4 ms·

...or it can be done unreliably. Again, I can only suggest leaving the realm of theory and going out and seeing someone do it.

the_af 5y ago
I'm not saying the "trick" cannot be done. Magicians employ tricks and misdirection in their acts, to great effect. I've watched magic acts and been awed by them. I'm not a heckler. I'm just saying, 100% magic acts are misdirection, trickery, confederates, and dexterity. It's "psychology" in the sense they know how to misdirect. The same with mentalism. This doesn't detract from it; if it's fun entertainment, and the mentalist doesn't claim to have actual extraordinary powers of perception (or supernatural powers), then everything is fair and ok to me! But unnatural "perception" powers, mental powers, etc? Nope. Mentalism is a trick, not some exercise of wondrous mental powers. The latter claim wouldn't pass an Amazing Randi challenge.
- ineptech 5y ago
  > The latter claim wouldn't pass an Amazing Randi challenge. Randi's challenge was for people making claims of genuine supernatural powers, i.e. the mentally ill. I don't see how it's relevant here. > 100% magic acts are misdirection, trickery, confederates, and dexterity. I assure you that cold reading has been done for hundreds of years (without foreknowledge, which would be called "hot reading"), and can only suggest reading up on it. Wikipedia has a good overview.
  - the_af 5y ago
    I contend that Randi would also have been against the claim that a mentalist uses extraordinary mental powers of any kind (except normal brain power, of course). Not just supernatural powers. This is just trickery and misdirection. You seem to be under the impression that I don't appreciate it, but I do! I love a good spectacle. I just take issue with it being called some display of specially trained mental powers when it is not: it's just trickery, misdirection, confederates and sleight of hand. PS: I recommend you read user fooblat's comment. They claim to also own a bunch of books on mentalism, and it's 100% deception and trickery, of the same kind of magic tricks. The claims of "heightened powers of observation", etc, etc, are all misdirection to make the act more appealing.
    - ineptech 5y ago
      You're making this much more grandiose than it needs to be, bringing up Randi and the supernatural and all that. We're not arguing about what's physically possible, we're arguing about whether performers do certain tricks or not. Take for example the trick where a volunteer is asked to draw a simple picture on a pad of paper, and the performer then names it (or draws a similar picture). This can be done with a gimmick (e.g. a carbon transfer paper in the clipboard you ask them to write it down on) or without (just go up and guess). What you're saying, by "it's 100% deception and trickery," is not that the latter is impossible, just that no one does it. I think they do. For one, I went to some open mic nights in college, there were definitely some people who believed every blonde woman will draw a cat and choose the Queen of Hearts, and who sweat a lot when they don't. Second, I've seen routines where (I believe) the performer did a prediction, missed it, and then pivoted in to what looked like a fallback trick. It seems safe to presume that, when the performer gets the guess right, the trick ends differently. (And if you were in the audience on those nights, you'd say, "That feat can't be done reliably, it must be a gimmick!" To which I'd reply as I did originally, "...or it can be done unreliably.") Of course, a lot of mentalist tricks are indeed gimmicked. If you want an example of one that I think isn't, search youtube for any of the routines where Derren Brown cold reads strangers wearing clown makeup. I'm sure those could be gimmicked, but why would they? It would be a lot harder than just doing genuine cold reading. (You do agree that exists, right? If not, what's your theory to explain the wikipedia article? More confederates?)
      - the_af 5y ago
        Grandiose? I'm just saying it isn't grandiose but mundane, and that the entertainer's skill is what makes it seem something that is not. Not sure what the claim about guessing means. Guessing is a probability game. You can guess some of the time through blind luck, but unless you don't stack your chances in some way or the other, it will make your show less amazing. As for unreliability: indeed, that's my point. Wikipedia on Cold Reading states most performers have several "outs" for less reliable acts; they simply can react to or discard what misfires, and play with probabilities so that there will be some hits among the many misses. That's probabilities and misdirection, precisely my point! Note I don't claim to know how tricks are performed. I'm incapable of explaining most magic tricks (though a magician performer who's a friend of mine explained some basic tricks to me; I think he broke some kind of magician code and now the secret cabal is out to get him). How do you explain user floobat's assertion that in his stack of mentalism books everything is about trickery and misdirection? (If you feel urged to reply "why should we trust what someone on the internet claims?" my reply would be... "indeed") Edit: I re-read your examples, and in every single one you describe tricks and misdirection (like when you describe how a performer will "pivot" when an act fails, and none will be the wiser). That's actually... a magic trick. That's not some major feat of psychology or detecting subtle body signals, that's simply a trick and very good showmanship to be able to handle failures. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to debate with me anymore.

the_af 5y ago

I'm not saying the "trick" cannot be done. Magicians employ tricks and misdirection in their acts, to great effect. I've watched magic acts and been awed by them. I'm not a heckler. I'm just saying, 100% magic acts are misdirection, trickery, confederates, and dexterity. It's "psychology" in the sense they know how to misdirect. The same with mentalism. This doesn't detract from it; if it's fun entertainment, and the mentalist doesn't claim to have actual extraordinary powers of perception (or supernatural powers), then everything is fair and ok to me! But unnatural "perception" powers, mental powers, etc? Nope. Mentalism is a trick, not some exercise of wondrous mental powers. The latter claim wouldn't pass an Amazing Randi challenge.

ineptech 5y ago
> The latter claim wouldn't pass an Amazing Randi challenge. Randi's challenge was for people making claims of genuine supernatural powers, i.e. the mentally ill. I don't see how it's relevant here. > 100% magic acts are misdirection, trickery, confederates, and dexterity. I assure you that cold reading has been done for hundreds of years (without foreknowledge, which would be called "hot reading"), and can only suggest reading up on it. Wikipedia has a good overview.
- the_af 5y ago
  I contend that Randi would also have been against the claim that a mentalist uses extraordinary mental powers of any kind (except normal brain power, of course). Not just supernatural powers. This is just trickery and misdirection. You seem to be under the impression that I don't appreciate it, but I do! I love a good spectacle. I just take issue with it being called some display of specially trained mental powers when it is not: it's just trickery, misdirection, confederates and sleight of hand. PS: I recommend you read user fooblat's comment. They claim to also own a bunch of books on mentalism, and it's 100% deception and trickery, of the same kind of magic tricks. The claims of "heightened powers of observation", etc, etc, are all misdirection to make the act more appealing.
  - ineptech 5y ago
    You're making this much more grandiose than it needs to be, bringing up Randi and the supernatural and all that. We're not arguing about what's physically possible, we're arguing about whether performers do certain tricks or not. Take for example the trick where a volunteer is asked to draw a simple picture on a pad of paper, and the performer then names it (or draws a similar picture). This can be done with a gimmick (e.g. a carbon transfer paper in the clipboard you ask them to write it down on) or without (just go up and guess). What you're saying, by "it's 100% deception and trickery," is not that the latter is impossible, just that no one does it. I think they do. For one, I went to some open mic nights in college, there were definitely some people who believed every blonde woman will draw a cat and choose the Queen of Hearts, and who sweat a lot when they don't. Second, I've seen routines where (I believe) the performer did a prediction, missed it, and then pivoted in to what looked like a fallback trick. It seems safe to presume that, when the performer gets the guess right, the trick ends differently. (And if you were in the audience on those nights, you'd say, "That feat can't be done reliably, it must be a gimmick!" To which I'd reply as I did originally, "...or it can be done unreliably.") Of course, a lot of mentalist tricks are indeed gimmicked. If you want an example of one that I think isn't, search youtube for any of the routines where Derren Brown cold reads strangers wearing clown makeup. I'm sure those could be gimmicked, but why would they? It would be a lot harder than just doing genuine cold reading. (You do agree that exists, right? If not, what's your theory to explain the wikipedia article? More confederates?)
    - the_af 5y ago
      Grandiose? I'm just saying it isn't grandiose but mundane, and that the entertainer's skill is what makes it seem something that is not. Not sure what the claim about guessing means. Guessing is a probability game. You can guess some of the time through blind luck, but unless you don't stack your chances in some way or the other, it will make your show less amazing. As for unreliability: indeed, that's my point. Wikipedia on Cold Reading states most performers have several "outs" for less reliable acts; they simply can react to or discard what misfires, and play with probabilities so that there will be some hits among the many misses. That's probabilities and misdirection, precisely my point! Note I don't claim to know how tricks are performed. I'm incapable of explaining most magic tricks (though a magician performer who's a friend of mine explained some basic tricks to me; I think he broke some kind of magician code and now the secret cabal is out to get him). How do you explain user floobat's assertion that in his stack of mentalism books everything is about trickery and misdirection? (If you feel urged to reply "why should we trust what someone on the internet claims?" my reply would be... "indeed") Edit: I re-read your examples, and in every single one you describe tricks and misdirection (like when you describe how a performer will "pivot" when an act fails, and none will be the wiser). That's actually... a magic trick. That's not some major feat of psychology or detecting subtle body signals, that's simply a trick and very good showmanship to be able to handle failures. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to debate with me anymore.