talkmagic.co.uk

here's a moral quandry for you - should you harbour a false belief in people by telling them that we are all highly inuitive and marvellous and can do the same as we can?

is it better to say "only i can do this...", but not in such an arrogant way...

IAIN wrote:here's a moral quandry for you - should you harbour a false belief in people by telling them that we are all highly inuitive and marvellous and can do the same as we can?

Well... the human mind IS marvellous, isn't it? And even intuitive. Especially if you define "intuitive" as having the ability to take in and act on subconciously perceived stimuli. Interpreting someone's mood by their facial expression and tone of voice, for instance.

And what a mentalist does, he can do because he's had the right teaching and practice. And anybody in the audience could do the same, if they had access to the right sort of teaching (e.g. Corinda, Annemann) and the desire to put in the practice. So none of the above is actually lies.

just saying that people are very keen to be honest in their deception - that telling people they can do the same as us, cos its in us inherently (rather than admitting we've learnt it off a dvd or in a book) - is maybe giving them fake tools to test...

as in, they may start spending lots of money via gambling, using that intuition...

that if its about telling others they can divine a word via whatever psychological means, its a false belief that may well cost the gullible lots of money in some way...

just playing devil's advocate really...

Why provide any explanation? Aside from the fact that it really isn't original anymore, the fact that theres no such thing as psychic ability, and someone with a PHD in Psychology who is less than 25 is incredibly unbelievable, why should it have an explanation?

The way I see it, the second you provide an explanation even if false, it ceases to become magic and just, 'Look how clever/special I am'

Just remember at the heart of it, it's mere entertainment... that's all.

IAIN wrote:its a false belief that may well cost the gullible lots of money in some way...

Sometimes you don't even need to hint at a 'skill' or intuition...

I performed a drawing duplication for a very good friend of mine last year. He was stunned, offered me work and all the rest of it. However, I was saddened when he then started banging on about NLP and how he was going to get into it. I had *never* mentioned NLP so I guess he must have associated the trick with DB and then on to NLP.

I did all I could (except exposing the trick) to persuade him to save his money. I don't know anything about NLP but I'm guessing a SAW costs less than the courses it would take to be able to dupe a drawing with 100 per cent accuracy.

I don't know what the answer is, really. People will always jump to conclusions - wrong ones hopefully, if you've done a good job. But they are ultimately responsible for their own actions.

T.

You might find Geist by Harling and Nyrup interesting (I think they only sell a new edition of the book that's been fused with another book they wrote). The first fifty or so pages is an analysis of how and why a mentalist (or even a magician) should want to provide an explanation. Darwin Ortiz also discusses giving your character a background in Strong Magic. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I think Paul Brook's Alchemical Tools has a similar essay). Basically, having such a pseudo-explanation gives your character consistency. People will easily tell you to not do ambitious card after doing a billet reading, so it's clear the reason why is that the two characters clash. Why? Because whatever background, whatever spoken or unspoken explanation is provided for the billet-reader character does not fit with the character who does a common card trick. (That said, there are exceptions e.g. Kreskin who have come up with ways of keeping their characters consistent, but that's because they provide an explanation for themselves).

sleightlycrazy wrote:(Correct me if I'm wrong, I think Paul Brook's Alchemical Tools has a similar essay)

You are not wrong. It's a very useful chunk of the book.
T.

Ok... at a slightly more reasonable hour, I shall try and clear up what my own thoughts are for myself!

There are two arguments, one:
'If you are young and supposedly an expert on something as a teenager, it is not credible'
and two:
'If you are saying that you have prowess, doesn't that come across as arrogant?'

I shall begin with the first one. The logic, as far as I understand runs something like: 'If you are demonstrating mental skills- but you do not seem very old- those watching will assume it is fake because you wouldn't be able to have learned those skills, therefore it is not credible'. Once again, in my experience this is not at all what happens, which must imply there is something wrong with this reasoning somewhere. Perhaps its biggest problem is that it could apply to any skill, not just mentalism; if I said that I could drive at my age, then I wouldn't expect to be believed. If I got a car and took someone on a trip, I would NOT expect them to be sitting there thinking 'this is some kind of trick, there must be some midget driver hidden in the boot secretly driving'. If I can demonstrate that I can drive, then I will be believed. If I can demonstrate I can 'mind read' and the explanation I give is that it is non verbal communiction or whatever it might be, it will likley be assumed anyway that the teenager is some prodigy. As long as you're not just plain rubbish and unbelievable and unable to fool even the most credulous with dodgy acting, very nervy and suspicous mannerism or exposing all the effects... which I don't think is fair to say you'll do just because you're a teenager.

This fallicious reasoning then is essentially born out of the fact that we have magicians guilt and that we know it is deception; to those who don't it is not at all true to assume that is what they believe it to be.

The fact that it seems very unusual that someone might be able to learn these skills by such a young age is of no consequence, it simply makes it more impressive in my opinion. It certainly doesn't cause people to completley doubt it on this only premise, which is the premise which is being demonstrated with the effects to be false anyway!

As it happens, I believe for many people (not all), using the alternative, psychic explanation makes it LESS credible.

Secondly, I think I am getting caught up in words when talking about 'arrogance'. To abuse the example further, I don't think Hendrix came accross as arrogant in interviews (Maybe when he was having sex with flaming strats, but that's another story). However he was 'implying prowess' with his skills, simply by demonstrating them. I don't think simply having skills and by demonstrating them and giving some explanation for them (I can play guitar because I've practiced a lot, for example) is enough to make someone arrogant.

There. Ignore all that other stuff I said, this is what I was trying to say.

I think if you're going to demonstrate any significant skill or 'prowess' (I hate that word), ie anything that isn't 100% inate ability then showing amazement at your own feats can overcome any sense of arrogance.

For example, on the reveal of a drawing dup. The spec shows the audience their drawing and you seem surprised at 'just how right' you got it with some flattery at how 'suitable' (be it psychically gifted or whatever suits your persona) the spec is. If you show excitement at what's happening, the audience will share it too.

IAIN wrote:here's a moral quandry for you - should you harbour a false belief in people by telling them that we are all highly inuitive and marvellous and can do the same as we can?

is it better to say "only i can do this...", but not in such an arrogant way...

I think perhaps the appeal of Conan Doyle's character is that he is superhuman; but as a reader you're never meant to feel stupid. I always find his books a refreshing reminder of how incredible the mind is.

But we are all intuitive, anyone could become a mentalist if they have the right knowledge and persue that goal whilst being realistic and unbias, and maybe I won't ever, no matter how hard I try, have the capacity to run like Usain Bolt... but the best I can be is my best, the question is then, is everyone's best virtually the same? Which is a MUCH bigger question than you could imagine.

Vanderbelt wrote:some flattery at how 'suitable' (be it psychically gifted or whatever suits your persona) the spec is.

Personally I think that this is a very useful technique. You are enabling the spectator to do something marvellous, rather than showing how marvellous you yourself are.

SamGurney wrote:I think perhaps the appeal of Conan Doyle's character is that he is superhuman; but as a reader you're never meant to feel stupid. I always find his books a refreshing reminder of how incredible the mind is.

no he wasn't...he was just another human being...no hint of any psychic, or superhumaness was ever implied...

SamGurney wrote:the question is then, is everyone's best virtually the same? Which is a MUCH bigger question than you could imagine.

ha - you say "bigger question than you could imagine", like you have some kind of higher knowledge Sam...that made me smile.... thank you

IAIN wrote:

SamGurney wrote:I think perhaps the appeal of Conan Doyle's character is that he is superhuman; but as a reader you're never meant to feel stupid. I always find his books a refreshing reminder of how incredible the mind is.

no he wasn't...he was just another human being...no hint of any psychic, or superhumaness was ever implied...

SamGurney wrote:the question is then, is everyone's best virtually the same? Which is a MUCH bigger question than you could imagine.

ha - you say "bigger question than you could imagine", like you have some kind of higher knowledge Sam...that made me smile.... thank you

Not YOU personally, 'you' as in 'one' but one would be frowned up in one were to use such language these days They kept it in france though :/

Anyhow... well definition, definition, definition. He was fictitious. I would say that Ghandi was superhuman as well, or you could... I apologise... 'one' could say that Robert Plant's voice was 'superhuman'; Extraordinary; mind blowing... blah blah blah.

Besides it makes absolutley no difference on the point I was making anyway.

Muchos Lovos, Sam.

SamGurney wrote:

IAIN wrote:

SamGurney wrote:I think perhaps the appeal of Conan Doyle's character is that he is superhuman; but as a reader you're never meant to feel stupid. I always find his books a refreshing reminder of how incredible the mind is.

no he wasn't...he was just another human being...no hint of any psychic, or superhumaness was ever implied...

SamGurney wrote:the question is then, is everyone's best virtually the same? Which is a MUCH bigger question than you could imagine.

ha - you say "bigger question than you could imagine", like you have some kind of higher knowledge Sam...that made me smile.... thank you

Not YOU personally, 'you' as in 'one' but one would be frowned up in one were to use such language these days They kept it in france though :/

Anyhow... well definition, definition, definition. He was fictitious. I would say that Ghandi was superhuman as well, or you could... I apologise... 'one' could say that Robert Plant's voice was 'superhuman'; Extraordinary; mind blowing... blah blah blah.

Besides it makes absolutley no difference on the point I was making anyway.

Muchos Lovos, Sam.

I think your trying to express 'supernatural' which of course means better than natural. Superhuman is a egotistical term to lay people and follows the 'look how clever I am' problem.

phillipnorthfield wrote:

SamGurney wrote:

IAIN wrote:

SamGurney wrote:I think perhaps the appeal of Conan Doyle's character is that he is superhuman; but as a reader you're never meant to feel stupid. I always find his books a refreshing reminder of how incredible the mind is.

no he wasn't...he was just another human being...no hint of any psychic, or superhumaness was ever implied...

SamGurney wrote:the question is then, is everyone's best virtually the same? Which is a MUCH bigger question than you could imagine.

ha - you say "bigger question than you could imagine", like you have some kind of higher knowledge Sam...that made me smile.... thank you

Not YOU personally, 'you' as in 'one' but one would be frowned up in one were to use such language these days They kept it in france though :/

Anyhow... well definition, definition, definition. He was fictitious. I would say that Ghandi was superhuman as well, or you could... I apologise... 'one' could say that Robert Plant's voice was 'superhuman'; Extraordinary; mind blowing... blah blah blah.

Besides it makes absolutley no difference on the point I was making anyway.

Muchos Lovos, Sam.

I think your trying to express 'supernatural' which of course means better than natural. Superhuman is a egotistical term to lay people and follows the 'look how clever I am' problem.

This still doesn't make it important!!

I have explained what I meant by supernatural. It has no effect on my argument. It was a word I used as one example for a tiny footnote about something or other. Pedantry aside.

Sherlock Holmes has lasted a long time... as have detective novels... and our facination with heroism- Grecian mythology right through to James Bond, we all are facinated by the 'superhuman' or whatever word I want to use which gets my point across... If this so called 'look how clever I am problem' really existed, then that would have been snuffed out several millenia ago. But it hasn't. We like this idea of an alpha (fe)male, because we like to think we could become that.

Nobody goes 'look at that Ghandi, how smart *rse and pretentious. Look how he thinks hes better than everyone else'. No. Because he was an extraordinary individual and he never took his extraordinariness and waved it around arrogantly; that's the point I'm making. You can paint like Michealangelo and not be arrogant as long as you don't say 'You know what, I am damn good'.

Humanity is just this incredible talking virus. It's like one of those kids at school who is incredily clever, but turns up stoned at school and throws chairs out the windows... a bit of a waste really. I feel like botanist, watching this wild beast, who you know has the potential to direct its might to good, but who wastes it all. Human history is repetative chains of blunders from usually rich, pompous retards who are terrible ambassadors for humanity, messing the world up for the decent people, who rarley turn up in history books. It is an incredibly depressing thing to find out the history of weaponology is the one history which is not plagued by idiocacy, by intervention to development from the powerful- even science has a more embarrsessing history. It is incredibly depressing that the best some of the best examples of human potential are leaked through when we are murdering each other.

Humans are stupid- because they are so clever and this is what they end up doing.

The truth is that Genius doesn't exist- because it exists in everyone; latently, mostly.

Oh dear, someone point it out to me, I have contradicted myself, everything I have said is invalid... its not that important what he actually meant, the aphoristic style does not please my aesthetic, literal view of the world, it must be commented on...