Re: Ennobling Magic
Posted: December 12th, 2017, 4:18 pm
Don't you guys get tired of arguing the same points over and over again?
Richard Kaufman wrote:Don't you guys get tired of arguing the same points over and over again?
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.
performer wrote:I think he was talking about telling lies in magic rather than in one's personal life.
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.
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 ...
Richard Kaufman wrote:Don't you guys get tired of arguing the same points over and over again?
jkeyes1000 wrote:I am not suggesting that certain forms of deception are more acceptable to the audience than another ...
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Bob Farmer wrote:JKEYES1000: please post a video of one of your performances so we can compare it to Richard Osterlind's.
Brad Henderson wrote:so it's a math trick.
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.
jkeyes1000 wrote:Brad Henderson wrote:so it's a math trick.
As opposed to a lie trick, yes.
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
jkeyes1000 wrote:
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".
performer wrote:He is hoping for the same thing you are. To have the last word!
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.
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.
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