talkmagic.co.uk

Ted wrote:You seem very interested in this oft-discussed issue - have you ever been to one of these performances?

Yes a couple. Have you?

I've seen a few were the audience were clearly believers and the magician did a magic show and let the audience believe they saw spirits.

I've seen some where people are sceptics and the magician says he will do a fake spirit show and then does a fake spirit show.

But hey, if this is oft discussed and I am putting people's noses out of joint by asking, let the mods dispose of this as they see fit.

I didn't actually believe any actual magicians would be like Derek Achord, thought it was a different ilk.

Never mind. Carry on with the usual stuff, didn't want this to get heated.

screwystewie wrote:I didn't actually believe any actual magicians would be like Derek Achord, thought it was a different ilk.

I guess you were just asking if they were Derek-style con-artists (or not) to ensure that you're hanging with a right-minded crowd. I'm glad that everything is now clear.

Like Paul, I always claim to be attempting to contact the spirits that lived in the building where we are conducting the seance. Contact with reliatives is avoided though that is what some people seem to come for.

Someone who was at the seance I did with TheMagicWand claimed they saw a spectral hand on top of theirs and felt comforted believeing it was their Uncle Joe. Another person at the table said for some reason they got the name 'Joe' in their head.

This is more a case of the spec wanting to believe, you are not pretending to talk as their dead relative or claim that it is them. This is created by the spectator because they want it to be their relative. And who are we take this away from them? You have not claimed anything and if that's what they want to believe they are free to do so.

Dale can tell you about the feather at the last seance I did. A person present made the connection themselves with no suggestion or claims from anyone else.

As far as I am concerned, Paul Voodini's gaffless approach is as close to real magic in the spectator's minds as you can get and is far superior than gimmicky performances that look like a cheap fairground ghost train.
These kind of performances are also, in my opinion, he most gratifying ones to do. I mix Paul's methods with bizarre magic storytelling and enjoy every moment, as do the attendees.

There were some things at the last seance, as Dale would testify, that cannot be explained and were unique to that night alone.

I think the pragmatic outlook is that you won't have any influence over someone's beliefs at all. Even those who are uncertain will only be persuaded one way or the other based on whatever they're previously disposed to.

The problem (if that's not too strong a word) with the skeptical viewpoint of glass moving is that it doesn't negate a spiritual involvement. It's not enough to say "it's just ideomotor response" because the answer to that is "ah, your subconscious is in tune with the spirits" or "the spirits use your body to move the glass". I'm currently putting together a skeptic-friendly séance, based on the Philip Group Seances. It is presented squarely from a skeptic point of view, in which the circle (hopefully) get in touch with a character they themselves have created. Even with all of this framing and procedure I don't expect for a moment that hardline believers will walk away from the evening with their beliefs in shreds. They will merely realise that the spirits were playing tricks on the skeptics, pretending to be that evening's John or Jane Doe in order for the disbelievers to continue on in their blinkered existence.

I was raised a spiritualist and ecountered people who knew that physical evidence of life after death truly existed, but that the Government had it locked away to protect the nation from ensuing anarchy. No-one had access to it, and the Government will deny it exists at every turn. What they are saying is that their evidence of an afterlife is the absence of evidence. When absence of evidence can be taken as proof, then there's really no way you can dissuade someone of their beliefs.

Mr_Grue wrote:I think the pragmatic outlook is that you won't have any influence over someone's beliefs at all. Even those who are uncertain will only be persuaded one way or the other based on whatever they're previously disposed to.

The problem (if that's not too strong a word) with the skeptical viewpoint of glass moving is that it doesn't negate a spiritual involvement. It's not enough to say "it's just ideomotor response" because the answer to that is "ah, your subconscious is in tune with the spirits" or "the spirits use your body to move the glass". I'm currently putting together a skeptic-friendly séance, based on the Philip Group Seances. It is presented squarely from a skeptic point of view, in which the circle (hopefully) get in touch with a character they themselves have created. Even with all of this framing and procedure I don't expect for a moment that hardline believers will walk away from the evening with their beliefs in shreds. They will merely realise that the spirits were playing tricks on the skeptics, pretending to be that evening's John or Jane Doe in order for the disbelievers to continue on in their blinkered existence.

I was raised a spiritualist and ecountered people who knew that physical evidence of life after death truly existed, but that the Government had it locked away to protect the nation from ensuing anarchy. No-one had access to it, and the Government will deny it exists at every turn. What they are saying is that their evidence of an afterlife is the absence of evidence. When absence of evidence can be taken as proof, then there's really no way you can dissuade someone of their beliefs.

Absolutely agree. A skeptical seance isn't the way to educate someone about charlatans.

Im glad Stewie has brought up this subject. You have no idea how many posts i have written on these topics, only to delete them before submission. My views are similar to Stewies on this. Some of the lines seem to be blurred here, ie when does the magic stop and the charlatism begin ? Someone mentioned that as there are no wires, magnets or such then there is no actual trickery. No disrespect but i dont agree. I can place a pen (ungimmicked) on an upturned glass tumbler and make it move - no blowing, touching, IT or magnets. Does that mean theres no trickery ? Certinely not, Im using scientific principles which magicians understand, and many other people dont. Cold Reading doesnt use magnets or thread either, but its still trickery.
I am a skeptic in these matters, and i have my reasons. Dont get me wrong, Im not so blind that i would instantly dismiss anything 'paranormal' as trickery - Id love to witness genuine TK or something. I seriously doubt it though.

jim

Erwin wrote:My missus has been reading the cards since long before we met. I regret infecting her with scepticism tbh, she stopped for a long time, but a few evenings ago she did a reading for me that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.
My most remarkable ouija experience was almost twenty years ago, only three of us were present and a message came through for one of the group (a PhD psychology lecturer). He was poleaxed by the messages he was receiving, and explained apologetically through floods of tears how he knew exactly what was happening, he is an ardent atheist and sceptic who needs no introduction to the ideomotor response, but the conversation with the deceased continued regardless.
I guess my point is that regardless of the participant's awareness and understanding of the act having no spiritual basis, the impact can still be to shake them to their core. I've never seen 'seance' type acts presented as entertainment (not including Edwards/Acorah psychic mediums here), and I wonder if the practitioners of this art who are members here are accustomed to such profound audience experiences?

Spiritualism, Ouija Boards, Soothsaying, Fortune telling, and all other forms of Divination 'are not' a form of 'Entertainment'.
They are all forms of the Occult and Devil worship.
Anyone who wants to disagree with my statement is clearly 'Uninformed' on the topic.

I am a devil worshipper so it's all ok for me to use it.

The_Outlaw wrote:Spiritualism, Ouija Boards, Soothsaying, Fortune telling, and all other forms of Divination 'are not' a form of 'Entertainment'.
They are all forms of the Occult and Devil worship.
Anyone who wants to disagree with my statement is clearly 'Uninformed' on the topic.

I disagree, yes ouija boards are Often linked with the occult. But nobody is worshipping anything when they are merely showing the quite intresting And definitly entertaining ideomotor reaction. I do agree however, you cannot moraly claim any genuine paranormal feat...

Anyhow, in off to slaughter some virgins in the sweet name of Satan,

Not that there's anything wrong with devil worship...

I do, however, agree that it is a bit of a stretch to call it entertainment, especially if they believe that what they are experiencing is real.

To those of you who find it reasonable to allow people to believe that they are actually contacting spirits (relatives or not), how would you answer if someone came up to you after your presentation and asked you man-to-man if it was real? Anything other than the truth, to any degree from "it's a trick" or "it's psychology" to explaining the whole thing, feels wrong to me.


And there is a slight contradiction in the justifications of those who allow people to believe; they say that people would keep their belief regardless of exposure AND that by exposing the truth, they'd somehow be hurting the person. Regardless, I think people can handle the truth, or your openness about there being psychological trickery, if you present the truth the right way. Stating, "It was all a trick and you're all stupid for believing it was real" will obviously offend them, but if you approach the reveal with sensitivity, I'm sure you can get some people to acknowledge and perhaps appreciate that they can be deceived (or deceive themselves). Jerry Andrus would tell his audience something along the lines of, "The reason I can fool you is because you're all intelligent human beings. You trust me and what I say and I can exploit that if I so desire. You take small things for granted because in day to day life, you have to. That's a fine, normal thing, but sometimes, it can be manipulated."

Following that, if you reveal the psychological and physiological trickery (while keeping it light, fun, and sensitive), people would both give you credit for your cleverness and walk away thinking. Only the extremely thin-skinned would take offense. Regardless of the conclusions they reach later on, at the very least you won't be lying either explicitly or by omission. Making them aware of the deception and cognitive dissonances involved in what felt like a very real experience, and giving them a lot to think about when it comes to their perception of the world-- that is entertaining.

Teller's introduction to Psychological Subtleties argues strongly in favor of such an approach. It can turn charlatanism and, as Penn would call it, "Jive-*** BS", into actual entertainment.

The_Outlaw wrote:Spiritualism, Ouija Boards, Soothsaying, Fortune telling, and all other forms of Divination 'are not' a form of 'Entertainment'.
They are all forms of the Occult and Devil worship.
Anyone who wants to disagree with my statement is clearly 'Uninformed' on the topic.

I say Mr Outlaw, you are aware of the actual origins of the Ouija Board?

Ouija Board was a toy (they even made a pink one for girls). It was used to connect with your inner self. We are entertainers, not devil worshippers! It our job to entertain people with some spooky fun and that is all.

sleightlycrazy wrote:Following that, if you reveal the psychological and physiological trickery (while keeping it light, fun, and sensitive), people would both give you credit for your cleverness and walk away thinking. Only the extremely thin-skinned would take offense. Regardless of the conclusions they reach later on, at the very least you won't be lying either explicitly or by omission. Making them aware of the deception and cognitive dissonances involved in what felt like a very real experience, and giving them a lot to think about when it comes to their perception of the world-- that is entertaining.

Teller's introduction to Psychological Subtleties argues strongly in favor of such an approach. It can turn charlatanism and, as Penn would call it, "Jive-*** BS", into actual entertainment.

I completely agree. I think it is really wrong that people take money from the venerable and gullible and perform, let's not mince words here, a con on the public.

The public believe these magicians have a gift to speak/communicate/dance tango with the spirit world. The magicians advertise they are doing this. The magicians take money for doing this. The problem? They are *magicians*, they are not performing the service which their audience paid them to perform. They are doing magic tricks.

Mediums may advertise they are contacting the spirit world, but you will find "magicians" will have the word 'entertainment' in their advertising.

Unless you have been to one of these shows or performed one, you will never understand the concept of the performance. These kind of shows are not exhibitions of mediumship and often presented in the form of a ghost hunt type night.

Obviously people claiming to channel dead relatives is a no-no but if you tell someone smugly before a ouija session that it's ideometer etc, blah blah then you may as well, before a standard close-up performance, state that is not magic it's just sleight of hand. People want wonder in their lives and that's what they pay for.

All this anti-paranormal stance that is so awfully fashionable these days has been generated by the wannabe Derren's who have read Tricks of the Mind and subsequently The God Delusion on his recommendation and feel that they are superior scientific types who can scoff at anyone who believes in anything that cannot be explained by science. It would be nice to see some independent thinking for a change.

That is right Freddie as a fellow professional you know the score my friend. A 'medium' will be called just that. We are know as psychic entertainers, paranormal or mystery entertainers. what we do is a big difference. This kind of spooky fun is very popular.