talkmagic.co.uk

"To pursue an interest in conjuring magic is to open the doors to obsession. Generally one begins early (I came into it at a relativley late age) most proberly as an unconfident child. Few kids seek to learn a skill specifically designed to impress people unless they feel less than impresive themselves......."

I posted this as it is soooo strange but covers why I got into magic excatley.....are we really that predicatable is there really no such thing as randomness even within personality.

I'd say that's just a truism of magicians though; I don't know many magicians who didn't at least dabble with it as kids. I came into it properly fairly late in life compared to most but I had magic kits and stuff as a kid, that's what really plants the seeds I reckon.

Yeah Paul Daniels planted a seed in me at a young age but thats another story Watched his shows and had one of his magic sets. But didn't get into again till later on in life.

Yeah, there's a tape at my parents' house of me, aged four, with a magic set that somebody bought for me, tapping the top of two cups with a wand and lifting them to see that, rather disappointingly, the balls underneath had not disappeared by themselves. Sleight of hand is not something that lends itself well to tiny four year old hands.

That one moment of earth-shattering disappointment is probably what spurred me on, come to think of it. It's no real surprise that I became a magician though, I always liked watching magicians as a kid and I was the infuriating little bu**er at parties who would want to see the same trick over and over again in hopes of clocking the method.

My interest literally go back to my toddler years and earliest memories of watching Mark Wilson on the old Alakazam shows but as to dabbling, that wouldn't start till the Christmas of 1964 when I got my first magic set...
... or as my mother refers to it, "The biggest mistake she ever made as a parent."

Seems she didn't learn in that I got several puppets and even more magic in the years following...

As to our seeking to learn a skill that allows us to "up-stage" others, I have to lend a bit of contention, in that the same could be said about Gymnasts and Acrobats as well as those that go into Ballet, Martial Arts, Boxing, etc. Most any field where unique skills and end result confidence are a part, fit that particular niche. Contrary to popular perception, not all that enroll into Martial Arts or similar athletic fields are jocks... many of us are the biggest nerds you've ever met.

I psychologist friend I had long ago, found it intriguing, the profile element surrounding magic enthusiasts (in particular); everything from the odd "sexism" issues (thinking you're special or top c**k of the roost; the S/M relevance found in Grand Illusion; the exceptionally high level of homosexual/bisexuality found within the art form itself) to those pertaining to self-confidence. Even "Learning Disabilities" found a home in his research which, to his mind, is why so many tend to compensate through pseudo-intellectual sounding patter, even when not performing when in fact, they host a very common if not slightly lesser level of Intelligence Quotient. There are exceptions of course, but even those reflective of a MENSA level rating used magic as a means of compensation as well as a mode of psychological self-defense; the "I know more than you" factor being akin to a puffer fish reaction that gets manifested by way of the ego and imitation pride.

It's all quite interesting if and when you step back and give it all a brutally honest evaluation.

Craig Browning wrote: Even "Learning Disabilities" found a home in his research which, to his mind, is why so many tend to compensate through pseudo-intellectual sounding patter, even when not performing when in fact, they host a very common if not slightly lesser level of Intelligence Quotient.

There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between having a learning disability and having a low IQ, in some cases (depending on the condition) intelligence is higher, for several reasons

In any case, IQ is a poor measurement of what is a very flaky concept

MagicalSmithy wrote:I posted this as it is soooo strange but covers why I got into magic excatley.....are we really that predicatable is there really no such thing as randomness even within personality.

Have you got to pages 325-328 yet?

Alas I am at the end of "A card Trick".

I am being REALLY REALY CAREFUL with my copy...it is paper back and signed so I do not want to damgage but for gloating reasons I use a Ace Of Spades Also signed by Derren as a book marker.

I think I have chosen my idle, we all have to have one.....and the best bit is he does not do the same kind of magic as me so I am still fasinated watching him.

Yeah my IQ as rated last time is higher than average.

I however have a writing disability technically classified as a learning disability. There is no correlation and IQ doesn't really map the ability to learn. It simply maps the ability to apply a set of principals you are SUPPOSED to know already.

I don't have the book I want the book.

There is a strong correlation between IQ and learning ability. There are several exceptions, but the corrolation is there. That's science.

Infinite wrote:IQ doesn't really map the ability to learn. It simply maps the ability to apply a set of principals you are SUPPOSED to know already.

You got it bang on And many people with disabilities can easily learn these principles (assuming having good spacial awareness is a useful skill to have...)

I don't have the book I want the book.

You need the book to complete your life

TonyB wrote:There is a strong correlation between IQ and learning ability. There are several exceptions, but the corrolation is there. That's science.

I know I'm being cheeky here, but do you have any evidence? I'd be interested to see it

kolm wrote:

TonyB wrote:There is a strong correlation between IQ and learning ability. There are several exceptions, but the corrolation is there. That's science.

I know I'm being cheeky here, but do you have any evidence? I'd be interested to see it

I personally believe that the IQ test will assess you ability to learn something at speed and answer a question almost immediately on what you have just learned....having had experience of trying to teach a family friend with downs syndrome (who is perfectely capable to do allot of things) that to greet a male friend you shake there hand and not kiss them on the lips. after about a month he picked it up.

But tbh the IQ test is a load of toss which gives the big headed one more thing to gloat about.....I have not got a terrible IQ but end of the day just because you can figure out who is taller then who or which comes next in the sequence does not make you an expert problem solver.

I am proberly talking total rubish so make like my family and pretend im a figment of your immagination.

real IQ testing doesnt test you on general knowledge, or ability to repeat, parrot fashion...

i rated nearly 100% on my visual/spatial awareness sections of my IQ test, and mine is quite high overall, yet i was as thick as pig-s&&t at school, scoring 16 GCSEs all at grade D! (ours was the first year of GCSE, and a lot tougher than the current ones)....

thats my excuse anyway...

So we have to understand there are several version of IQ tests.

EIQ, IQ Standard, etc.

Depending on which test you take determines what types of things they are testing for. The ones you can do online and likely the ones you got in school are the IQ standard tests.

These tests attempt to determine if you can apply principals generally associated to critical thinking and pattern recognition. They have some interaction with memory and then finally reading and comprehension.

For example they don't ask on Standard IQ, "If a man was born in Texas at 3:45pm on Saturday April 14th in 1982 how old is he now?" and then time your response.

They WILL ask, "There are 12 children half of the children are boys. 5 of the children are over 6. 6 children are wearing socks."
Is it a true statement that all the children are male?

EIQ and various others go into different types of testing but I don't recall their systems well enough to give example questions.

So Standard IQ really tests how well you learned the application of the logic you are being tested by. It does not relate directly to learning potential just how much learning you have done based on the principles being tested.

The in depth IQ tests will give you little toys to assemble or disassemble complete with missing pieces to see if you can work around it. They also take place over 6 to 8 hours and they limit your calorie intake and attempt to sugar crash you to get stress readings.

Now my information may be out dated I haven't studied this stuff in 10 years or so. Take it with a grain of salt.