3 ms·

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 poss

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.
- ineptech 5y ago
  > Not sure what the claim about guessing means. By "guessing" I meant the opposite of "trickery". The latter, I remind you, you described as meaning, "basically, already know the answer." I hope you'll concede that "guessing" means not already knowing the answer. I'm not using those terms to prove a point or persuade you of anything, just for convenience: "guessing" saves me from typing out the phrase "psychological skill, manipulation, perception, or other mental techniques" and "trickery" for "gimmicks, trick pens, hidden cameras, confederates, sleights-of-hand, etc." So, what we're (I think) arguing over is whether any mentalism tricks rely on "guessing" as opposed to "trickery". Obviously, they all typically claim to be based on "guessing", that's sort of the definition of mentalism as opposed to other kinds of stage magic. But my position is that some subset of such tricks really are based on that, and I believe your position is the opposite, that they're all what we're calling "trickery." If I've misunderstood, please feel free to clarify. I looked for a few more examples (all by Derren Brown, not because I think he's unique but because he is prolific and practically all of his stuff is on youtube). One I already mentioned; another is the routine he does with Stephen Merchant; another is the one where he does the "Russian scam" on strangers; and a fourth is the bit where he tries to buy jewelry with blank paper rather than money. My understanding of your position is that these must involve "trickery" - the people involved are actors, there was sleight-of-hand the camera didn't show, or some other gimmick. I think he really is just conning those people. As for the books: compare to difficult-but-not-impossible sleights, like a perfect Faro or dead-cutting the Nth card. How many magic books have a trick requiring a Faro shuffle? Not many, because it takes a lot of practice to do reliably. And yet, there are (I think!) tricks being performed on stage which do rely on it. Same thing here, except that, unlike Faros and dead cuts, tricks based on "guessing" generally can't be practiced without an audience. "Go perform this pick-the-envelope trick in restaurants and shitty nightclubs, over and over, failing repeatedly, getting booed off stage, until you finally learn to do it reliably, and then there you are!" would not be very useful to the budding mentalist! But it doesn't follow that it cannot be done. And as for why we're arguing, well, I just like the kind of discussion where a casual belief of mine (something I think is true, but haven't done any particular research in to) is challenged - I think they are useful and good and worthwhile. I'm not angry or trying to show you up or "win", whatever that might mean in this context. Totally ready to update my own beliefs on all this. There are at least two tricks I used to think were probably "guesswork" before this thread, which I re-watched with more skeptical eyes and now believe are "trickery". But as I listed, there also still others that I think aren't.

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.

ineptech 5y ago
> Not sure what the claim about guessing means. By "guessing" I meant the opposite of "trickery". The latter, I remind you, you described as meaning, "basically, already know the answer." I hope you'll concede that "guessing" means not already knowing the answer. I'm not using those terms to prove a point or persuade you of anything, just for convenience: "guessing" saves me from typing out the phrase "psychological skill, manipulation, perception, or other mental techniques" and "trickery" for "gimmicks, trick pens, hidden cameras, confederates, sleights-of-hand, etc." So, what we're (I think) arguing over is whether any mentalism tricks rely on "guessing" as opposed to "trickery". Obviously, they all typically claim to be based on "guessing", that's sort of the definition of mentalism as opposed to other kinds of stage magic. But my position is that some subset of such tricks really are based on that, and I believe your position is the opposite, that they're all what we're calling "trickery." If I've misunderstood, please feel free to clarify. I looked for a few more examples (all by Derren Brown, not because I think he's unique but because he is prolific and practically all of his stuff is on youtube). One I already mentioned; another is the routine he does with Stephen Merchant; another is the one where he does the "Russian scam" on strangers; and a fourth is the bit where he tries to buy jewelry with blank paper rather than money. My understanding of your position is that these must involve "trickery" - the people involved are actors, there was sleight-of-hand the camera didn't show, or some other gimmick. I think he really is just conning those people. As for the books: compare to difficult-but-not-impossible sleights, like a perfect Faro or dead-cutting the Nth card. How many magic books have a trick requiring a Faro shuffle? Not many, because it takes a lot of practice to do reliably. And yet, there are (I think!) tricks being performed on stage which do rely on it. Same thing here, except that, unlike Faros and dead cuts, tricks based on "guessing" generally can't be practiced without an audience. "Go perform this pick-the-envelope trick in restaurants and shitty nightclubs, over and over, failing repeatedly, getting booed off stage, until you finally learn to do it reliably, and then there you are!" would not be very useful to the budding mentalist! But it doesn't follow that it cannot be done. And as for why we're arguing, well, I just like the kind of discussion where a casual belief of mine (something I think is true, but haven't done any particular research in to) is challenged - I think they are useful and good and worthwhile. I'm not angry or trying to show you up or "win", whatever that might mean in this context. Totally ready to update my own beliefs on all this. There are at least two tricks I used to think were probably "guesswork" before this thread, which I re-watched with more skeptical eyes and now believe are "trickery". But as I listed, there also still others that I think aren't.