The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.
User avatar
magicam
Posts: 908
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 8:40 pm

The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby magicam » June 9th, 2022, 12:18 pm

"Can a Magic Trick Be 'Too Perfect'? Study Tries to Resolve a 50-Year Debate" See https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2 ... 35027.html

Excerpt:
Magician Rick Johnsson proposed the idea in 1970, stating that if a trick is too perfect – seemingly impossible, with no apparent flaws over the course of its conjuring – it mght paradoxically become less impressive and make it easier for the audience to guess how it was performed. To back his contention, he argued that, in an era dominated by science, audiences no longer attribute magic tricks to supernatural abilities, but rather to the magician's skills. Moreover, onlookers now actively seek to explain how a trick was done. If a trick is too grandiose, it might seem more staged and leave room for only one obvious explanation, thus reducing the audience's enjoyment.

"For instance, a trick seen on television that appears ‘too perfect'—such as a magician correctly guessing all five words that a spectator is thinking of—might be explained in terms of camera tricks, or stooging," a team of University of London psychologists wrote in a new paper published to PeerJ. "However, if the performer introduces an error and misses one of the words, the performance might be more likely to be interpreted as ‘true’ mind reading skills, leaving the audience therefore being more impressed as well."

Johnsson's "Too Perfect Theory" has been contentious since its publication. Magician Tommy Wonder called it ‘‘one of the worst concepts to appear in magic in a very long time’’, while John Carney constructively critiqued that magicians shouldn't introduce flaws into their tricks, but rather subtly hint at plausible – but wrong – ways their tricks are performed, misleading the audience.

Despite the longstanding debate, no attempt has been made to scientifically test the "Too Perfect Theory". So, in two different experiments, the University of London psychologists did just that.


Link to the scientific paper: https://peerj.com/articles/13449/

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27056
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Richard Kaufman » June 9th, 2022, 2:34 pm

You can't show people a trick that succeeds vs a trick that fails as a test of the Too Perfect Theory. How stupid.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
magicam
Posts: 908
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 8:40 pm

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby magicam » June 9th, 2022, 6:26 pm

Richard, in the quote above there were two scenarios: in the first the mentalist got 5 out of 5 words; in the second the mentalist got 4 out of 5 words -- so 80% success. You don't think an accomplished performer could succeed doing 4/5 as part of a routine?

I'm not an advocate one way or the other, but did find it interesting and worth sharing here.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27056
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Richard Kaufman » June 9th, 2022, 9:36 pm

I was referring to the card trick discussed on the website.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Tarotist
Posts: 1367
Joined: July 29th, 2021, 7:16 am
Favorite Magician: David Nixon

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Tarotist » June 9th, 2022, 10:23 pm

When you have been performing for a long, long time you get to know instinctively when and when not the too perfect theory applies. You don't need a lot of daft psychologists who spend time wasting studies full of big words to figure it out. You will know instinctively when you need to use it. Instead of reading all that guff above you just need this short sentence that wily old Wilfrid Jonson wrote in 1945. "A good trick should always leave more than one solution open to the imagination of the spectators"

BarryAllen
Posts: 185
Joined: November 15th, 2009, 6:33 am
Favorite Magician: Joe Riding & Chan Cansta.
Location: Nuneaton England

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby BarryAllen » June 11th, 2022, 1:26 am

Firstly, I think that we need to draw some degree of differential between what is deemed a magic trick; and what is deemed an 'experiment' in Mentalism/Mind-reading.

For example, cut a piece of rope in half and if even after your incantation it's still in two separate pieces, then that could hardly be deemed a success. If however you restore it into one piece, that's hardly 'too perfect'......it's simply what you intended to happen.

However, perform a Mental Epic type of routine and get one (or more) predictions just slightly out and this would still possibly be deemed a success.

Afterall, didn't Chan Canasta make his reputation by not having a 100% hit rate? His ability to take risks and miss occasionally, was possibly what endeared him to most audiences. They knew he could get things wrong but were still happy to go along for the ride.

Denis Behr
Posts: 416
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Munich
Contact:

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Denis Behr » June 11th, 2022, 3:29 am

To me, there's so much wrong with this paper, it boggles my mind. I'm reminded of a phrase by Jamy Ian Swiss from last year's Genii article on Walter Scott: "This is a cartoon version of academic research—a work of faux academics."

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Brad Henderson » June 11th, 2022, 3:34 am

This appears to be based on a grave misunderstanding of what the too perfect theory claims. It has nothing to do with rate of success.

JHostler
Posts: 755
Joined: September 27th, 2008, 8:34 pm

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby JHostler » June 11th, 2022, 9:21 am

Unfortunately, Brad's comment applies to many individuals who post opinions on this theory before having read and understood it. I'm pasting an excerpt from something I wrote in response to Giobbi's reaction to TPT, as published in his wonderful "Sharing Secrets." (My response was indeed also informed by Johnsson's original Hierophant write-up.) Take it or leave it...

Even a cursory review of TPT (as originally published in Hierophant) reveals a train wreck of incoherence – at best a half-considered, knee-jerk reaction to magical effects with only one layman-feasible solution. In fact, this is the simple root of the problem: Johnsson mischaracterized something legitimate (a “Single-Solution Theory”) as something nonsensical. Well-constructed magic leaves no room for ANY solution – inclusive of those far-fetched or otherwise uninformed... This is where his synapses skipped a beat. [Even worse, he assumed that leading the audience to an incorrect or alternate methodological route was somehow better than the "single solution." But why??]

If only Rick had honed his focus on the elimination of the “single solution” rather than its ham-handed replacement...


IMO, we're better off just ditching the original proposition and starting over.
"The gnomes' ambition is handicapped by laziness." Adapted from Charles Bukowski, and clearly evident at http://www.gnominal.com

Jack Shalom
Posts: 1368
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Jack Shalom » June 11th, 2022, 6:16 pm

They really messed up by making it a mentalism effect; mentalism works on a whole different set of theoretical principles and assumptions than magic.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Brad Henderson » June 11th, 2022, 7:03 pm

Jack. I would suggest that there are some pieces involving mental phenomena to which the magic theory would apply, but you are correct that much of what is classified as mentalism is fundamentally different in dynamic of that which is presented as magic.

Mentalists of the ‘reading tells’ and even ESP (for those who believe in ESP) is more a demonstration of a skill akin to juggling or gambling demonstration than effects allegedly accompanied my means of ‘magic’.

The root of this issue is that mentalist as a term often embodies far too many possibilities to be of value in discriminating between various kinds of demonstrations and performance pieces. The only thing all mentalism has in common is they all involve process related to mental phenomena. A better way of distinguishing various type of mentalism is to differentiate based on the alleged MEANS of producing that phenomena.

Tarotist
Posts: 1367
Joined: July 29th, 2021, 7:16 am
Favorite Magician: David Nixon

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Tarotist » June 11th, 2022, 9:13 pm

I don't think we should ditch the original proposition as it is a perfectly valid proposition. I just think it needs a different name. Perhaps the "Too Impossible Theory" or perhaps the "Red Herring Theory". With regard to the latter making things a little less perfect sets up a kind of misdirection in the spectator's mind and he goes off in search of the red herrings you have laid for him or her. (Not that it does much good because they look up the secret on You Tube anyway)

Diego
Posts: 517
Joined: June 16th, 2008, 11:29 am

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Diego » June 12th, 2022, 1:13 am

One area where the "Too Perfect" or "Too likely" factor needs to be avoided is in mentalism/psychic work, (not mental magic), especially in Q&A and readings...group or individual. I remember a well known historian of american religious history was telling me he wondered about reports that evangelist/healer William Branham could tell strangers at his meetings their names and personal facts about themselves, but realized it was math: Either G-D told him, or someone told him before the service.

Sometimes someone receiving or observing a reading given to someone they know, has said, "I'm not sure if I can believe this, the information the psychic said was too personal/private/precise/accurate for me to buy into this."

JHostler
Posts: 755
Joined: September 27th, 2008, 8:34 pm

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby JHostler » June 12th, 2022, 7:20 am

Tarotist wrote:I don't think we should ditch the original proposition as it is a perfectly valid proposition. I just think it needs a different name. Perhaps the "Too Impossible Theory" or perhaps the "Red Herring Theory". With regard to the latter making things a little less perfect sets up a kind of misdirection in the spectator's mind and he goes off in search of the red herrings you have laid for him or her. (Not that it does much good because they look up the secret on You Tube anyway)


"Red Herring Theory" would be a much better title... though the theory as written is still muddled to the point of uselessness.

The original piece (Hierophant #5, p. 247) relates much more to a "single apparent solution" (a "too perfect" METHOD) than a "too perfect" EFFECT - though he does conflate the two at times. This has nothing to do with "being a little off" in mentalism. For the sake of clarity, I'll quote Johnsson directly:

"...we can easily see that the spectator is open to suggestion for his solution and in some cases, it would be wise for us to provide him with possible solution of our own choosing, and which would accomplish the following:

1) Lead him away from the correct solution;
2) Be acceptable to him;
3) Not detract from the effect of the trick; and
4) Give the magician full credit for his skill(?)."


Johnsson focuses primarily on #1 and #4. Also, early in his write-up he DOES note the exceptional nature of mentalism. And, interestingly, he does tap into something legitimate and valuable in an example of a burnt match effect.
"The gnomes' ambition is handicapped by laziness." Adapted from Charles Bukowski, and clearly evident at http://www.gnominal.com

Diego
Posts: 517
Joined: June 16th, 2008, 11:29 am

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Diego » June 12th, 2022, 1:06 pm

One mentalist in New Zealand noted during his show, one lady asked, "Does everything you do always come out right,(perfect)?
He had been doing an effect where he was able to correctly tell which of the 5 ESP cards were in each sealed envelope after they were mixed up.
He then would later "miss" one of his guesses, making it 4 out of 5 instead, and received a much better response to the effect and himself in general....which translated into more requests for readings afterwards.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby MagicbyAlfred » June 12th, 2022, 6:36 pm

I would prefer to focus on doing perfect tricks, or at least endeavor to. Perfect tricks (by my definition) are those for which there is no possible solution in their minds. Therefore, there is no need to worry that they will inevitably realize the only possible solution. And there is no reason to try and lead them to a false solution, which I think is a foolish thing to ever do, since they are then still being led to "a" solution, even if not the correct one. That's not magic, not to me. Equally so (and far more importantly) not to them.

The Invisible Deck has long been an example of what I personally consider a perfect trick. Why is it a perfect trick? Maybe I should qualify that question. Why is it a perfect trick for me? Because the best teachers I've ever had in magic -- laymen -- have consistently and unequivocally let me know it by their reactions. Their reaction is always, invariably, genuine astonishment, accompanied by, "I have no idea how you could have done that," or "No freakin' way," or similar outbursts. For whatever reason, it's never like, "Those must be trick cards," or "You must have flipped it over when I wasn't looking," or "I"ll bet everyone thinks of the 7 of Hearts."

And, in a half century of doing the trick, I find it uncanny that, not once, has anyone ever asked me to lo examine the deck, or tried to grab it. And, trust me, there are those who would have done one or the other in some of the establishments where I've worked, if they suspected anything amiss with the deck.

Now, I'm not saying that people who are sufficiently motivated (and evil) may not discover the secret online or something. But that doesn't make the trick imperfect, or too perfect. The trick itself is still perfect.

BarryAllen
Posts: 185
Joined: November 15th, 2009, 6:33 am
Favorite Magician: Joe Riding & Chan Cansta.
Location: Nuneaton England

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby BarryAllen » June 12th, 2022, 7:27 pm

Interesting point Alfred around the possible solution offered by spectators - that you simply 'flipped their chosen card over.'

To this end, I've always preferred using a Brainwave Pack - the different colour back just contributes that added layer of impossibility: and negates somewhat this particular spectator-perceived modus operandi.

Some years back, I spoke to Harry Robson (of roughing stick fame) about this. He too felt that a Brainwave Pack was just too perfect - and therefore used a Brainwave but just with one back colour of cards. In other words, it was similar to an Invisible Pack - but with the card revealed face up, rather than face down.

We all have our own preferences - but to my mind, an Invisible Pack is only doing half the job. A Brainwave Pack contributes that added convincer of mind-reading rather than possible sleight of hand, in my humble opinion.

Two points - if using an Invisible Pack, Doug Edwards (in his excellent Packs a Wallop book by Harry Lorayne) has a very nice, simple handling. Basically, he has the (for example) 7D paired with the 7D, 4C with the 4S, etc. Not only does this make the ball-ache of mathematical calculation and suit identification much simpler when under real world fire, but the outcome is that their freely-thought of card has been inserted next to its mate. I'll let you work out the (pretty obvious) mode of subsequent presentation.

Just to mirror your point - despite using a Brainwave for something like 45 years, never ONCE has a spectator asked to inspect the pack.

Moreover, I do use an added convincer, that I've never read before. Not sure if this ruse is original - is anything? When I get to the face-up predicted card, I casually turn upwards the cards above their face-up selection, saying (for example if it's the 6D) "you could have selected any card, such as the Eight of Spades, etc. Just an added little convincer that the pack is indeed kosher.

Tarotist
Posts: 1367
Joined: July 29th, 2021, 7:16 am
Favorite Magician: David Nixon

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Tarotist » June 12th, 2022, 8:13 pm

I believe in the too perfect theory but I don't get all agitated and worry about it too much. I don't invent the tricks I do so I am not responsible for the structure of them. If I perform a trick which seems to have no obvious solution so be it. If however, I end up doing a trick which has some weaknesses (and most of them do) then I am quite happy to instinctively do what I can to muddy the waters a little. I am after reaction not some intellectual point scoring. In any event you should leave poor Rick Johnson alone since he wasn't the first one to voice the theory. Monk Watson mused about it well before him. Furthermore I seem to remember that I once mentioned that another Jonson (Wilfrid) seemed to know about it in 1945 although he didn't give it a fancy name. It actually doesn't need one----it is common sense.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby MagicbyAlfred » June 13th, 2022, 7:49 am

Barry, Very good points on the Brainwave deck. I have had one for years, and even practice it from time to time. Inexcusably, however, I have not tried it out in performance. One thing I have considered in comparing the Brainwave and Invisible Decks is that with the ID, there is that delicious moment of drama and anticipation, when they see one card face down in the spread, but they have not yet confirmed its identity -- versus spreading immediately to the already-face-up card in BW. But the trade off of the different colored back in BW may be more than worth it. if it could be properly constructed, with at least some indicia of validity and reliability (???), that's one experiment the outcome of which would interest me. In any event, it may be time for this old dog to try a new trick...

BarryAllen
Posts: 185
Joined: November 15th, 2009, 6:33 am
Favorite Magician: Joe Riding & Chan Cansta.
Location: Nuneaton England

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby BarryAllen » June 13th, 2022, 10:35 am

If you've got a Brainwave Pack gathering dust, then give it a try Alfred and see how it goes over in performance. That said, I'm a firm believer in sticking with what you feel comfortable with. If an Invisible Pack has got you the 'wows' over the years, then why change it mate.

As an aside, the Invisible Pack certainly appears more popular - I don't see the Brainwave option discussed nearly so much. Personally, it's just what I started with - and so I just stuck with it over the years. I think it's one of the most powerful card tricks out there - based upon audience reaction. It's on par with my other favourites - Out of this World and Two Pack Coincidence. That said, these days I just normally go out to work with just a normal pack, 4 sponge balls, a paddle and 4 old Victorian pennies. Along with palm reading, I can do as long as they want.

Mark as always, makes a good point. Likewise, I'm not too interested thinking too deeply with the outcomes of psychobabble; nor I would imagine are most audiences. They are primarily there to be entertained; and to enjoy some magic tricks. If a performer continually sods them up, then I'm not sure that there would be much credibility left - for either the performer, or the Art of Magic!

However, as some of us have alluded to above, there's quite a difference between a magic trick and an apparent experiment in Mentalism.

That's a point....palm reading. I'm just wondering if a reading can be perceived as being too perfect? I (and no doubt others) tell the person at the outset that the reading should be about 85% accurate - as if it can really be measured! However, there have been many times over the years when people have said at the conclusion - "you got everything about me absolutely right". I doubt very much that I did - and that they've just remembered what they wanted to hear about themselves.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 1368
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Jack Shalom » June 13th, 2022, 11:28 am

The Brainwave and Invisible Deck are not confirming examples of the Too Perfect theory. In fact they are perfect effects, but unlike what Johnsonn was talking about, they don't have just one possible solution that leads to the method, rather they simply have NO solution, period, as far as lay people are concerned. I defy any layperson to come up with the idea of rough and smooth. That's why those are great tricks--there are no possible solutions.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27056
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Richard Kaufman » June 13th, 2022, 11:31 am

Jack, I don't think a lay person will come up with the specific idea of rough and smooth, but they certainly think about cards being stuck together in some way. I've had that experience many times (which is why I never do anything where cards are stuck together).
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Brad Henderson » June 13th, 2022, 11:47 am

One problem that leads to a lot of problems is that in many cases the method IS the effect.

A trick where a card is revealed to be reversed is poorly served with a method where the card is actually reversed in the process. ‘I didn’t see when you turned it over’.

The ultra mental and brain wave decks (invisible deck is really more a presentational concept than a method) is more deceptive than a method where the card is actively reversed because lay people wouldn’t think to think that ‘all’ the cards are essentially reversed from the outset and merely revealed as required.

The ID effect or brainwave effect are solid, unless the audience believes ‘you just flipped it over’ in which case no protestation will prove otherwise.

This is why some handlings where the card is initially shown to be reversed are so powerful. The addition of the odd back with brainwave eliminates secret flipping as a method.

Further The invisible deck plot engages the spectators imaginative thought process which helps silence their rational thought process. So by the time the card is revealed, it’s mostly too late for the analyzer.

BUT it is critical to accentuate how cleanly the cards are handled or you run the risk of them tumbling to the obvious albeit incorrect solution / you just flipped it over.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 1368
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Jack Shalom » June 13th, 2022, 11:56 am

RE Richard's comment: I think that's true for transformation effects, where one card becomes another. They want to look at the card. For the ID and Brainwave decks, they can handle the card, where the only heat is. The deck has already been shown and is easily switched if necessary. There's nowhere for them to go.

But the larger point is that Johnsonn's theory makes sense--but only if the one remaining solution is a solution that a layperson could come up with, even if only in a general way.

RE Brad: Agreed, that even false solutions in the minds of specs must be dispelled. I think this is a common problem with many memdeck effects. The performer must be cautious to dispel the false solution of marked cards, since many memdeck effects can be achieved that way, and it is a solution that can and will occur to specs.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby DennisLisi » June 13th, 2022, 1:40 pm

The question I ask myself is, Do I want the crowd to be impressed by the trick, or by my talent? I prefer the latter, so I avoid tricks that appear to be "too perfect" in the sense of not requiring my skill.

When it's obvious that I could have done nothing to the cards (for instance), not only does a sensible person suspect a stack, or a gimmick, but also loses respect for my ability.

I think it is always best to be "imperfect" if you are trying to persuade the audience that it is your effort that achieves the effect.

JHostler
Posts: 755
Joined: September 27th, 2008, 8:34 pm

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby JHostler » June 13th, 2022, 1:42 pm

Jack - You've stated that Johnsonn's theory makes sense, but Brad's assertion (identical to mine) - that ALL solutions must be dispelled - directly contradicts Johnsonn's proposal that false solutions be generated. This is SUCH an egregious fallacy that it begs for a complete rebuild of the "theory."
"The gnomes' ambition is handicapped by laziness." Adapted from Charles Bukowski, and clearly evident at http://www.gnominal.com

Tarotist
Posts: 1367
Joined: July 29th, 2021, 7:16 am
Favorite Magician: David Nixon

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Tarotist » June 13th, 2022, 3:56 pm

BarryAllen wrote:
That's a point....palm reading. I'm just wondering if a reading can be perceived as being too perfect? I (and no doubt others) tell the person at the outset that the reading should be about 85% accurate - as if it can really be measured! However, there have been many times over the years when people have said at the conclusion - "you got everything about me absolutely right". I doubt very much that I did - and that they've just remembered what they wanted to hear about themselves.


Here I am doing a palm reading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8ZV8X22U_c

Not quite as many views as my millions of card trick views but still a hell of a lot. However, if you look at the comments you will see that there are dozens of people who do not think it is too perfect and in fact it is not perfect in the slightest! Alas palm reading brings out all the sceptics in their droves! (Interestingly one of them has had a couple of paid readings with me since!). Some of them make very rude remarks which delight me enormously. After all old Murray the escapologist once advised me "Talk about me good, talk about me bad---It doesn't matter as long as you talk about me!"

Actually the too perfect theory does apply in this context although at first thought I didn't think it did. If you give a reading and EVERYTHING is 100 percent accurate it could raise suspicions that there was something fishy going on. However, the fact that most readings even with the best of palm/tarot readers are only 70% to 80% accurate makes the thing more credible.

What I found surprising about this video was that people were more concerned about the ASMR effect than the accuracy of the reading itself! I didn't even know what the hell the ASMR effect was and come to think of it am still a bit vague about it even now! Anyway, I think it is too perfect whatever it is!

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby DennisLisi » June 14th, 2022, 11:51 am

I don't think it's possible to be "too perfect" at palmistry, Mark. Anything that you are truly striving to do as a performer is legitimate. In this case, flattering the crap out of your client.

The real problem is when tricks seem insoluable, largely because the audience can't imagine how they were done.

The point some of you folks in this thread appear to be ignoring is that NOBODY BELIEVES IN MAGIC, not even kids.

You don't make people believe in magic, just by fooling them. All you do is make them wonder what clever thing you did.

They know it"s a trick, they're just blown away because they can't figure it out.

Who gets the credit for that--you or the inventor of the method?

Tarotist
Posts: 1367
Joined: July 29th, 2021, 7:16 am
Favorite Magician: David Nixon

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Tarotist » June 14th, 2022, 12:14 pm

DennisLisi wrote:Who gets the credit for that--you or the inventor of the method?


Funny you should say that. I have often thought the case with lousy performers of whom there are several million, but nevertheless get good reactions is that the applause should really go to the inventor of the trick rather than the "performer"!

Anyway the answer to the question really depends on the quality of the performer. If he or she is any good then the credit goes to both the performer and the inventor. If the performer is mediocre but the trick is still good then the credit goes to the inventor. Of course it sometimes happens that the performer is good but the trick isn't yet the performer somehow makes it work. Then in that case the performer is the one who should get the credit.

As for belief in magic I agree there isn't too much of it except in the case of very young children. There are indeed a few daft people who believe that mentalists are the real thing especially if they come from California but I still think they are nowhere as numerous as a lot of self deluded mentalists seem to think. Oddly enough there are TONS of people who believe in palmistry!

Chris Aguilar
Posts: 2012
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Chris Aguilar » June 14th, 2022, 12:43 pm

Tarotist wrote:Oddly enough there are TONS of people who believe in palmistry!

And astrology... Reflexology... plus a host of other stupid nonsense.

User avatar
katterfelt0
Posts: 274
Joined: February 2nd, 2021, 2:11 pm
Favorite Magician: Depends on the day. Today, Rick Maue.

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby katterfelt0 » June 14th, 2022, 1:32 pm

Chris Aguilar wrote:
Tarotist wrote:Oddly enough there are TONS of people who believe in palmistry!

And astrology... Reflexology... plus a host of other stupid nonsense.


:)
Effect and method are inextricably linked.

Tarotist
Posts: 1367
Joined: July 29th, 2021, 7:16 am
Favorite Magician: David Nixon

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Tarotist » June 14th, 2022, 1:49 pm

Chris Aguilar wrote:
Tarotist wrote:Oddly enough there are TONS of people who believe in palmistry!

And astrology... Reflexology... plus a host of other stupid nonsense.


I say, old chap. You have made an extraordinary statement that requires extraordinary evidence. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that astrology etc; is stupid nonsense. A typical example of sceptics not being too perfect..................

Oh, that reminds me for some odd reason. The example I am about to mention is a different type of "too perfect" theory perhaps not really related to what we are discussing but I suppose along the same lines. It concerns Chan Canasta. I used to watch him on TV regularly in the late fifties and early sixties. He was very long winded, did 4 tricks in 30 minutes, 3 of which would go wrong and the British public raved and raved about him saying how fantastic he was!

Around the same time Al Koran had a similar series on British television. Everything he did was slick and perfect, nothing went wrong and all the magicians loved him whereas they continually criticized Chan Canasta. However, the British public didn't take to him the same way they did with Canasta. They liked him but they didn't rave about him and talk about him all the time the way they did with Chan Canasta.

Why? The too perfect theory (sort of anyway)! Koran was so perfect with everything working with beautiful presentations. Yet they preferred Canasta with everything going wrong and somehow the public took it for granted he was the real thing because of all the mistakes.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby DennisLisi » June 14th, 2022, 1:51 pm

I do believe in giving the audience an alternate (misleading) notion of how the effect is achieved. And I think most if you do as well.

When you are doing a trick that is mechanical, would you not prefer that they think it was "sleight of hand"? And when it's legerdemain, wouldn't you want them to suspect a gaff, so you can show them how wrong they are?

Misdirection is an essential element in magic. Why do so many here have a problem with misdirecting the mind to conceive of wrong answers?

I'm guessing that you're against PRACTICAL options, ones that could actually work.

What you ought to do ideally is suggest seemingly possible solutions (such as telepathy, telekinesis, etc.) which are nevertheless highly improbable.

Forget The Impossible. It's another word for Magic, and nobody believes in it either.

Chris Aguilar
Posts: 2012
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Chris Aguilar » June 14th, 2022, 2:31 pm

One of the best takes on this sort of thing (in my view) is Darwin Ortiz's book Designing Miracles, which I heartily recommend. The Audio version is also excellent and contains additional material.

Diego
Posts: 517
Joined: June 16th, 2008, 11:29 am

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Diego » June 14th, 2022, 2:51 pm

Ricki Dunn told me he once watched Dunninger perform in an auditorium and did/attempted an Al Koran Deck type of tossed-out-deck effect.
He said Dunninger sold it with such power and command, that he even though he missed, revealing the wrong card, that the audience gave him a standing ovation! As if he was a trapeze artist who had tried a quadruple somersault and missed...the audience admiring his trying to succeed.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Brad Henderson » June 14th, 2022, 5:34 pm

I don’t believe in astrology, but I’m a Virgo and they say that’s very typical of my sign.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby DennisLisi » June 14th, 2022, 5:54 pm

Thinking of Magic as a business (or a career) it would be wise to use what people believe, especially as a supposed means of achieving an effect.

Astrology, telepathy--whatever.

Much better than trying to demonstrate "The Impossible". Take advantage of the fact that Science has yet to disprove most forms of "supernatural phenomena". And Science itself is always discovering things that were once considered impossible.

People believe that ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. This is a universal concept. If they see you do it, it is demonstrably possible. The only question is "How?'. It is vain to try to persuade an audience that you have done The Impossible.

I think magicians who aspire to this are ironically, attempting The Impossible, and failing.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby MagicbyAlfred » June 14th, 2022, 7:08 pm

I don't see any inconsistency between, on one hand, aspiring to perform effects for which spectators have no conceivable solution and, on the other hand, the reality that most people don't believe there is any such thing as magic. There certainly is such a thing as astonishment, and people (at least most people for whom I've performed), love to be astonished -- yes, absolutely blown away. That is what I'm personally trying to accomplish. And, in my opinion, leading people to false solutions is as bad as telling them the real one. I want them to have no solution, no idea, no clue. Ideally, I want them to walk away with a memory that will stay with them for the rest of their lives, and where they will tell people about their experience, "As long as I live I'll never know how he did it." When people return to the bar weeks later and say, "That trick's been keeping me awake nights," I love it.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby DennisLisi » June 14th, 2022, 7:21 pm

Well, there's a difference between something that is impossible to understand and something that is impossible to achieve. I've read a lot of idealistic comments that seem to equate the two.

As for making a lasting impression on your audience--I feel that an "impossible" effect has a very brief impact. At the very least, they know it has to be some kind of trick. But if you let them think it might be psychic phenomena, they will always wonder whether or not it was real.

Tarotist
Posts: 1367
Joined: July 29th, 2021, 7:16 am
Favorite Magician: David Nixon

Re: The "Too Perfect" Theory -- Investigated

Postby Tarotist » June 14th, 2022, 7:53 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:I don’t believe in astrology, but I’m a Virgo and they say that’s very typical of my sign.


I gave Michael Jackson a reading once. He was also a Virgo although I am not sure what qualities you have in common with him! Still, if someone tells me they are a Virgo I know they are perfectionists and work very hard.

Odd that we are talking about the "Too Perfect" theory when Virgos are perfectionists!

Anyway to get back to the subject at hand it is true that some effects are constructed in such a way that no solution is possible and more importantly no solution is obvious. However, I find these are few and far between. If I am lucky to be performing one so much the better for me. If however this is not the case then it is a good thing to use some mental misdirection or red herring to confuse the issue. Generally speaking a trick should not be made too impossible because in most cases it tends to give the game away.

I think I should mention that the red herring solution whatever it may be should ideally be proven to be wrong when the trick is finished.


Return to “Buzz”