-century California landowner.” How did a landowner in Monterey become associated with California’s most popular native cheese?

  David Jacks, a Scottish immigrant, moved to California during the gold rush in the mid-nineteenth century, where he amassed wealth by selling dry goods to miners. Jacks gobbled up land and quickly became one of the largest landowners in Monterey County. Jacks was known to lend money to insolvent borrowers, using their land as collateral: He was not shy about foreclosing.

  Jacks was not a cheese maker, but he did acquire approximately fifteen dairies as part of his real estate portfolio. Although there is some controversy about the etymology of Monterey Jack, the California Dairy Research Foundation’s explanation is the most widely dispersed:

  As the story goes, sometime in 1882 David Jacks began shipping from his dairies a cheese branded with his last name and the city of origin, Monterey, to San Francisco and other western markets. Eventually the “s” was dropped and people began asking for “Monterey Jack.” While there are alternative explanations for the cheese’s origins—such as that the cheese was first made using a “jack” (or press)—David Jacks is the one most often credited for its distinctive name.

  Although Jacks might have given the cheese its popular name in the United States, chances are Monterey Jack is a descendant of cheeses that were first brought to California by Spanish missionaries a century before. The missionaries called their cheese queso del pais or “country cheese.” In the 1850s, Dona Juna Cota de Boronda, a housewife with a disabled husband and fifteen children, started selling her queso del pais door-to-door in Monterey. Those who credit Boronda with being queen of Jack cheese claim that Jacks usurped a name already in circulation, because of the press used to make the cheese. Judge Paul Bernal, San Jose, California’s official historian, is clearly in this camp:

  Some consumers looking for Boronda’s cheese would ask for the “jack” cheese (cheese made with a press or jack). Some would ask for Monterey Cheese. Capitalizing on the confusion of terms and producers, David Jacks cleverly renamed his brand “Monterey Jack Cheese” so all buyers would gravitate toward his cheese. Of course, Boronda was wiped out and Jacks became wealthy, enabling him to build the Jose Theatre [built in 1904 and still standing], among other enterprises.

  There are other claimants to the throne of originators of the cheese, all of whom argue that the jack in question refers to the press used to make the cheese. About the only group not trying to claim credit are the Franciscan monks who created the cheese in the first place.

  Thanks to Phil Hubbard of Williamsburg, Kentucky.

  Why Is the Moon Sometimes Visible During the Day?

  This Imponderable would be so easy to answer if the sun, moon, and Earth would get together and agree on a uniform schedule. But they refuse to do so, keeping astronomers and astrologers in business, and making it hard for us to provide a simple answer.

  Here’s the simple answer, anyway. The moon does not shine by its own light. When we see the moon, it’s only because we are seeing the reflection of sunlight bouncing off its surface. You can see the moon in the daytime when the sun and the moon are located in the same direction in the sky. As the moon proceeds on its (approximately) twenty-nine-day orbit around the Earth, at times it’s on the opposite side of the Earth from the sun.

  Although we may remember this only when we’ve been indulging in too many recreational substances, the Earth is also spinning on its axis once every twenty-four hours, a much shorter time than it takes the moon to revolve around us or for the Earth and moon together to orbit around the sun (a year). Though we perceive the moon as rising and setting as it “moves” across the sky, it’s really the Earth rotating on its axis (“underneath” the moon) that causes this effect. In one day, the moon doesn’t move much relative to the sun or to the Earth, even though during these twenty-four hours, we see a complete cycle of day and night because of our planet’s spinning.

  Viewing of the moon is also contingent on the state of the Earth’s atmosphere. The stars are “out” during the day, but we can’t see them because the scattered light from the sun is bright enough to drown out the relatively dim light from the stars. But the moon is the second brightest object in the sky, next to the sun, so even though it appears pale, we can usually see it during the day if it is close in direction to the sun. But on days with excessive glare or cloudiness, the moon may not be visible, especially just before and after a new moon.

  Even though the moon and sun often appear to be close together, the sun is always about 400 times farther away from Earth than the moon. We can see the moon during the daytime when the sun and moon are relatively close in direction, but not too close! When they are aligned too closely, we can’t see the moon because the sun is directly behind it and can’t light up the side of the moon facing us. When they are in opposite directions, in the daytime, the sun is overhead but the moon is on the opposite side of the Earth.

  When the moon is overhead, you do see it, but it is night because the sun is on the other side of the Earth. It’s when the moon and sun are at right angles, or close to it, that you can best see the moon during the day—the sun, moon, and Earth form a bi
g triangle, and the sun is “in front” of the moon to light up the side of the moon that is visible to us, and it’s daytime because the sun is up in the sky above us.

  Still confused? Maybe this analogy from Tim Kallman, an astrophysicist at the Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics at NASA, will help:

  It might be useful to think of the sun as a large light bulb, and the moon as a large mirror. There are situations where we can’t see the light bulb, but we can see the light from the bulb reflected in the mirror. This is the situation when the moon is out at night. We can’t see the sun directly because the Earth is blocking our view of it, but we can see its light reflected from the moon. However, there are also situations where we see both the light bulb and the mirror, and this is what is happening when we see the moon during the day.

  Submitted by Glen Kassas of Concord, New Hampshire. Thanks also to Caroline and Cathy Yeh, of parts unknown; Margaret Paul Vitale of Palermo, Italy; and Terry Keys, Jr. of Friendswood, Texas.