In the Gaps - Stone Column

Discuss the views of your favorite Genii columnists.

Postby ftlum » 05/21/09 12:52 AM

The Tom Stone column in 6/09's issue was an interesting (and useful) way to think of misdirection, but the description of the physiology seems a bit too sweeping; while certain elements are correct, I'm not sure I've ever heard things put quite the way he did in over 10 years of doing Neurology.

Richard, does Mr. Stone have any medical references that he based his write-up on? I'd find the reading interesting.
ftlum
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 02/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: Roseville

Postby Tom Stone » 05/21/09 04:54 AM

Franklin Lum wrote:The Tom Stone column in 6/09's issue was an interesting (and useful) way to think of misdirection, but the description of the physiology seems a bit too sweeping; while certain elements are correct, I'm not sure I've ever heard things put quite the way he did in over 10 years of doing Neurology.

Richard, does Mr. Stone have any medical references that he based his write-up on? I'd find the reading interesting.

Nope, I've got no medical references at all. Zero, Zilch, Nada.
It's all approximations, guesswork and pseudo science.

I didn't aim for a correct description, as it would become too abstract, the aim was to get an approximation that actually could be used hands-on. Whether that goal was reached or not is open for debate.

You are most welcome to point out the flaws and errors. If you read the intro to my February column, you see that I say quite plainly that I desire to be refuted :)
User avatar
Tom Stone
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 05/21/09 07:54 AM

I don't think there's too much debate over congruence, the priority of recognized actions (the knife held high vs the hand quietly going to the lap for an instant ala Slydini) or the possible use of confusion by way of split focus moments (gaze crossing).

Likewise there's not much to debate about our model of visually perceived space as made from patches of interest assembled by inspection via rules we learn about the world from infancy on. The video "color changing card trick" pretty much settles the claim that we can visually see things yet not cognitively process them. It might be good scientific research to re-do that "color changing card" video using more striking contrast elements until the changes go from "just noticeable" to "noticeable" and find out what makes the difference or causes a shift from background seeing to foreground noticing.

So where's the misdirection? And why pick on Tom for bringing some basic knowledge of perception to the magic shop by way of examples folks know about from the magic shop?

There's been some research on just what gets turned on and off in our model building between eye movements. Not sure how applicable these are - definitely room for exploration there. Anyone up for seeing if micorsaccades occur during an "ah-ha" or a "where did that go" moment when watching a magic performance?

Thanks Tom - I enjoyed the article. More please.
Last edited by Jonathan Townsend on 05/21/09 11:38 AM, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: may as well put the current questions in current language. :)
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6674
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby ftlum » 05/22/09 01:43 AM

Thanks for the reply, Tom. I actually did like your article, BTW; it's a very interesting approach to misdirection.
ftlum
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 02/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: Roseville

Postby Steve Vaught » 05/22/09 10:46 PM

Tom,

I would like to say that I DID NOT like the column. I LOVED IT!! I thoroughly enjoyed the article. And to let Richard K. know that these articles FOR ME personally, make me glad that I have signed up for another year. So thanks Richard and thanks Tom.

I believe that the area of pyschology in magic should be looked at by more people. Again, FOR ME, there is something almost giddy about knowing principles you can use to LEAD a person through this beautiful 'story structure' that YOU have designed, to bring about something THEY may NEVER forget. And you've done it NOT with some gaudy prop you bought for $49.99 at the local magic shop, but through years of study, practice, deep contemplation...

Just to reference what Frank said earlier...I was thinking the same thing, "can he back up some of these statements", but I believe in general you have hit on some MAJOR points that should be looked at...in high resolution.

Steve V (the other one)
Steve Vaught
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 08/29/08 03:17 AM
Location: South Bend, IN

Postby Tom Frame » 05/23/09 10:58 AM

Thanks for your very interesting, thought-provoking article, Tom. I really like the way you think.


The other Tom
Tom Frame
 
Posts: 860
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: San Francisco


Return to Columns