talkmagic.co.uk

Ever since I became interested in mentalism, I have noticed a continuous attack by sceptics who object to the slightest implication by the performer that he/she may be using psychic abilities. These attacks are often very hostile, with their basis being that people are being duped into superstitious and damaging beliefs.

However, where are those voices of rationalisation and defence of enlightened thinking, when psuedo psychologists start presenting their mumbo jumbo as legitimate science?

Am I the only one who finds this wholly hypocritical?

I can't see how it is any more ethical to con people into believing/considering the claims of pseudo psychologists than it is of the pseudo psychics.

The problem is that the fake psychics con money from grieving people. The fake psychologists put on shows. Big difference.
I have no problem with people being fake psychics. I do it myself. But I have a problem with exploiting misery. There's a line some cross, and some don't.

What Tony said.

I would have thought it rather obvious, to be honest.

T.

I totally agree with what the guys above have said. However I do think it's important to realise that the whole NLP/psychology angle is far from blameless itself. I did a one-to-one workshop with a guy a few weeks ago and his flat was packed with NLP, psychology, "how to understand people" style books. He informed me that after studying all of this literature for a year or more he still couldn't read minds or do what Derren can do. He was seriously perplexed by it. The penny dropped as I explained.

Now, okay, it's not talking to people's dead parents, but still, this guy had spent some serious dosh on this stuff because that's how the mentalists he'd seen had told the audience they were doing things. He asked me if he'd wasted all his money. I was kind and told him that all of the psychology info would help him deal with people better when he performed himself. But inside I was thinking, "Yeah, pretty much."

Its a very grey area, since many areas in magic, not just mentalism do use psychology. in fact, it is safe to say that Misdirection, almost wholy taps into this vein, as it often controls a natural, automatic reaction to a situation, in order to mask an action that you dont wish teh spectators to see.
At its lowest level,the pseudo psychologist aproach, is masking the real, and often boring method behind an effect.
If this presentation makes the lay spectator think that an effect could be done in this way, rather than with double sided cards, or a bit of thread, then so be it.
In the specific case of David, with whom i have recently been communicating, (A Nice guy) The introduction clearly states that he is a mentalist. and what he does is create a framework around the effect.. as in the coin thing from the first show. In that case he said it was to do with Retention of vision. he took a mental photograph as the coins dropped, and worked out what the value was from that. Hardly pseudo psychology.. just a load of tosh.
And in Fear, the second show, he was open and up front when he made the girl freak out, with the use of ultra low sound waves.. A recognised method. OK, there was a bit more to it, but the explanation was 100% plausable. which is what matters.

Tony, I'm not specifically refering to mediums or con artists who are just out to take advantage of people. These types are in all walks of life whether thay be psychics, psychologists or motor mechanics. What I am concerned with is the propogation of false belief through trickery.

Paul, thank you for a very good example of what can happen when these falsehoods are believed. I'ts not just about the money wasted, but rather the realisation that a persons belief system can be based on wiffle waffle. I'm sure you must have been sensitive to this issue by the way that you described your dilema when questioned by the guy who bought the books.

Dale, I have never met or had any correspondence with David and have no reason to believe he is anything other than 'a nice guy'. However, just as there are individuals who would be inclined to believe in psi, there are those too who have a tendency to believe in psychological explanations.

Last year I gained a Ba (Hons) in Psychology. For my dissertation I carried out a 'sheep/goat' experiment. This was based on the work of Gertrude Schmeidler http://www.parapsych.org/sheep_goat_effect.htm However, my experiment not only focused on psi hitting/missing but was very concerned with the interpretation of ambiguous phenomena.

I presented a staunchly ambiguous 'mind reading/tarot divination' demonstration. The resulting data was highly statistically significant.
The sheep belived the demonstration involved ESP, whereas the goats believed it involved cold reading.

People do not need to be guilable to buy into Bullsh*t, as long as the Bullsh*t fits in with their existing belief system.

Thats why I believe psychobabble is just as bad as astrology.

out of curiosity, how do you present your mentalism, or magic when you perform to an audience?

I thought the first two shows were poor bordering on ludicrous. Tonight he conducted "scientific" experiments into 'Luck', and concluded that if you think yourself lucky good things will happen to you. Seems like peddling superstition to me, plenty of people actually buy into all that tripe.

Erwin wrote:I thought the first two shows were poor bordering on ludicrous. Tonight he conducted "scientific" experiments into 'Luck', and concluded that if you think yourself lucky good things will happen to you. Seems like peddling superstition to me, plenty of people actually buy into all that tripe.

Of course.....its just that if you think you're lucky you notice more things that you can attribute to you being lucky.

If you think you're unlucky the same applies.

Kind of like pessimism and optimism int it?

Dale, when I present mentalism I do not make any claims whatsoever regarding my abilities. I have actually found it very difficult, but continue to attempt to make the percieved MO of my effects/demonstrations as ambiguous as possible.

For example; prior to performing a booktest, I point out that it was once common practice for people who had difficult issues in their lives, to riffle the pages of a bible, and 'stab' one of the pages with their finger. They would then look at the passage they 'chose' to see if it provided any answers for them.

The booktest then begins with the participant selecting a book (not the bible) and following the proceedure as outlined above.

I then cold read them, directing the dialogue in the direction I want it to go. The participant will often connect an event in their lives to the selected word/passage/thought. I'm sure you get my drift.

Certainly I use psychology, i.e. pacing and leading, the Forar effect, downright genuine intuition, and a lot of help from my Mother etc.
However at no time prior to, during or after the reveal do I offer any explanation.

I play a character, a character I believe in, with a full biographical and philisophical development. However, this is entirely internalised and never stated outloud.

http://vimeo.com/13064268

It's long, but the discussion is fascinating. Penn does come off as an asshole sometimes, but his and Teller's deep passion for truth (as they see it) is admirable. I really like Teller's presentation idea (which he also mentions in Banachek's PS1) about claiming that psychic abilities (and these day, NLP I suppose) is c*** (not the best) then doing something that seems to be only explainable as psychic ability.

stephen james durant wrote:Tony, I'm not specifically refering to mediums or con artists who are just out to take advantage of people. These types are in all walks of life whether thay be psychics, psychologists or motor mechanics. What I am concerned with is the propogation of false belief through trickery.

Then you should widen the discussion to include priests, teachers, politicians, economists, journalists, and a whole host of others. A huge proportion of the world is propagating false belief. It is what keep the populace under control.

If you want to widen the discussion feel free. But as this is a magicians forum I felt that applying the issue to the field of mentalism specifically would be resonably acceptable.

But hey ho.

stephen james durant wrote:Dale, when I present mentalism I do not make any claims whatsoever regarding my abilities. I have actually found it very difficult, but continue to attempt to make the percieved MO of my effects/demonstrations as ambiguous as possible.
.

Reading between the lines, this sugests that you have tried the pseudo aproach, without sucess, and now prefer to let the audiences make up their own minds as to how the effects were done.. which is a good way to go about it, Providing you hint at several options,rather than leaving everything open ended. which is i guess covered by...

your PseudoCharacter...

I play a character, a character I believe in, with a full biographical and philisophical development. However, this is entirely internalised and never stated outloud.

You are kind of doing it, but by sugestion, rather than by closing and opening spiels.

Yes Dale. However, it wasn't that I found the pseudo approach unsuccessful, but rather that I didn't feel comfortable with the ethics. Pseudo psychic or pseudo psychological seem to me to be equally dishonest, especially when stated directly.