Astonishing ACAAN on Fool Us

[Melvin]

Initially I thought the spectator was complicit and knew the order of the deck. What's more, he's not even surprised at the end that the chosen card arrives at his number, which should at least have left him a little astonished. What's more, the audience isn't exactly delirious about such a powerful effect either, which immediately brought to mind the theory of the too-perfect trick : by being too perfect, a trick can become imperfect. We have an excellent example of this here ! Hence my question: is it important to look for the grail in this ACAAN effect ?

[Dave Le Fevre]

It's not a prepared stooge. It is not an instant stooge. It is a really a case of stooges not realising they are stooges until it is too late to do anything about it!

That's my perception too. Except that I'd have thought that that classified them as instant stooges.

[Tom Stone]

which immediately brought to mind the theory of the too-perfect trick : by being too perfect, a trick can become imperfect. We have an excellent example of this here !

"The too perfect theory" isn't a real thing, and this can hardly be confused for it. It evidently worked well enough to stand 2 performances and still get the prize. That you initially assumed stooges was more to the lack of cancelling, than anything being "too perfect".

That's my perception too. Except that I'd have thought that that classified them as instant stooges.

Stooging, instant or otherwise, requires some kind of active participation. A spectator merely behaving like a spectator is something else. They didn't do anything differently than what any other spectator would do in that situation.

[Melvin]

In this example, we can see that the trick is so perfect that we can immediately imagine the solution. I don't understand why she didn't use a foam cube thrown at random several times to choose her two spectators from the audience, to completely lift the idea of complicity that immediately comes to the spectators' minds (even if it's apparently not the right solution). This is the perfect illustration of this theory. She hasn't studied Tamariz's magic way !

[Carlo Morpurgo]

There should be no doubt that the guy says "seventeen" while the audio gives "forty-seven". For those who still have some doubts I created this short clip: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12X0sLO ... sp=sharing

There also should be no doubt that the lady actually gives her free choice. True, we cannot see the lips when she utters "six of spades", and I believe that was a bit of a glitch, actually. Later she speaks two or three times, with lips in view, and we would certainly pick up the different voices. Also, she was asked if that was her free choice etc.-- too risky to ask those questions after a voice dubbing.

To me the only open issue is: given the chosen card (in a stacked deck) how was the corresponding number "47" produced into audio? Initially I thought that she would somehow manipulate the microphone, but if you watch closely, she does not seem to mess with it at all after "six of spades" was chosen - her fingers are not moving at all. So this only leaves two possibilities in my mind : 1) someone else is transmitting the audio, somehow; 2) there is a voice recognition software in the mike that captures "six of spades" which is then translated into the position. In that case the performer only has to push one button while the lady utters the card (as we do when we dictate messages on the phone), and another button to play the position (or the same button up/down).

[Tom Stone]

In this example, we can see that the trick is so perfect that we can immediately imagine the solution.

That's just word salad. That people immediately imagined solutions (mostly wrong ones) is a sign of the very opposite, a lack of perfection. The people at the actual performance, and who knew that no stooges was used, could not imagine any solution, as is evident by the prize.

I don't understand why she didn't use a foam cube thrown at random several times to choose her two spectators from the audience, to completely lift the idea of complicity that immediately comes to the spectators' minds (even if it's apparently not the right solution). This is the perfect illustration of this theory.

No one, not even Rick Johnsson, claimed that lack of cancelling would make anything "too perfect". The theory isn't real, and this can't be confused as an example of it. Its intended audience already knew that no stooges were used, and provided that cancelling themselves, and as Tom Moore already explained, the nature of the TV-shoot doesn't allow a random real-time selection of spectators.

She hasn't studied Tamariz's magic way !

Tamariz's "False solution" theory is real and functional. Johnsson's "Too Perfect" is not. Yet, I don't think her reading habits played a role, or put her apart. I would guess that 90% of the participants of that show haven't studied Tamariz's "False Solutions".

[Tarotist]

Whatever the method is I have a strong suspicion that this is the most impractical version of the trick known to mankind. Where the hell are you going to do this version apart from a television show where you can prepare this stuff? I suppose you could do it on stage but the normal tedium and lack of visibility of the trick would count against it let alone the fact that the volunteers will now spout to all and sundry what really happened.

Incidentally I have a method of knowing what card a person is going to say before they say it. I have even done it on David Berglas and he didn't even know I was doing it. I do have a suspicion he may have since cottoned on to it and used it himself from a newspaper article I read. Alas my invention is incomplete since I have not yet figured out how to know what number someone is going to say. I can figure out the card though. In fact I use it to do the Brainwave Deck trick but using a regular deck. I simply reverse the card the person is going to say.
Easy!

[DennisLisi]

Treading very lightly here, I would offer an interesting idea that occurred to me, after reading that there was a problem with the first recording of the act, and what we are seeing is the second performance.

Would this not be a clever way to do "pre-show" work?

For instance--it would explain how both of the volunteers were utterly obedient in refraining from an emotional outburst. Perhaps they had been advised twice, and in a way more pointed (less casual) than what we perceive in the video.

[Dave Le Fevre]

That's my perception too. Except that I'd have thought that that classified them as instant stooges.

Stooging, instant or otherwise, requires some kind of active participation. A spectator merely behaving like a spectator is something else. They didn't do anything differently than what any other spectator would do in that situation.

I don't disagree.

Yet again, I've used somewhat inaccurate terminology in this topic.

My understanding is that they were voiced over, they realised that they were voiced over, and in consequence they smiled. They were complicit. Not exactly stooges as such, but they knowingly went along with their own words being voiced over.

Or maybe they didn't. I'm starting to feel that I'm losing the plot of this one.

My apologies, I didn't mean to start a debate on whether they were stooges or instant stooges or any other terminology.

[Bill Mullins]

If you are going to use a fake voice, it's important to use one that sounds natural.

[Jonathan Townsend]

So something in the table computes a number and the microphone says the correct number? Be funnier if the microphone had effect buttons and the volunteer is told to push the "booming voice" button or such.

Too Perfect Theory is applicable when the construction of a routine (effect as perceived) leads the audience to the correct method. Johnsson suggests changing the effect since folks seem intent on using that method. That is his criticism of how some folks construct routines. It's well known sibling is where the routine leads the audience to an incorrect method...

[PressureFan]

This reminds me of a video of a ventriloquist posing as a mentalist. His helper had a bucket over his head, yet appeared to name items held up by audience members. It may have been at a magic convention, as they tipped the method at the end.
Ring any bells?

[Melvin]

Too Perfect Theory is applicable when the construction of a routine (effect as perceived) leads the audience to the correct method.

No : the theory of the too-perfect trick, which states that "some tricks that appear perfect become imperfect".
This is the case here : All the conditions of the ACAAN are present in this performance, and yet the spectator will immediately find an explanation (whether it's the right one or not) which makes this trick imperfect !

[Leo Garet]

This reminds me of a video of a ventriloquist posing as a mentalist. His helper had a bucket over his head, yet appeared to name items held up by audience members. It may have been at a magic convention, as they tipped the method at the end.
Ring any bells?

I don't recall a bucket, but I do remember a vent-doll being blindfolded and identifying items held up by spectators. Sadly, I can't remember the name of the doll.

It was absolutely baffling.

[Melvin]

in any case, at 3.52, the magician can see her viewer's disappointment on her face, and we can see her irritation. It's hard for a magician not to bluff his spectator. That's the limit of all these bad methods with unwitting accomplices.

[Tarotist]

This reminds me of a video of a ventriloquist posing as a mentalist. His helper had a bucket over his head, yet appeared to name items held up by audience members. It may have been at a magic convention, as they tipped the method at the end.
Ring any bells?

That is probably the Al Baker method that I and Tom Stone keep chattering about! It is also probably the method used in this TV show we are talking about.

[Tom Stone]

This reminds me of a video of a ventriloquist posing as a mentalist. His helper had a bucket over his head, yet appeared to name items held up by audience members. It may have been at a magic convention, as they tipped the method at the end.
Ring any bells?

That is probably the Al Baker method that I and Tom Stone keep chattering about! It is also probably the method used in this TV show we are talking about.

Yes, that's Al Baker's "Impossible!" from Mental Magic (1949).

[AJM]

This reminds me of a video of a ventriloquist posing as a mentalist. His helper had a bucket over his head, yet appeared to name items held up by audience members. It may have been at a magic convention, as they tipped the method at the end.
Ring any bells?

Didn’t someone do a version of this at the last Genii Convention?

Mike Caveney perhaps?

Andrew

[Joe Lyons]

This reminds me of a video of a ventriloquist posing as a mentalist. His helper had a bucket over his head, yet appeared to name items held up by audience members. It may have been at a magic convention, as they tipped the method at the end.
Ring any bells?

Mike Caveney and Jay Johnson at the MagicCastle.

[Tom Stone]

No : the theory of the too-perfect trick, which states that "some tricks that appear perfect become imperfect".
This is the case here : All the conditions of the ACAAN are present in this performance, and yet the spectator will immediately find an explanation (whether it's the right one or not) which makes this trick imperfect !

I'm not sure why you're trying to gaslight people, but the audience didn't find an explanation immediately. It was even performed twice in a row, according to people who were in the studio audience, and no one had a clue - as is proven by the prize that was given out. The trick worked as it was supposed to, for its intended audience. That you, closely examining a video, with loads of pre-existing knowledge of the craft, can reconstruct it has no bearing on anything. With that logic, any trick using a double-lift would be "too perfect" since you know about double-lifts.

That's the limit of all these bad methods with unwitting accomplices.

The method wasn't "bad" - it did work. And, again, there were no accomplices. The spectators at the table reacted exactly like a majority of spectators would. It was spectator management, nothing else.

[PressureFan]

Thanks Joe, that's it!
Richard, is ACAAN going to be in Greater Magic?

[Tom Stone]

So something in the table computes a number and the microphone says the correct number?

...or a person in the wings.

Too Perfect Theory is applicable when the construction of a routine (effect as perceived) leads the audience to the correct method. Johnsson suggests changing the effect since folks seem intent on using that method.

No, that's the main problem. It isn't applicable. It is just something sounds nice, without actually meaning anything.
Any situation that seems to fit the description of the "Too Perfect Theory" is always one of three other things. Either, it is a fictional routine, invented to support the thesis of the theory. Or it is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding of what the effect actually is. Or it is something that accentuates a fatal flaw somewhere else in the routine. None of the latter two problems, both serious and somewhat frequent, can be identified, analyzed or fixed whith anything in the so-called "theory". It isn't real, and talking about it as if it has merit is nothing else than destructive.

[Jack Shalom]

Re instant stooging: it does seem like there are ambiguous areas. Consider these two scenarios, how would you judge them with regard to instant stooging

1) For example, if I ask a spec to think of a card s/he sees in a reversed fan and there's only one visible, is s/he an instant stooge? I'm not sure how I would define that.

2) Or a dual reality effect. Say, a mentalist reveals the spec's question that the spec filled out on a card on the line where it says "Question:____", and many others in the audience have filled out their cards, too. But the mentalist also reveals the name of the spec's dog--which unbeknownst to the rest of the audience was asked for only on the spec's card. Is that instant stooging?

[Tom Stone]

Re instant stooging: it does seem like there are ambiguous areas. Consider these two scenarios, how would you judge them with regard to instant stooging

1: If in a comfortable close-up environment: Instant stooge.
If under disorienting stage lights, with hundreds of eyes staring at them, nervous over making an embarrasing mistake: Can't be really certain what they notice or not notice. Some people might be instant stooge, others will be honestly puzzled.

2: No instant stooge.

[Tarotist]

I don't think it is an instant stooge. It is more of an instant, "what the hell is going on?" moment.

[Carlo Morpurgo]

I don't think it is an instant stooge. It is more of an instant, "what the hell is going on?" moment.

I totally agree!

[Dick Koornwinder]

In the podcast "Penn's Sunday School".....yes, the news of the week....Penn Jillette Talks Emily Robinson-Hardy's ACAAN: https://youtu.be/RsuJWQe0Sl8?si=JTFhXmUoPzbZEWcm

[Tarotist]

In the podcast "Penn's Sunday School".....yes, the news of the week....Penn Jillette Talks Emily Robinson-Hardy's ACAAN: https://youtu.be/RsuJWQe0Sl8?si=JTFhXmUoPzbZEWcm

I just listened to it. As a psychic reverend I cannot possibly approve of the foul language. Quite disgraceful.

[Melvin]

I'm not sure why you're trying to gaslight people, but the audience didn't find an explanation immediately.

Indeed, the method with the microphone (if that's what's used) is excellent from a technical point of view.
And indeed the trick worked as it should.
But i'm convinced (but you'd have to ask the audience) that the audience immediately thought of a counterpart to perform the trick, which seems too perfect.
But i have no proof of what the audience thought.
What i do know is that the spectator will speak up and reveal the trick. I witnessed this a long time ago when I went to see Gary Kurtz's mentalism show, where everything was a pre-show: secrets were not kept from the audience for long... I could hear what the spectators were saying to each other at the break and at the end.

[Melvin]

The method wasn't "bad" - it did work. And, again, there were no accomplices.

If the microphone method is used, then the spectator who is robbed of his choice becomes an accomplice to the trick at his own expense. They won't be amazed by the trick, and they'll be angry at being duped.
For me, from the magician's point of view, this is a bad method, even if it works. I'd like to see magicians put some ethics into their magic, and for the effect to be perceived as such by all spectators.
How can a magician feel good about himself when he leaves part of the explanation behind for one of his spectators, who will have paid not to have been charmed by the magic, but to have learned about the scam ?

[Tom Moore]

This is what duel reality is all about - in your example the spectator hasn't been "robbed" since
a) They didn't know what the trick was going to be so have no perception of what they have missed out on and
b) They have still witnessed something impressive that they have never seen in their life; "someone" instantly knows where a randomly named card is in a deck- we might argue about how much of a magic trick this is but there's no doubt someone being instantly able to identify the position of a card is an impressive act in itself.

Also magicians (and comedians, jugglers, hypnotists) have used the fact that a spectator brought up on stage is inherently confused, slightly scared and playing catchup to what is happening since the very beginning of these artforms.

[Melvin]

This is what duel reality is all about - in your example the spectator hasn't been "robbed" since
a) They didn't know what the trick was going to be so have no perception of what they have missed out on

Of course that the spectator knew what was going to happen : she explained the principle of the trick before doing it !
He'd have to be really moron not to realize that it wasn't his voice or the number he pronounced. He's not in a double reality at all !

[Tom Stone]

...then the spectator who is robbed of his choice becomes an accomplice to the trick at his own expense. They won't be amazed by the trick, and they'll be angry at being duped.

This is stage, not close-up. Through the piece, there's several sources of sound. The unamplified voice that no one but the people on stage can hear. The sound in the speakers that mainly the audience hear. And usually, there's monitors to allow the people on stage to hear what the audience hear. You assume that a layperson on stage, hearing their own voice suddenly being faintly blurred by a sound from elsewhere, would instantly understand what that meant.
It's not certain they even remembered their choice. Fredrik Andersson, a friend, once got a mind glitch when performing UltraMental/Invisible Deck and produced another card then the one that had been named, and triumphantly showed it around, convinced that everything was as it was meant. There were no dip in the amount of applause compared to what it usually was. The lady who had named the card applauded just as enthusiastically as anyone else. No one had any reason to fake their reactions, so what happened there?
A look into what scientists call "choice blindness" might give a few clues. This is an experiment from the Lund University that I helped them design the method for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk6t68jB_g8

[Melvin]

Yes, that's all that's left : the disorientation of the spectator who has said the number and mishears what comes out of the loudspeakers, wondering whether he really said it or not, or whether the magician misunderstood him to repeat another number... disorientation...
But in the video, the spectator is pouting, he's not very cheerful... normally, when a card given at random arrives at your number, you should still be surprised and not pout as I see on the video.

[Tom Stone]

But in the video, the spectator is pouting, he's not very cheerful.

Are you watching a different video than everyone else? The spectator is smiling at the revelation. No more subdued than the layperson's reaction in my own Fool Us entry.

[Tom Moore]

You are definitely watching a totally different video.

At the start of the routine she explains the premise loosely, later she mentions to him he has to pick a position "in the deck" but when it comes to the key moment all she does is ask him to name a number doesn't get him to say or do anything else in the routine; regardless of whether this is the method actually used there IS a duel reality being established because as you are proving what the wider audience perceive as happening is very different to what actually took place.

You also clearly don't understand how TV (or stage) audio works - there could be music playing that everyone onstage hears but the audience doesn't hear (very common in music performances that the people on stage hear a click tempo and possibly just a piano playing the main melody whilst what the audience hears is a perfect mix of the singer and the full orchestra) or maybe the people on stage can hear a "phone call" of someone else participating in the trick or what they think is the sound of the director calling out camera cues. When onstage or on TV you can see dozens of technicians "in the wings" all of whom will be talking yet completely invisible and inaudible to the audience & TV camera's. Let me be very clear i am not suggesting any of these were the actual method but it is important to remember that this is an effect that was created specifically to be performed ON A STAGE, for a TV Camera so it is foolish to make assumptions based on the performance environment and methods that would work if a trick is being used table hopping in a restaurant.

[DennisLisi]

One common theme that the proponents of The Mic Theory (or the "Non-Stooge Theory") seems to be that the success of the trick was all the more marvellous because it depended on the management of the volunteers' reactions.

I understand the psychology of this opinion--that Ms. Emily is to be either lauded for her prodigious skill or congratulated on her remarkable luck--but I find it more in line with the view of the general spectator ("Bravo!") rather than with the cool objective analysis of the logical investigator.

The pertinent questions must be asked and satisfactorily answered--

Why would a magician, hoping to win a prize, use a clumsy (and extremely risky) method? Only to show how daring and self-assured she was?

If perhaps Ms. Emily had engineered her own performance (being a stuntwoman) it would make sense, but not if devised by a magician whose career and reputation consists of brilliant ideas (such as Martin Hart). He does not appear to have the same personal courage. He is evidently thoughtful, and secure not in the mere faith that he may be fortunate, but in the belief that he has worked out all the "bugs".

We have touched upon The Law of Parsimony (aka, "Occam's Razor"), but I think few amongst us realise quite how it works.

One does not eliminate ANY POSSIBILITY merely because it is supposed to be ruled out, or proclaimed to be preposterous.

One considers ALL PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS, and amongst them, determines which is simplest and yet most comprehensive in its conclusion.

I am working on a blog that will condense our discussion to the relevant points on both sides, for the benefit of those who wish to review the matter objectively. I will let you know when it is ready for perusal.

[Carlo Morpurgo]

You assume that a layperson on stage, hearing their own voice suddenly being faintly blurred by a sound from elsewhere, would instantly understand what that meant.

Tom, are you saying that the guy did not hear "47" as clearly as us, or the audience, but instead he heard a blurred sound? I am not familiar at all with stage sound....

[Tom Stone]

We have touched upon The Law of Parsimony (aka, "Occam's Razor"), but I think few amongst us realise quite how it works.

The basic tenet of Occam's Razor is "Entities should not needlessly be multiplied". You are multiplying the entities far more than everyone else combined, and are likely not in a good position to comment on what others realise about it.

[Tom Stone]

Tom, are you saying that the guy did not hear "47" as clearly as us, or the audience,

Yes. There were no monitor at the table, so where would he hear the mixed amplified sound from?