talkmagic.co.uk

Is there any way to get more psychological forces like this:

* Say a number between 1 and 5." And they "always" say 3 and if not: they say 4 and if I say: "lower" they say 2 and if I then say: "higher" they say 3.

or

* With cards. I lay down one card at the time and after 5 cards I say: Say stop any time you like. And they almost every time stay on 10!

I would like to have more techniques like this as I really find them very useful!

Thank You!
[/b]

You should take a look in Banacheks Psychological Subtleties.

A very useful forcing method for the number 8 (on rare occasions a 5) is published by Paolo Cavalli.
The routine is named "Shades of Mind"; you find it on page 23 ff in "Sigma" (Paolo Cavalli, Massimo Tira, 2005).

Cheers
Th.

The above resources are the "foundation" source for this kind of mentalism, you should likewise check out some of Luke Jermay and Kenton Knepper's thinking when it comes to using linguistics as a means of control.

Much of what is going to help you will only be found in bits & pieces in several different books or videos. One method for physical control that you should become familiar with is TERASABOS found in Rick Maue's Book of Haunted Magick... it's become a classic.

Kenton Knepper's Kentonism book discusses several of the best-known psychological forces, although this isn't what the book is about.

His Subliminal Effects CD set is a real treasury of them, and can be used as an act in itself.

Above and beyond having lots of psychological forces at your fingertips it's vital that you know how to handle misses, how to build smooth outs into every psychological effect you do and how to cover when all else fails.

Tomo wrote:Above and beyond having lots of psychological forces at your fingertips it's vital that you know how to handle misses, how to build smooth outs into every psychological effect you do and how to cover when all else fails.

Max Maven his talked about this point at length but I'm not aware if he's published it anywhere. But there is power in having outs at the ready and knowing how to NOT depend on a psychological force; even Banachek speaks of this in PS 1... sadly, few seem to have caught that line

At the same time, one shouldn't fear misses, they can make you look and seem far more "legit" than making a solid connection every time you do a bit.

Craig Browning wrote:At the same time, one shouldn't fear misses, they can make you look and seem far more "legit" than making a solid connection every time you do a bit.

Very true!

Expecting misses often produces misses.

It is a very thin line of preparing for an out ...
... and inducing the need of an out!

My experience taught me that efficiency and convincibility of a psychological force are decreasing in addiction to a less necessity of their functioning - just because of the existence of an funtional out.

It's a kind of self fertilisation:
The existence of an out produces the necessity of an out.

That don't means that I dismiss outs in psychological forces principally;
but relying on them means depending on them.

Cheers
Th.

Dee Christopher's Anate is a very clever linguistic force. It's not 100% but you can certainly have outs!

http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/ftopic30899.php

The point of Knepper's Subliminal Effects, if you use the CD as a scripted act, is that it's to be done with a group at least the size of a dinner party. This helps smooth things over, since you're likely to get a majority going for what you want. The script is also written to encourage people to play nice and give the right answers. There are lots of other built-in outs as well, some general and some specific to certain questions. I would recommend the CD for anyone interested in psychological forces, even if they never use its specific act. There's a lot in there to study.

Psych forces are all about playing the odds, so doing it for more than one-to-one is always good. In Kentonism, too, Knepper mentions the usefulness of having a few people standing around watching. If your target spectator gives the wrong answer, it's likely that at least one bystander got it right. The Kentonism card designs also contain outs for several of the forces.

Robbie wrote:The point of Knepper's Subliminal Effects, if you use the CD as a scripted act, is that it's to be done with a group at least the size of a dinner party. This helps smooth things over, since you're likely to get a majority going for what you want. The script is also written to encourage people to play nice and give the right answers. There are lots of other built-in outs as well, some general and some specific to certain questions. I would recommend the CD for anyone interested in psychological forces, even if they never use its specific act. There's a lot in there to study.

Psych forces are all about playing the odds, so doing it for more than one-to-one is always good. In Kentonism, too, Knepper mentions the usefulness of having a few people standing around watching. If your target spectator gives the wrong answer, it's likely that at least one bystander got it right. The Kentonism card designs also contain outs for several of the forces.

Kenton shared my approach to using this CD several months back; the approach being a 60's/70's themed Psychic Fondue get together in which the "trip" centers on a journey into one's mind. It's quite a fun event the handful of times I've used it, my use of it being to "wine & dine" company execs in prelude to my sales pitch... getting them to book me with my INTUITIONS talk as well as the one day workshop around it that aids in "team building" and "empowering" their sales force or whatever the case may be. It's quite cool in that way...

Expecting misses often produces misses.

It is a very thin line of preparing for an out ...
... and inducing the need of an out!

My experience taught me that efficiency and convincibility of a psychological force are decreasing in addiction to a less necessity of their functioning - just because of the existence of an funtional out.

It's a kind of self fertilisation:
The existence of an out produces the necessity of an out.

That don't means that I dismiss outs in psychological forces principally;
but relying on them means depending on them.

I believe it is in the MIND READING book from Wonder Wizards that Kenton & the team speak about working towards the miss and how to use this to your favor as a deliberate technique. Granted, it's best used within a Q&A style of presentation, but the approach is quite excellent.