Ennobling Magic

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 23907
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Richard Kaufman » December 12th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Don't you guys get tired of arguing the same points over and over again?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Bob Farmer
Posts: 2137
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Short card above selection.

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Bob Farmer » December 12th, 2017, 4:37 pm

As one of my weed-addled philosophy professors once mumbled through a haze of Carlos Castaneda quotations, "If you have to ask the question, you can never understand the answer." He was later apprehended running through the campus, half-naked and barking like a chicken.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 12th, 2017, 4:48 pm

Richard Kaufman wrote:Don't you guys get tired of arguing the same points over and over again?


i look forward to the day keyes actually makes a point.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 488
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jack Shalom » December 12th, 2017, 6:27 pm

I wonder, Mr. Keyes, if you've ever been in a relationship with a significant other for any amount of time? Because I guarantee you that whether you tell them verbally that the unfamiliar bra left under the bed is yours, or merely put it up against your chest to imply it is, you will be called a liar.

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 12th, 2017, 6:47 pm

I think he was talking about telling lies in magic rather than in one's personal life.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 12th, 2017, 6:52 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:
Richard Kaufman wrote:Don't you guys get tired of arguing the same points over and over again?


i look forward to the day keyes actually makes a point.


First point would be that it's going to be rather difficult to get the majority of readers on your side, when a few posts back you condescendingly suggested that "most magicians" are puzzlers, and that's what's rotten in the state of Denmark.

Unless everybody here is an elitist who thinks he's above it all like you, that's going to cost you.

Second is that you literally said that lies are what audiences come to see a magician for. I don't have the quote, but you actually, really said that!

You call one performance of Hoy's Book Test, and your subjective (not to mention undocumented) observation of your audience's state of elation, "empirical" evidence. As opposed to my apocryphal experiences.

Third you wave your sparkle wand in the air and wax grandiloquent about how (in your opinion), folks don't care about how illusions are created, all they care about is the "feeling" of wonder at The Impossible.

Well, I think that the emotion of "wonder" is inspired by curiosity, speculation, imagination. That the thrill we experience is the stimulation of our brains, not the numbing of them. It's our desire to solve the mystery that compels us to watch. Which is why I feel that "puzzlers" have more respect for the demands of the crowd than your sort.

We "puzzlers" not only invite our audiences to think, we let them.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 488
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jack Shalom » December 12th, 2017, 9:35 pm

performer wrote:I think he was talking about telling lies in magic rather than in one's personal life.

I'm speaking to the point that this distinction between a verbal lie and a visual lie is a made up one. No one gets a pass for one and not the other, ever. Either they are both wrong or neither is. In the case of magic, neither.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 12th, 2017, 10:08 pm

Jack Shalom wrote:
performer wrote:I think he was talking about telling lies in magic rather than in one's personal life.

I'm speaking to the point that this distinction between a verbal lie and a visual lie is a made up one. No one gets a pass for one and not the other, ever. Either they are both wrong or neither is. In the case of magic, neither.


As I have said before, I take the definition of "lie" strictly. I do not consider the word to be synonymous with "deception" , which may be applied generally. "Visual lles", ,"lies of omission" etc. are colloquially related, but are not of the same type.

A lie is a deception, but a deception is not necessarily a lie.

My argument is not a moral one. I am not suggesting that certain forms of deception are more acceptable to the audience than another (although I personally think they are less likely to resent skilled moves and ingenious devices), but that the performance of magic requires practical tricks, so they can't be eliminated. Verbal lies are unnecessary. Whether they are lesser or equal or greater offenses, they constitute a foolish risk to individual performers as well as to their fellow tradesmen.

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 12th, 2017, 10:47 pm

I am in a mischievous mood! And I am also a little unclear as to which lies Jkeyes deems acceptable and which he doesn't. Therefore I see a way of killing two birds with one stone, that is satisfying my desire for mischief and at the same time clarifying which lies are good ones and which are not so good ones in jkeyes eyes.

Here is the video I posted before of Brad performing. There should be enough lies to analyse here. I think it would be quite wonderful for jkeyes to go through the video carefully and list each lie one by one and beside it mark "acceptable lie" or "non acceptable lie". To make things even easier I might even list the lies myself since I have almost as much time on my hands as both Brad and Jkeyes. Once the lies are listed I might then request comments on whether they are acceptable or unacceptable.

The first lie is when Brad tells a great big fib about people asking him if he ever makes a mistake. (When I say "mistake" I am not referring to his participation in this interminable thread). He then makes a joke about the mistake. I think that is an acceptable lie. I wonder what jkeyes thinks?

This idea of mine has great possibilities for amusement and for all I know jkeyes will be forced to admit that all Brad's lies on this video are acceptable ones! Anyway here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6seZCLCU-Yo

Jackpot
Posts: 89
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 12:38 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jackpot » December 12th, 2017, 11:35 pm

performer's challenge sounds interesting. I wonder where Mr. Henderson's performance will fall on the Keyes Lying Scale. To be the most entertaining all the lies need to be allowed. To see what happens when none of the lies are allowed, mute the video to see just how entertaining magic can be without lies.
Not the one who created the Potter Index.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 488
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jack Shalom » December 12th, 2017, 11:54 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:My argument is not a moral one. I am not suggesting that certain forms of deception are more acceptable to the audience than another ...


Please, we can all read, Mr. Keyes; you've continually framed your posts in moral terms, and continually claimed that certain forms of deception are more acceptable to the audience than others.

John Signa
Posts: 289
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby John Signa » December 13th, 2017, 12:15 am

Richard Kaufman wrote:Don't you guys get tired of arguing the same points over and over again?

https://youtu.be/xz6OGVCdov8

User avatar
magicam
Posts: 862
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 8:40 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby magicam » December 13th, 2017, 8:22 am

jkeyes1000 wrote:I am not suggesting that certain forms of deception are more acceptable to the audience than another ...

Image

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 13th, 2017, 8:52 am

performer wrote:I am in a mischievous mood! And I am also a little unclear as to which lies Jkeyes deems acceptable and which he doesn't. Therefore I see a way of killing two birds with one stone, that is satisfying my desire for mischief and at the same time clarifying which lies are good ones and which are not so good ones in jkeyes eyes.

Here is the video I posted before of Brad performing. There should be enough lies to analyse here. I think it would be quite wonderful for jkeyes to go through the video carefully and list each lie one by one and beside it mark "acceptable lie" or "non acceptable lie". To make things even easier I might even list the lies myself since I have almost as much time on my hands as both Brad and Jkeyes. Once the lies are listed I might then request comments on whether they are acceptable or unacceptable.

The first lie is when Brad tells a great big fib about people asking him if he ever makes a mistake. (When I say "mistake" I am not referring to his participation in this interminable thread). He then makes a joke about the mistake. I think that is an acceptable lie. I wonder what jkeyes thinks?

This idea of mine has great possibilities for amusement and for all I know jkeyes will be forced to admit that all Brad's lies on this video are acceptable ones! Anyway here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6seZCLCU-Yo



Thanks, Mark! That was a good idea.

I find nothing objectionable in the way of "lies" in the video. Just jokes and commercialism.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 13th, 2017, 9:07 am

Below is a video that demonstrates the kind of lies i detest. Note that the performer (Osterlind) not only miscalls the page, but has the gall to TELL the volunteer which word she is thinking of!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYvmobtjsLw&sns=em

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 13th, 2017, 9:34 am

jkeyes1000 wrote:
First point would be that it's going to be rather difficult to get the majority of readers on your side, when a few posts back you condescendingly suggested that "most magicians" are puzzlers, and that's what's rotten in the state of Denmark.


this has nothing to do with the any claim but is an attack on the method of argument itself. And i stand by my statement. Sometimes the truth hurts. and we only need to look at the quantity of magic produced and sold to see that most of it is designed to appeal not to audiences but magicians - they are puzzles that tease the magician into buying the secret. The fact that demo videos actively work to conceal the secret demonstrates that these items aren't being sold to performers who care more about their audiences need. If they did they would be open about how they worked so the performer could decide if they were right for the audience. But we know that once a method leaks out sales of the trick plummet. this is because magicians are for the most part
interested in primarily pleasing themselves and that means a focus on methods.

if this upsets magicians, i don't care. sometimes the truth hurts.

Unless everybody here is an elitist who thinks he's above it all like you, that's going to cost you.


for someone who says your goal isn't to 'win' you certain but seem to be thinking like someone who's goal is.


Second is that you literally said that lies are what audiences come to see a magician for. I don't have the quote, but you actually, really said that!


no. i said audiences DONT care about methods. They come for the experience of the impossible and they are aware the magician lies.

just as they are aware that the monsters at a haunted house are men in masks

they don't come to see men in masks. they come to get scared.

the audience is also aware that a musical uses lights to illuminate the action and create a mood, but to say they come to see an electrical plot is nonsense.

the audience as you admit is aware that the magicians uses sleights and gaffs, but they don't come to see sleights and gaffs. Only other magicians would come to a magic show to see sleights and gaffs. Real people come for the feeling. The fact this seems so incomprehensible to you establishes that, as i've said, you're doing it wrong.


You call one performance of Hoy's Book Test, and your subjective (not to mention undocumented) observation of your audience's state of elation, "empirical" evidence. As opposed to my apocryphal experiences.



well, there are also the hundreds of magicians who have used the ruse over decades. The fact it's still around suggests it works. But hey, let me know next time you are in austin and i will be thrilled to perform it for a group of real people in front of you.

just because you lack the skill set to employ a technique effectively doesn't mean others can't. It's like the child who says palming doesn't work because he can't palm.


Third you wave your sparkle wand in the air and wax grandiloquent about how (in your opinion), folks don't care about how illusions are created, all they care about is the "feeling" of wonder at The Impossible.

Well, I think that the emotion of "wonder" is inspired by curiosity, speculation, imagination. That the thrill we experience is the stimulation of our brains, not the numbing of them. It's our desire to solve the mystery that compels us to watch. Which is why I feel that "puzzlers" have more respect for the demands of the crowd than your sort.


well thank goodness, keyes admits he's a puzzler. that explains everything. well not everything. we still don't know how an audience can magically detect lies unless the secret is exposed to them - or how and why a verbal lie is more damning than a non verbal one - but hey, at least this is progress.

tell me, when an audience goes to a musical do they care about how the electrical fixtures are wired or do they care about how the story makes them feel? when you go to a concert, do you focus on how the road cases are loaded into the trucks or the feeling you get from your favorite song?

if puzzles were the same as magic we would call puzzles magic. But we don't.

perhaps the reason you seem fixated on the presentation of puzzles is that you 1) are afraid of the power that comes with being a magician and dilute the audiences experience to protect your own insecurities. (this would explain your penchant for comedy or magic that happens 'to you'. A lot of magicians are afraid of power. Eugene Burger has discussed that quite a bit. this is why so often performers undercut the magic moments with stupid jokes) or 2) your lack of technical competence and inability to structure deceptive magic forces you to take the path of the puzzler, so when the audiences figure out your methods, as they likely do, they at least have some sort of experience to point to beyond complete disappointment.


We "puzzlers" not only invite our audiences to think, we let them.


who says i don't want my audiences to think?

quite the contrary, i want them to think a lot.

i just think magic should encourage thoughts greater and deeper than puzzling over how an electrical fixture gets its power.

with magic we can encourage people to contemplate concepts such as identity, permanence, passion, obsession, potential, what it means to know or not know, influence, and mystery.

with tricks and puzzles we encourage people to think about 'things' - oh, it's in his other hand

perhaps it you had a more well rounded magical education you would know (in addition to the fact that magicians have lied for centuries) that great magic has always encouraged people to think - but to think about things beyond mere method.

perhaps you should take a trip to london and see one of derren brown's next stage shows, or a trip to NYC to see Derek Delgaudio's In and Of Itself.

the people who walk out of that show have a LOT to think about - but i can't imagine any of them giving one wit as to 'how it's done.'

perhaps keyes you should stop trying to force your limitations on everyone else. Magic can be so much more than your shallow outlook would allow. But that requires that you stop thinking like a puzzler and start thinking like an artist.

but then again, we know what you think of art.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 13th, 2017, 9:41 am

jkeyes1000 wrote:Below is a video that demonstrates the kind of lies i detest. Note that the performer (Osterlind) not only miscalls the page, but has the gall to TELL the volunteer which word she is thinking of!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYvmobtjsLw&sns=em


which one of those people in the audience called him out for lying? which one asked to actually see the page number tney he read out and held up?

how would any of them know there was a lie unless they knew how the trick worked ?

please show us the exact moment that the audiences experience was negatively impacted by the lie.

Bob Farmer
Posts: 2137
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Short card above selection.

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Bob Farmer » December 13th, 2017, 9:44 am

JKEYES1000: please post a video of one of your performances so we can compare it to Richard Osterlind's.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 13th, 2017, 9:44 am

Jack Shalom wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:My argument is not a moral one. I am not suggesting that certain forms of deception are more acceptable to the audience than another ...


Please, we can all read, Mr. Keyes; you've continually framed your posts in moral terms, and continually claimed that certain forms of deception are more acceptable to the audience than others.


I am quite sure you can read, but I wonder whether some folks can distinguish between my precise statements and Brad's mischaracterisation of them.

In this exchange I have expressed my personal opinion, which I have conceded is virtually impossible to prove (at the same time pointing out that the opposite is equally challenging). But my sense that audiences generally resent verbal lies is nkt the core of my argument. I would never attempt to sway others with my subjective views. It is only the facts that I urge the readers of this forum to consider.

The fact that lies are AMONGST the most unsavoury things to most people, and the fact that one may perform brilliantly without them. I might even say "the fact" that it couldn't hurt to eliminate them.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 7705
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jonathan Townsend » December 13th, 2017, 9:49 am

If I understand the OP correctly there's a moment in the procedure for a book test trick where the book is opened to a page so the volunteer can read some text - where the script and actions are less than congruent? Folks seem to be avoiding that discussion of method/blocking/scripting. Is there a problem walking through the trick?

Then there's generalization about how the performer's ability to deceive is put at unnecessary risk when making incredible statements.

IMHO it's an orange.
1 Int. Sleeping quarters.

KRYTEN and LISTER are seated at the table. There is a collection of fruit on the table between them; on the viewscreen, electronic fish are swimming.

LISTER:
(Holding up a banana) Okay, let's try again. What is it?

KRYTEN:
It's a banana.

LISTER:
No, it isn't. Try again. What is it?

KRYTEN:
It's a banana?

LISTER:
(Exasperated) No, it isn't! What is it?

KRYTEN:
It's an urrrr.... It's an urrrr....

LISTER:
It's an orange! Go on, say it. It's an orange! This! Is! An orange!

KRYTEN:
It's an orrrr... It's an orrrr... It's a banana! It's no good, sir, I just can't do it!

LISTER:
You CAN do it, I'm gonna teach you how! (Holding up an apple) Okay, what's this?

KRYTEN:
It's an ap-

LISTER:
No, no, no, what is it?

KRYTEN:
Oh, it's no good sir, I just can't lie! I'm programmed always to tell the truth.

LISTER:
Kryten, it's easy! (Holding up the apple) Look: an orange. (Holding up the orange) A melon. (Holding up the banana) A female aardvark!

KRYTEN:
Oh! Oh, that is just so superb, sir! How DO you do that? Especially calling a banana an aardvark? An aardvark isn't even a fruit! It's total genius!

LISTER:
(Beat) Let's start again.


:)
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 13th, 2017, 10:43 am

Bob Farmer wrote:JKEYES1000: please post a video of one of your performances so we can compare it to Richard Osterlind's.


I do not have a video of my own Impromptu Book Test, but I can tell you what I do differently.

At s bookstore or a library, I ask a volunteer to choose any book (preferably one they think I have no familiarity with). I then ask to see the book in order to verify that it is properly paginated, as some are not.

Next, I ask the participant to choose another for him or her self. The only restriction being that it ought to have "several hundred pages".

While he or she is searching, I ask what section of the book they would like. The first hundred, the second, the third?

When they have chosen "their" book, I hand them "mine", explaining that the object will be to read one's own selection remotely (being held in another's hand).

I demonstrate how to flip the pages at a moderate pace so as to create a clear subliminal impression of the contents on the viewer's subconscious mind. After which, the volunteer is asked to reciprocate for my sake.

A page number is arrived at by each of us coming up with a short list of "distinct impressions", numbers that seem to "jump out at us".

Comparing them we find none that precisely match, so I propose we "split the difference" . Upon finding the average between the two favourite numbers, I instruct the volunteer on how to "retrieve the subliminal information from the subconscious", first visualising the page number, then expanding his of her mnemonic scope to find a word or image near to it.

The participant of course fails to "see" anything on the chosen page, even after receiving numerous hints and bits of advice.

Lastly I show them how it's done by one who has been experimentng with this concept for years.

No outright "lies", just what I call verbal misdirection.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 13th, 2017, 11:31 am

so it's a math trick.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 13th, 2017, 11:38 am

Brad Henderson wrote:so it's a math trick.


As opposed to a lie trick, yes.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 13th, 2017, 11:40 am

jkeyes1000 wrote:
Jack Shalom wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:My argument is not a moral one. I am not suggesting that certain forms of deception are more acceptable to the audience than another ...


Please, we can all read, Mr. Keyes; you've continually framed your posts in moral terms, and continually claimed that certain forms of deception are more acceptable to the audience than others.


I am quite sure you can read, but I wonder whether some folks can distinguish between my precise statements and Brad's mischaracterisation of them.

In this exchange I have expressed my personal opinion, which I have conceded is virtually impossible to prove (at the same time pointing out that the opposite is equally challenging). But my sense that audiences generally resent verbal lies is nkt the core of my argument. I would never attempt to sway others with my subjective views. It is only the facts that I urge the readers of this forum to consider.

The fact that lies are AMONGST the most unsavoury things to most people, and the fact that one may perform brilliantly without them. I might even say "the fact" that it couldn't hurt to eliminate them.


so your 'opinion' is backed with nothing - neither logic, nor theory, nor an appeal
to history, or demonstrations in practice.

that's great point you have their keyes. i think we should all make changes in our acts that the audience cannot detect, appreciate, nor improves the impact of the experience.

1) you say lies are unsavory - and they may be when you are dealing with a liver or used car salesmen - but we aren't. This is an art form. Just as no one finds the man from new jersey proclaiming himself prince of denmark no one is offended when the magician pretends to place a coin in his hand or proclaims a box to be empty.

you seem to want to posit that people are both smart and utterly ignorant at the same time. tnat they are incapable of being influenced by context.

when you show me the audience that finds the phantom of the opera offensive because they aren't really boating through an underground lair, you may have a basis for your point.

but the success of phantom proves your position is groundless.

2) why eliminate a tool that works? you can do magic without sleight of hand, does that mean magic is improved by it's absence?

your book test eliminates the lie but adds miles of pointless procedure that only serves to confuse the effect.

you say that great magic can be performed without lies but what you have offered as examples are hardly great magic.

as weber said, the shortest distance between two points is often a straight lie.

are you telling us that michael weber knows less than you do about what works for an audience?

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 13th, 2017, 11:43 am

jkeyes1000 wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:so it's a math trick.


As opposed to a lie trick, yes.


really, how does the audience know i have lied?

in your example you put the math in front of them. your trick is about math. they know you are doing math.

the hoy as traditionally done is about mind reading. in yours the math is the critical observable method of creating the page number. in the hoy it's merely stopping at random. you continue to confuse the method for the effect. you seem incapable of viewing a procedure with the eyes of someone who doesn't already know the method.

until you can point to the moment on the osterlind tape when the audience member steps up and says, that's a lie, your claims remain groundless

Jack Shalom
Posts: 488
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jack Shalom » December 13th, 2017, 11:50 am

Math tricks are much more liable to be uncovered than a miscall done intelligently as Osterlind does. And when math tricks are uncovered, in my experience, audiences can feel like you're insulting their intelligence.

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 13th, 2017, 11:52 am

I did watch the Osterlind video and I couldn't really see anything much to object to. Moreover I happen to know he is a very Christian gentleman and terribly ethical in matters of this kind. I suspect he is the sort who in real life were forced to tell a lie he would be in absolute agony over the matter. If he of all people is not troubled by the untruths in the video then I don't think the rest of us have to worry about it either.

The only way I think lying to an audience is unacceptable is if trust is betrayed. Such as saying "no camera tricks are used" when they are, or perhaps other examples so few I cannot think of them offhand. I don't think trust is betrayed when economy with the truth is used when performing magic since there is a sort of tacit agreement between an audience and a magician that the performer is going to use deception of some kind. And of course lying is a fairly prominent aspect of deception. If the audience were let in on the lie I don't thing they would feel resentment and might even laugh over the matter.

I do agree however, that if a performer is uncomfortable with telling lies when performing in most cases they really don't have to. I can think of very few tricks where you HAVE to lie.

I must say that I am most distressed that jkeyes couldn't find any unacceptable lies in Brad's video and I would be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed that I have been deprived of mischief.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 13th, 2017, 12:31 pm

Jack Shalom wrote:Math tricks are much more liable to be uncovered than a miscall done intelligently as Osterlind does. And when math tricks are uncovered, in my experience, audiences can feel like you're insulting their intelligence.


While this effect does rely on what you would call a "math trick", it is virtually undetectable.

All we are doing is finding the average between two numbers, a perfectly legitimate, common, and fair seeming method. Especially as both are supposed to have been randomly selected, each by a different individual.

In order to expose the "trick" one would need to establish that my number was in fact calculated in response to theirs.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 13th, 2017, 3:08 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:
Jack Shalom wrote:Math tricks are much more liable to be uncovered than a miscall done intelligently as Osterlind does. And when math tricks are uncovered, in my experience, audiences can feel like you're insulting their intelligence.


While this effect does rely on what you would call a "math trick", it is virtually undetectable.

All we are doing is finding the average between two numbers, a perfectly legitimate, common, and fair seeming method. Especially as both are supposed to have been randomly selected, each by a different individual.

In order to expose the "trick" one would need to establish that my number was in fact calculated in response to theirs.


so suspicion of math as a method is fine, but of lying is damnable.

groundless.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 13th, 2017, 3:10 pm

Jack Shalom wrote:Math tricks are much more liable to be uncovered than a miscall done intelligently as Osterlind does. And when math tricks are uncovered, in my experience, audiences can feel like you're insulting their intelligence.


worse still, math isn't a a logical method to make a choice of a word or page. It's a circuitous route that isn't congruent with the ultimately goal of the routine. And while one can often justify a round about approach, one must ask at what price? why not use an invisible method that the audience isn't even aware is in use, as opposed to a contrived method of generating information ?

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 13th, 2017, 3:17 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:so it's a math trick.


As opposed to a lie trick, yes.


really, how does the audience know i have lied?

in your example you put the math in front of them. your trick is about math. they know you are doing math.

the hoy as traditionally done is about mind reading. in yours the math is the critical observable method of creating the page number. in the hoy it's merely stopping at random. you continue to confuse the method for the effect. you seem incapable of viewing a procedure with the eyes of someone who doesn't already know the method.

until you can point to the moment on the osterlind tape when the audience member steps up and says, that's a lie, your claims remain groundless


Only a desperately flailing debater would skew the facts as you do, Brad.

You say my book test is about "math" and Hoy's is about mind reading.

No, if his is about mind reading, then mine is about "subliminal imagery visualisation or SIV" (a litle pun I conceived which never gets a laugh but I keep it in anyway).

Hoy's method is to do the old "stop meI!" bit which is equally lame whether it is done with cards or books or what have you. Mine is to allow the volunteer to decide which section of the book they wish to focus on, and THINK OF any page number within that range. He or she may change their mind at any time. And of course, to be fair, so can I.

The mathematical operation of finding the average is done by both myself AND the volunteer. I tend to "get it wrong" and he or she corrects me!

Although neither of these methods truly result in a random number, mine I think goes much further to create that impression.

You say above, that until I can show where someone steps up and yells, "That's a lie", my claims remain groundless.

I suspect that the reason why Osterlind refused to let the man in the front row participate is that he figured the blonde woman was more gullible, less likely to stand for his rubbish. Indeed, anyone could object, by saying, "That's not the word I was thinking of! It wasn't 'bathroom', it was 'the'".

At least my method doesn't require looking for a "pigeon".

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 13th, 2017, 3:39 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:
As opposed to a lie trick, yes.


really, how does the audience know i have lied?

in your example you put the math in front of them. your trick is about math. they know you are doing math.

the hoy as traditionally done is about mind reading. in yours the math is the critical observable method of creating the page number. in the hoy it's merely stopping at random. you continue to confuse the method for the effect. you seem incapable of viewing a procedure with the eyes of someone who doesn't already know the method.

until you can point to the moment on the osterlind tape when the audience member steps up and says, that's a lie, your claims remain groundless


Only a desperately flailing debater would skew the facts as you do, Brad.

You say my book test is about "math" and Hoy's is about mind reading.

No, if his is about mind reading, then mine is about "subliminal imagery visualisation or SIV" (a litle pun I conceived which never gets a laugh but I keep it in anyway).

Hoy's method is to do the old "stop meI!" bit which is equally lame whether it is done with cards or books or what have you. Mine is to allow the volunteer to decide which section of the book they wish to focus on, and THINK OF any page number within that range. He or she may change their mind at any time. And of course, to be fair, so can I.

The mathematical operation of finding the average is done by both myself AND the volunteer. I tend to "get it wrong" and he or she corrects me!

Although neither of these methods truly result in a random number, mine I think goes much further to create that impression.

You say above, that until I can show where someone steps up and yells, "That's a lie", my claims remain groundless.

I suspect that the reason why Osterlind refused to let the man in the front row participate is that he figured the blonde woman was more gullible, less likely to stand for his rubbish. Indeed, anyone could object, by saying, "That's not the word I was thinking of! It wasn't 'bathroom', it was 'the'".

At least my method doesn't require looking for a "pigeon".


I meant "less likely to object to his rubbish". Sorry.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 13th, 2017, 5:38 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:

Only a desperately flailing debater would skew the facts as you do, Brad.


what fact have i skewed? that people don't get offended when a magician does what they go to the magician to do, to experience the impossible? or when i pointed out that michael weber knows more about magic than you do? do you even know who michael weber or juan tamariz are?


You say my book test is about "math" and Hoy's is about mind reading.

No, if his is about mind reading, then mine is about "subliminal imagery visualisation or SIV" (a litle pun I conceived which never gets a laugh but I keep it in anyway).


no. when a good chunk of your time is used is done to figure a math problem, then yes, it's a math trick. flipping through the pages can be forgotten. Doing math problems, not so much.

let compare what the audience sees

1) i picked a book. i stopped on a page. I looked at that page and thought of a word. the magician told me what it was

2) i picked a book. the magician asked me to think of some numbers. the magician tried to guess my numbers i suppose but that didn't seem to work so then we added those numbers to his numbers but that number wasn't important so he did some math and asked me to expand my pneumonia telescope. then i'm not sure what happened. I said a word and he told me i was wrong. and then he told me a word but i'm not sure when i looked at it, or . . . i have no idea what he did.

yep, your magic is SOOOOO much better without lies.


Hoy's method is to do the old "stop meI!" bit which is equally lame whether it is done with cards or books or what have you. Mine is to allow the volunteer to decide which section of the book they wish to focus on, and THINK OF any page number within that range. He or she may change their mind at any time. And of course, to be fair, so can I.


because merely opening to a page isn't convoluted enough?

why do you think it's more impressive for them to first restrict themselves to a section and then a page?

why not name a page
?

and tell us keyes, why is taking the straight path so lame and loathsome? what's wrong with rifling through a book or cards? or is this one of your iron clad unsupported opinions you intend to spout with nothing on which to base it?


The mathematical operation of finding the average is done by both myself AND the volunteer. I tend to "get it wrong" and he or she corrects me!


so in addition to being confusing you are also incapable of math. Yeah, that's a strong selling point. of course if you know the answer and get it wrong, are you not lying?


Although neither of these methods truly result in a random number, mine I think goes much further to create that impression.


uh huh. the performer choosing the number that is an integral part of the process and then performing a prescribed math operation on it seems more random to you than merely opening to a page?

ok.

and when you tell this person you are choosing your number by subliminal influence, aren't you lying? how is it different to claim you are getting the number from a process inside your head than reading it off the page?


You say above, that until I can show where someone steps up and yells, "That's a lie", my claims remain groundless.

I suspect that the reason why Osterlind refused to let the man in the front row participate is that he figured the blonde woman was more gullible, less likely to stand for his rubbish. Indeed, anyone could object, by saying, "That's not the word I was thinking of! It wasn't 'bathroom', it was 'the'".

At least my method doesn't require looking for a "pigeon".


oh - so women are mindless and easy to fool. or just blondes? i suppose those big men in front are known for the intellectual capabilities?

for someone who says the audience will detect a lie based solely on the type of statement uttered you seem to be suggesting that they are weak minded and easily duped. which is it keyes?

and why would someone say the word was 'the'? it couldn't be the if the person followed directions.

but you could only know this if you had real world experience performing for real people.

that you think people would find doing math entertaining tells me you haven't.

again keyes, your position is baseless and your examples do nothing to further your claims.

but i ask - why do you persist? you say you don't want to win, but keep making your case. you say you wanted to share your opinion to see what we thought, and we told you?

and you keep ignoring the majority of what has been written focusing instead, as you admitted to doing, on trying to find errors and mistakes and pick them apart.

what do you hope to accomplish? i've shared why i do it - i don't want anyone to ever read this forum and think we as magicians ever thought yours was a good idea. i care about magicians.

what do you hope to accomplish ?

you've given us your opinion. we've told you why it is baseless. Repeating yourself isn't going to change anyone's mind.

so what are you hoping to do?

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 13th, 2017, 5:46 pm

He is hoping for the same thing you are. To have the last word!

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 13th, 2017, 6:06 pm

performer wrote:He is hoping for the same thing you are. To have the last word!


Good one, Mark! Actually I am dutifully responding to all these comments, especially those that are riddled with question marks, like Brad's.

I wouldn't want to leave any of you with the impression that I had been stultified.

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 13th, 2017, 7:09 pm

As the old saying goes:

"A man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still"

Jack Shalom
Posts: 488
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jack Shalom » December 13th, 2017, 8:16 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:
Jack Shalom wrote:Math tricks are much more liable to be uncovered than a miscall done intelligently as Osterlind does. And when math tricks are uncovered, in my experience, audiences can feel like you're insulting their intelligence.


While this effect does rely on what you would call a "math trick", it is virtually undetectable.

All we are doing is finding the average between two numbers, a perfectly legitimate, common, and fair seeming method. Especially as both are supposed to have been randomly selected, each by a different individual.

In order to expose the "trick" one would need to establish that my number was in fact calculated in response to theirs.


Yes, that's the way I always choose a page at random. I would never think of just opening a page, sticking in a card, or calling out a number.

Jkeyes, believe me, anyone who passed 11th grade math understands what is going on.

Mark Collier
Posts: 413
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, Ca
Contact:

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Mark Collier » December 13th, 2017, 8:48 pm

I think the reason Keyes says he never lost a debate is because, like now, he never admits it when he has lost.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 13th, 2017, 9:12 pm

Jack Shalom wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:
Jack Shalom wrote:Math tricks are much more liable to be uncovered than a miscall done intelligently as Osterlind does. And when math tricks are uncovered, in my experience, audiences can feel like you're insulting their intelligence.


While this effect does rely on what you would call a "math trick", it is virtually undetectable.

All we are doing is finding the average between two numbers, a perfectly legitimate, common, and fair seeming method. Especially as both are supposed to have been randomly selected, each by a different individual.

In order to expose the "trick" one would need to establish that my number was in fact calculated in response to theirs.


Yes, that's the way I always choose a page at random. I would never think of just opening a page, sticking in a card, or calling out a number.

Jkeyes, believe me, anyone who passed 11th grade math understands what is going on.


And anyone who ever fibbed would know what was going on in the Hoy Test.

But Brad's argument is that if you underplay the lie, no one will notice. Or everyone will be so intent on believing in The Impossible that they will ignore it. Surely if either of those premises are solid then why should anyone suspect?

I hope you're not telling me that what I need is a GOOD LIE in order to inspire confidence.

My book test is structured as a scientific demonstration of subliminal influence. In order to rule out the kind of nonsense found in Hoy's routine, it is necessary to assure the audience that they have a free choice. Which they have indeed. They choose the books, the section to focus on, and their preferred page number.

Now, even if a wise guy knows that this is not a real scientific study, and knows that all ungaffed book tests are based on some kind of page force, he will first wonder, How can the performer let the volunteer choose the SECTION of the book? Wouldn't that muck up the prediction?

Second, How can he allow the participant to THINK A NUMBER? Sheer bewilderment so far.

Third, How can he permit the number to be changed, right uo to the last second, before the books are opened?

Everything seems random and unpredictable, especially when the performer gets the "average" wrong and rather nervously concedes that the volunteer's figure is correct.

This is technically an algorithm, but without knowing that the performer deliberately chose a diametrically opposite number that when added to the participant's, and divided by two, would yield the force, they have only the vaguest notion.

Tell me, Mr. Shalom. What exactly might this eleventh grader catch onto? How precisely do you think it's done?

Jackpot
Posts: 89
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 12:38 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jackpot » December 13th, 2017, 9:36 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:Below is a video that demonstrates the kind of lies i detest. Note that the performer (Osterlind) not only miscalls the page, but has the gall to TELL the volunteer which word she is thinking of!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYvmobtjsLw&sns=em


Mr. Keyes,

Would you be so kind as to identify all the lies on the video which have you so worked up? And why is it galling for the performer to tell his audience which word she is thinking of? If he can't identify the word how could he be reading her mind? If he can't identify the word how can he entertain his audience?

Thank you.
Not the one who created the Potter Index.


Return to “General”