talkmagic.co.uk

hey, it doesnt matter really...I'm not going to reveal another person's methodology...but if you think its NLP then thats alright...and I'm happy to be wrong too

No no I'm asking you if you thought what I was referring to IS NLP?

Meaning that NLP was only a cursory investigation for me. My hypnotism and schooling is done out of other mediums.

Not how he does it but if those linguistic references he places are a form of nlp.

--Infy

I would say that if you are a begginer, buy Reality is plastic before getting into NLP.

spooneythegoon wrote:I would say that if you are a begginer, buy Reality is plastic before getting into NLP.

how are they related spooney?

Dunno...There both mentally...Sort of...

NLP would be the top of the cake thing, but not a necessary top, its just subtleties and finesse that you could implement into routine based on method or hypnosis. as previously said don't believe the hype, some performer use NLP as misdirection hiding the true methods.
Yeah get some founding on hypnosis first like Reality is Plastic, and Psychological Subtleties by Banachek for a more mentalist thing. NLP can enhance effect or psychological forcing etc, but well i ve never found any proof on NLP really working outside sales techniques that are not NLP to begin with.

Ted wrote:I think that what some magicians remember is that the Tricks of the Mind book discusses (and largely slags off) NLP. It's tempting to read the appropriate chapter(s) as being a performance method but, if you read a second time (knowing that DB is a magician and a master misdirector to boot), you'll notice that he never actually claims to use it. I see that book as being part of his misdirection career, actually.

Ehh. I think that's a pretty glib assessment of 'Tricks of the Mind'. I mean I may struggle to be objective being, as we all are, somewhat savvy to Brown ultimately being a magician like any other in spirit if not in method; but I found his, fairly extensive, discussion of NLP to be quite explicitly sceptical and dismissive of the practice as a whole.

I think only the very naive and those with minimal reading comprehension skills would be "misdirected" by the book; Brown is emphatic to a fault about its purpose as a very basic overview of some of the techniques he employs in his carefully honed cocktail of magic, illusion, showmanship, psychology and misdirection. He doesn't really give much more away than you can find with a quick google search but the USP is his own commentary and thoughts, the commentary and thoughts of an expert exploiter of these techniques and ideas. Even when talking about "pure" magic/conjouring he only gives away two tricks (a simple coin lap and an almost self-working card trick) and focuses much of his discourse on presentation (which he is very passionate about).

I've met people who haven't liked the book because he doesn't "give everything away" but I haven't met anyone who is actually under the impression that it DOES give everything away. It's more of a curio for the layman Channel Four viewer and introductory groundwork for the genuinely interested student.

my approach to any description of NLP is to ask myself 'would any of that stuff work on me?'.

Ted wrote:I think that what some magicians remember is that the Tricks of the Mind book discusses (and largely slags off) NLP.

gwh123 wrote:I think that's a pretty glib assessment of 'Tricks of the Mind'... I found his, fairly extensive, discussion of NLP to be quite explicitly sceptical and dismissive of the practice as a whole.

I'm glad to see that my glib assessment is in line with your own (no doubt better considered) judgement.

I think there's something in NLP. It's surprising how often, when you ask a spectator to think of a card, they'll choose the one you just flashed at them on the bottom of the deck. So, I think the mind clearly picks up on little signals like that. Obviously not foolproof, but the real technique is to be aware of these phenomena which weight things towards us, use them if we hit, and use something else if we miss.

Like having the Qs or As in your back pocket at all times. Ask someone to name a card, if it's either of those you've got a powerful effect, if not, sort through your deck and ask them to sign their card, etc etc.

I keep a blank-backed Queen of spades in my deck at all times. I have it 2nd to bottom, face blank. So I can fan the deck, then erdnase colour change and reverse fan to show they're all blank (like you can do with an ace on the bottom, but a little less awkward to hold the blank fan). But also, if later they name Queen of spades, I can fan through showing all the backs, and the Qs is the only card reversed. Two effects for the price of one gaffed card taking advantage of the statistical likeliness of them choosing Qs.

That's not really relevant to NLP, but I think it falls in a similar vein in terms of how you use it.

Flashing someone a card can in no way be considered NLP. It seems some magicians feel the need to elevate themselves into something more than an entertainer. Perhaps it helps them to justify a hobby, interest or career that some may consider childish.

The creators of NLP themselves have stated that they created NLP in order that people may lead better lives. I'm not saying the techniques behind such a thing cannot be applied to magic, but you'll be hard pushed to convincingly use a technique that needs hours to apply to someone you know as well as yourself, let alone a spectator you've only just met.

This is if it even works of course. Its been known to sit behind even psychodynamic therapy in terms of effectiveness. Since I've started studying psychology seriously as a science, I've become increasingly irritated by any number of magicians clutching pop psychology books and fobbing themselves off as a master mind controller.

As many others have stated on this thread as well as many others, you can achieve the same effects Derren does using only the 13 Steps. Anything else is just *rse gravy. By all means tell your audience whatever you like, but surely on this forum we can be honest with each other about techniques.

Bit of a harsh post for me, but I stand by it.

Grimshaw wrote:I stand by it.

And I completely agree with it. too.

Ted wrote:

Ted wrote:I think that what some magicians remember is that the Tricks of the Mind book discusses (and largely slags off) NLP.

gwh123 wrote:I think that's a pretty glib assessment of 'Tricks of the Mind'... I found his, fairly extensive, discussion of NLP to be quite explicitly sceptical and dismissive of the practice as a whole.

I'm glad to see that my glib assessment is in line with your own (no doubt better considered) judgement.

You say "Sceptial and dismissive of the practice", I say "slags off"

Love it!

NLP = new learned pig?

a friend said marco is doing new book place with not out of print books and stuff?

Grimshaw wrote:Flashing someone a card can in no way be considered NLP.

To be clear - I wasn't suggesting that was the case. Just that you can use the effect in a similar way; if it works use it, else ignore the miss and move on.