It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"My Kid's Physchic" - on (UK) TV tonight.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:58 AM
Just a heads up for all of you interested in the so called Indigo Children movement - there will be a documentary called "My Kid's Physchic" on Channel 4 tonight at 9pm.

The programme, and phenomena itself, are discussed in this article by Jon Ronson:

He discovers, via the "test your child" quiz that his son is an Indigo, but decides not to tell him:

I decide not to tell Joel that I'm honoured he's chosen me. It might turn him into a nightmare.

I think Ronson is of the same opinion as me though - that just about every kid meets most of the criteria for being an "Indigo"

I will be watching it and posting back here tomorrow to dicuss.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:03 AM
Yep saw that advertised on tv last night. A healer and a little boy that can see spirits should be shown tonight from the clips I saw last night.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 10:08 AM
The article certainly proved to be an interesting read. I have stated before my opinion that the emergence of the Indigo Children phenomenon is little more than a reaction by New Age parents to the realisation that their children might have socio-behavioural conditions such as ADHD, Asperger’s Syndrome or Autism. It can be extremely difficult raising a child who has such a disorder. There are the initial pangs of guilt when a parent realises that their child is different from the other children in a way which is likely to make them the focus of negative attention for a good portion of their lives. Parents see the stigma attached to such disorders and the hardships which such children endure and decide that their child couldn’t possibly suffer from such a condition. No, their child is special, misunderstood, a new step in Humanity’s evolution, even. It is simply a coincidence that the qualities which define Indigo Children and those which are characteristic of socio-behavioural conditions are similar in many regards.

All parents believe that their child is special. The temptation to elevate our children above the majority can be extremely tempting, especially if doing so removes your child from the stigma associated with mental illness. I noted that this phenomenon seems to occur within the ranks of the Indigo Children as well. I found the following line from the article to be quite illuminating:

Nikki says Emily happens to be "the most Indigo person here, apart from my own daughter.

Oh, of course. Apart from your own child, who’s just that little bit more special. The problem with addressing the Indigo movement lies both in the zeal of its champions – the parents of supposed Indigo Children - as well as in the malleability and suggestibility of children. Because the parents will naturally champion its cause with a rabid devotion. After all, as long as Indigo Children are possible, their child won’t be labelled as suffering from a socio-behavioural disorder and won’t have to confront the very real challenges that such orders necessitate. Objective, third-party analysis of Indigo Children themselves is further rendered impossible by the machinations and influences of their parents who, in their need to reassure themselves of the ‘specialness’ of their children, indoctrinate them with the trappings and beliefs of the Indigo movement. How many of these children would claim to be ascended beings or the next step in evolution of their own accord, completely unprompted by any adult? How many children from non-New Age, non-religious, non-spiritual families would display the traits associated with Indigo Children and spontaneously declare that they can read people’s minds? Or that they have been sent to help heal the Earth and its people? How many of these children would see themselves as Indigos without their parents telling them that they were? In my opinion, not a single one.

So much of the Indigo movement is based on assumption and on seeing what one chooses to see and omitting that which seems to defeat one’s beliefs. Consider the following extract from the article;

"I was with a baby the other day," Nikki informs the class. "I said 'Hello sweetheart' with my thoughts. The baby looked at me shocked as if to say, 'How did you know we communicate with each other using our thoughts?'"

Here, this champion of the Indigo movement is making a number of assumptions regarding the baby’s behaviour. She assumes that the baby looked at her because it was able to read her thoughts. She then assumes that it was shocked at her understanding of their communication system. Finally, she simply puts her own words into the baby’s mouth, conveniently telling us exactly what it was thinking. Of course, there is no way to actually ask the baby what it was thinking, so there is no way to prove or disprove her claims.

The article’s examination of the ‘telepathy experiment’, though, highlights my other point. If these Indigo Children consistently employ telepathic communication, even from birth, why would they make even a single mistake in an exercise such as that attempted within the article? They would not be bumping into chairs and tables if they could genuinely hear the thoughts of the other Indigo Children. But again, their champion parent does a fine job in sidestepping this point. She simply blames the child;

"You're not listening, Zoe!" shouts Nikki at one point, just after Zoe has collided with a chair. "We were [telepathically] saying 'Stop!'"

So does the child respond with some explanation of how her frequencies were unaligned or how there was too much psychic noise? No, she says quite simply;

"I can't hear!"

From the mouths of babes.

I know how hard it is growing up with a socio-behavioural disorder. I have suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome my whole life and it has been difficult in the extreme. Had I been born 10 years later, I have no doubt that I would be touted as the ideal Indigo Child. But I’m not. I don’t have any psychic powers that I know of. I can’t see the dead and I don’t remember my past lives. Neither, in my opinion, do Indigo Children. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to the contrary. Of course, so much of the evidence for Indigo Children’s very existence is vague and intangible. "Does your child have very old, deep, wise-looking eyes?" How does one gauge such a thing? FatherLukeDuke speaks for me also when he states that virtually any child can display the qualities associated with Indigo Children. This entire movement is, in my view, little more than self reassurance on the part of frightened parents. But, if somebody wishes to challenge this, feel free. I am perfectly willing to have my past read or my mind read by an Indigo. If they prove eerily accurate, I shall genuinely reconsider the issue. But, on the other hand, if they prove unable to effectively do these things, then … oh, heck, maybe the frequencies weren’t right.

[edit on 7/8/06 by Jeremiah25]

posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 02:52 PM
indigo children, heck.

i have a chartreuse grandpa!

(i agree wholeheartedly with Jeremiah25's explanation. this whole thing is just an opportunity for parents to idolize their children. but honestly, it feels sort of sinister... with these kids growing up being told that they are somehow superior to their peers, they don't stand much of a chance of becoming well-balanced, reasonable adults.)

posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 04:37 PM
All in all giving labels is just a bad idea. Letting the kids know they are labeled is even worse. I can see how naming them Indigo children can be helpful to parents who have no clue about this stuff On the other hand, it can also be damaging to parents if their kids have a different problem, and they are left reaching for straws.

I can not believe they are going this far with the kids though. They havent a clue what they are doing. I was a sensitive child (there are a lot of names out there, I prefer to go with sensitive). It was never an issue to me until about second grade. I just figured everyone could. Until one day when a friend said that she wondered where (ill call him bob for now) Bob was. Confused as hell, I said "um he just finished asking your sister where you were and is on his way back here". Well, as you can imagine, when they found out that that was indeed, correct, I was labeled a freak. No one wanted anything to do with me after that. I was SO confused. I thought everyone could "see" "hear" "talk" what ever the heck one would want to call it . I didnt know that this was "different".

Now I have 3 kids, and yep each one is sensitive. Am I going to label them? Hell no. They are no better than anyone else. Why the heck would I want My kids to feel superior and make some other kid go through that crap? BUT I am going to teach them how to live with it, and with out shame. I teach them how to becarefull who they talk to about it. Not for their sakes but for others. Fact is fact, it freaks some people out. Everyone on this world is different. We are all unique. The only label we need is "human". To be human is to be different. Not just different as in different color, different tast, fingerprints, etc., but in more ways than most care to recognise.

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:38 PM
I sat and watched this programme with great interest, i have an open mind with these statements about kids seeing "dead people" at such an early age our minds are not poluted by media etc etc...

With the statement about indego children not sure, i feel that everyone has healing power to a certain extent but i feel some of these cults can do it for personal gain.

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:06 PM

Originally posted by wizzywo
I sat and watched this programme with great interest, i have an open mind with these statements about kids seeing "dead people" at such an early age our minds are not poluted by media etc etc...

With the statement about indego children not sure, i feel that everyone has healing power to a certain extent but i feel some of these cults can do it for personal gain.

So did I and tbh I have a very, and I mean very open mind, but I wasn't convinced by the young boy. For a few reasons that I will briefly point out :

1 ) Young kids at a young age learn quickly how to do things in order to get attention. Fake crying for example to get hugs and affection. Maybe he was doing the same ?

2 ) It seemed as if he wasn't really seeing anything and just saying the same things. I heard, " yeah I saw something here " then his mum would say " what a face, a figure ? " Not making him make his own judgement up, then he would reply " umm yeah I think so...yeah maybe a face. " I must have heard the little boy say the same things over and over again.

Now I'm not discrediting him, because I thought this at the time. Unfortunately at that young age, who can truely say that he just isn't doing it for attention. He was very young and like I have said he is in the spotlight so he want's it to in kids fake crying, being in the spotlight and doing it till they get more affection and attention. Until he gets older to an age where he can string long sentences together to create a conversation we won't get huge descriptions out of him, which also means we won't fully know what he is doing / seeing and if it 100% genuine.

Just my 2cents. I enjoyed the show though.

new topics

top topics


log in