The Decision Maker

I’ve been sitting on this idea for nine months now. It comes from friend-of-the-site, Seth Raphael. It’s a very simple trick. In fact, it’s based on something that’s in a lot of beginner’s magic books. And honestly, it might not even be a trick depending on how you present it. It’s certainly not intended to be an incredible mind-blowing impossibility. But at the same time I think it could be very powerful in the right situation. And it has one of the most satisfying “outs” I’ve ever seen in magic.

I’ve been waiting to post about it because when I write up effects, I like to have an actual performance in mind to reference in my description. But I haven’t had a chance to show this to anyone yet because it requires a particular circumstance that I haven’t stumbled into in the past nine months. So rather than continuing to wait for that situation to arise, I figured I’d describe it here for you to keep in the back of your mind. It’s a simple, impromptu trick that you won’t have any issue remembering, and you’ll be able to slide ride into the trick should the opportunity present itself.

The trick is ideal for when you have a friend or loved-one who is having a hard time making a choice between a handful of options. It’s designed to help them choose, or give them some clarity. The reason why I haven’t had the chance to perform this yet is because for it to work best, the decision they’re making has to be one that:

A) Has more than two options, but
B) Doesn’t have too many options, and
C) Is a significant decision in some way. (It doesn’t really make sense to do this if the choice is about, “What type of cereal should I buy?”)

So, let’s imagine I’m talking to someone who is having a hard time deciding what college to go to. She has scholarship offers from four different schools. One is a film school, which is her passion. Another is one of the best business schools in the country, which she realizes would provide her with a much more practical degree. Another is close to home where she has a lot of ties. And the final one is a great school that’s in a part of the country she’s dreamed about living for years.

So she’s someone who is facing a decision that is pulling her in a few different directions. I would offer to help her out. I might just say, “Hey, do you want to try a decision making technique I’ve read about?”

Or perhaps I’d give her a more detailed backstory about, “an old decision making process that I read about in this weird self-help book from the 60s that I picked up at a used book store a few years ago. It’s supposed to help you focus in on the right choice for you when you’re facing this kind of decision. A lot of people swear by it. But I think it fell out of favor because the book came from this group whose goal was to ‘maximize human potential’… I’m forgetting the name… but apparently part of the group spun off later to form the Heaven’s Gate cult. So… you know… some of those ideas are frowned upon.”

• Regardless of how you frame it, this is the sort of thing no one ever says no to. So the next step would be to gather the objects for the procedure.

• A pad or slips of paper

• Something to write with

• A lighter or candle and a plate or ashtray. (You need some way to dispose of the small slips of paper. You could use a toilet, but it sort of lacks the romanticism of a flame.)

So on four slips of paper I’d write down the name of each college she was considering (one college per slip). These would be folded up and jumbled around and placed in her pocket.

Then I’d walk her through the procedure.

Imagine

“Okay, first, close your eyes. Now, one at a time, I want you to imagine what it would feel like right now if you made the decision to attend each school. So imagine you chose [School 1]. Imagine how that would feel to make that decision as we sit here now…. Okay, now imagine that with [School 2].” And we’d continue on with all four schools.

“Now reach into your pocket and remove one of those slips.”

She would take out a slip and give it to me, and I would set it on fire, burning it to ashes.

“Now we’re going to do the same thing. But this time I want you to imagine yourself at each school, looking back on your decision to attend that school. So think of [School 1], picture yourself there. Think about how you feel about your decision to attend.”

We would do that with the rest of the schools as well. She’d imagine herself at each school and the feeling of having made the decision to attend that school.

I’d have her hand me a second slip and we’d burn it.

“Now this time I want you to picture yourself 20 years in the future. I want you to imagine how it would feel to have made the decision to attend each of those schools, looking back in hindsight. Accept all the feelings you feel about each choice; the good and the bad.”

Again, I would walk her through each school and she would imagine looking back 20 years on a decision she has not yet made.

She would take out another slip and we’d burn that one too.

I’d tell her to take out the remaining slip and hold it in her fist.

“Okay. So here’s how it should work. In the first round we should have burnt the school that even as of now, you already know isn’t a good choice for you. Next we should have eliminated the school you would realize wasn’t right for you while you were attending there. And finally we should have burned the school that, looking back 20 years, you would recognize wasn’t the best decision to make.

“That leaves the best choice in your hand. Now… take a deep breath. I’m going to ask you a question and I want you to tell me the first answer that comes to mind. Ready? Ok. What school do you want to see on that slip of paper?”

Let’s say she says, “NYU.”

I would tell her to open up the slip and take a look and she’d see it said, “New York University.” She has an answer.

Method

This comes from that old trick you would find in a beginner’s book like Magic for Dummies, or the seldom remembered (due to the fact it was quickly pulled by the publisher), Mark Wilson’s Motherfucking BIG-ASS Book of Magic.

In that version of the trick you might ask someone to name different vegetables and you would write each one on a slip of paper and then predict which slip they would choose. The method is either to just write the first thing they say on each slip, or write “Carrot” over and over and keep asking for vegetable at least until the point they say carrot.

Either way you have a bunch of identical slips that the spectator assumes say something different. The select one and you’ve predicted it or you read their mind.

It’s a perfectly fine trick for beginners.

Here we’re shifting the focus off the performer and calling it some sort of decision making tool or ritual.

On each of the four slips you will write down the option that you feel the person most wants or is leaning toward, but is perhaps scared of in some way. How will you know which one that is? By being tuned in and making an educated guess. Sometimes it will be obvious. Sometimes you’ll have to pay a little more attention. Which option do they bring up first, or talk about the most? That’s likely to be one in which they’re most interested. I would suspect that most of the time, you’ll have a good idea what they really want. But if you have to, just guess. You’ll see why it doesn’t matter in the next section (The Out).

You’ll modify the elimination procedure based on the choice they’re making and the number of options they have. I think the general outline I’ve given above would be good. Have them imagine making each choice and then looking back on it at different stages in their life. You could add a couple more stages. Or have them eliminate one item at random. Or whatever. Any way to get them down to one final item.

…

Someone will write me and say, “You’re going to use a magic trick to influence someone’s life-changing decision, like which college to attend? That’s reprehensible!” Okay… chill-out, dude. First off, regardless of what decision they’re making, I wouldn’t frame it like it’s the oracle at Delphi providing divine answers to any question. I would just present it as something I read about. A tool that some people believe helps them get some clarity when dealing with a choice. And that’s completely fair because that is exactly what it fucking is.

This doesn’t force them to the option I want them to have. It brings them to their own conclusion of which option they are most drawn to after thinking about the choice and how they would feel about it not just now, but as time passes. This seems like exactly what someone should be considering when making a choice. The fact that the final slip matches that choice would just be a final nudge in that direction. But it’s essentially the exact same nudge as if I said, ‘Don’t torture yourself with the decision. Take some time to carefully consider each option, and the long-term repercussions of each choice, then trust your judgment and go forward with the choice that feels right. Don’t continually second-guess it.”

The Out

But what if it doesn’t work?

It always works.

No, but what if they say something other than what’s on the slip in their hand?"

Oh, that’s easy.

Let’s go back and see how that would play out. All the slips have NYU on them, my friend is holding the final slip in her hand.

“Now… take a deep breath. I’m going to ask you a question and I want you to tell me the first answer that comes to mind. Ready? Ok. What school do you want to see on that slip of paper?”

She responds, “Pepperdine.”

I would nod and take that final piece of paper her from her.

And set it on fire.

She is bound to question why I did that. She will have wanted to see the school on the final slip. Why did I burn it?

I would say, “Because that’s the ritual. [Or, “Because that’s the technique."] You expected the slips and the fire to tell you something. And that freed up your mine to come to its own conclusion without feeling the pressure of the decision. After considering all the options from various perspectives, you hoped to see Pepperdine on that piece of paper. I think that’s your answer.”

This is a perfect “out.” You don’t introduce it as a magic trick, so it doesn’t matter if there’s not a climax. And it’s perfectly logical as well. The process itself is valuable to help the person achieve some insight. And maybe help them out if they’re the indecisive type, which is a character trait that doesn’t do anyone any good.

History

In February, Seth wrote me an email that said:

“When your friend is having a hard time choosing between several different options in their life.... Write each option on a piece of paper and put it in a satchel which you give them. Tell them not to open it.

Over the next 5 days you call and give them instructions on how to pick one and destroy it.

On day six, you have them take out the last option and hold it. Before they open it you ask them which option they hope is left. They open the paper. It matches the slip they are holding.”

I thought that was a nice use for that old methodology, but it was when he explained the out that I thought it was really genius. I fleshed it out/modified it to what you see above.

I love magic tricks that play out over a long time, but I don’t trust my friends to walk away with the slips and do it over the course of days. (It may work for you. You know your friends better than I.) I would do it over the course of an evening, or in one concentrated interaction as described above.

So thanks to Seth for sending that my way and allowing me to share it with you.

Also, if you’re interested in a similar (thought also quite different) sort of trick, done under much more impossible conditions, check out Seth’s newest release at AFGMT.com.

I haven’t used that trick myself, because it’s not really designed for someone who performs for friends/family, but it may work for your performing situations. I’m pretty sure it would have fooled me.

Dear Jerxy: Defining Reality

Dear Jerxy: In the early days of your site you often made disparaging comments about magicians or mentalists who tried to pass themselves off as the “real thing.” More recently it seems like you’re trying to do the same sort of thing. For instance, in your posts on the subject of failure, it seems like the idea was to use failure to make people really believe there is something “magical” or “impossible” happening. What caused the change of heart?

Sincerely,
What’s Real And What’s Not?

Dear WRAWN: I’ve tried to explain this in the past, but perhaps not completely clearly. I don’t believe I’ve had a “change of heart,” about this subject as you put it. I’ve just been perhaps focusing on it from different perspectives.

I still think there’s something wrong with you if you want your performance to be seen as a demonstration of real powers. It seems like a character flaw—or at the very least incredibly low self-esteem—to want someone to truly believe you have skills or abilities which you know you’re faking.

Let’s look at mentalism specifically, as that is where you are more likely to find someone suggesting what they’re doing is real. Not many people are saying, “I actually have the power to make this rope lift up when this other rope on a completely different ‘chinese stick’ is pulled.”

“Bear witness, my child, to your new God’s terrifying powers!”

I can understand the desire to want people to believe you’re great at mentalism (that is, the art of pretending to read people’s minds). I can’t understand the desire to want people to actually believe you can read minds. Especially if you’re performing socially. I think it may come down to something I wrote about in the last post: the difference between a goal of recognition vs. connection. Claiming to have genuine powers you don’t really possess may be a way to get recognition, but it will create a barrier to connection.

---

But what about all the effort I put into getting people to feel like genuinely impossible things are actually occurring? If I don’t want people to think it’s real, then why bother with that?

Here is my logic… consider these two scenarios:

1. You put up a video on YouTube that has been edited flawlessly in such a way that it makes it seem like you made 1000-free throws in a row. And you tell everyone this is a real feat you accomplished.

2. You put up a video taken by a drone of you shooting a basket from one edge of town to a hoop a mile and a half away. And you put a bunch of effort into making the video unimpeachable. There is no indication of any editing. Other than the fact that it’s completely impossible, it looks 100% real. And you never imply that it’s not real. The video description says, “It took 14 tries, but I finally hit this shot.”

In the first case I would consider you a pathetic weirdo, in the second I would see you as an artist working in the medium of the impossible. I don’t have an issue with a performer who puts a lot of effort into getting people to feel as if something everyone knows is impossible is actually real. To me that’s a very worthwhile endeavor that doesn’t seem manipulative in any destructive way. I discuss this more in the post Feeling and Belief.

---

Perhaps if you saw me perform a single piece of mentalism in a vacuum, you might think, “Hey, he’s really trying to get them to believe he has the power to read their mind.” But performing socially usually means performing for people who aren’t seeing one trick in a vacuum. They’ve seen a number of tricks over time. And taken as a whole they understand the nature of what they’re seeing. They’re unlikely to think, “Well, there was the time he showed me a trick about a ghost dog who cut the deck to my card, and then there was the time he turned a red sponge ball into a red sponge cock, but now here… where he’s saying he’s reading my mind… you know, I think he’s really doing it!”

The people I perform for regularly are expecting fiction. Hopefully it’s one that they get carried away by to a certain extent, but I’m not trying to seriously reframe reality.

And if I’m performing for someone who doesn’t know quite what to expect, then I make it clear from the start what I’m claiming my abilities are. It’s very satisfying for me to say, “This is fake,” and have it feel very real to them.

---

Here’s where it might get confusing.

Yes, I want to establish the basic understanding that my interest is in magic and tricks, and that I’m not claiming any actual supernatural powers or anything like that, and that the things they’re taking part in are fiction.

However, once that has been established, I figure, screw it, everything else is now fair game.

So then I include a number of presentational elements that are designed to intrigue the audience and muddy the waters and add some mystery back into this thing I’ve told you was completely fake. There might be intriguing failures, or weird repercussions to a trick. There might be a story about how I learned the trick or a technique that’s used that seems fantastical, but also perhaps somewhat plausible. Are we really texting some world-class magician? Am I really a part of some secret society? Do I really have a headache? Was that really just a coincidence? And so on, and so on, and so on.

The way I think of it is like a good Halloween haunted house attraction. You pay your admission fee and in your mind you know this is a fake haunted house that they built for the month of October, yet they still can instill genuine fear in you. Somehow your mind is capable of both knowing it’s fake and being scared for your life simultaneously. Likewise, I want the people I perform for to know deep-down that it’s a trick, but despite that have I want them to feel genuine wonder and mystery at the same time.

.

More "How to Read Minds" Thoughts

I’ve been thinking about Ellusionist's beginner's mentalism kit the past few days. There was something about the advertising for the set that was nagging at me. I've had mentalism on my mind a lot because I just finished up the next book, TOY, which is about mentalism performed socially. And my approach in that book is quite the opposite of what’s said or implied in the kickstarter for their mentalism kit. I mean, like literally 180 degrees opposite. For example, their ad states their kit is for:

"The normal, everyday person who wants to be anything but normal."

Whereas the first step in the process I suggest in the book in regards to how to present mentalism socially is under the heading: "Be normal."

And that's just one example. So I was wondering how we came to such different conclusions.

I think I know the answer.

My first clue was something Peter says in the video that I couldn’t stop thinking about…

Huh? No. I have literally never had those thoughts in my life. In fact, quite the opposite. I always figure I’m pretty much one of the more interesting people in any room I’m in. I look in the mirror and think, “Goddamn…you’re a delight.” While I am not, by nature, a social butterfly, when I decide to turn on the charm, I can connect with pretty much anyone.

Now, you may think, “Well, then I have nothing to learn from you. You don’t face the same challenges I do. That’s why I’m going to buy this kit from Ellusionist.”

Okay, sure, I get that. I encourage you to get that kit. But you also may benefit from hearing an outsider’s perspective.

Ellusionist’s pitch here is this: You don’t have a great personality. You’re completely adrift when it comes to interacting with people. Buy this kit and it will make you interesting.

That’s me summarizing their pitch, but it’s not me reading into it. They state it in very clear language. It’s in the ad itself, and it’s the very last line of the pitch video:

It’s “charisma in a box,” they say. Their target audience is those who are boring or fear they’re boring.

There’s nothing wrong with feeling that way. And there’s nothing wrong with wanting to take steps to avoid feeling that way. The mistake is thinking that your answers are in a beginner’s mentalism kit.

I want you to imagine you’re at a restaurant or bar. You’ve just pulled out your gimmicked magic book and read someone’s mind. They are completely blown away. They buy you a drink. They pat you on the back. “What a totally not boring guy you are!” they say.

What happens three minutes after you tell them the word in the book that they’re thinking of? You’re still the same guy who resorted to a literal “box of tricks” because you couldn’t carry on an interesting conversation without it. What’s the plan moving forward? You just sort of sit there in silence I guess? Or just keep talking about that book trick over and over? Or do you say, “Hold on, let me go get something else from my box.”

If your personality and the manner in which you engage people is built around some tricks you did, you’re doomed in the long term. Your tricks should be an adjunct to your personality, not a substitute for it.

Will it get you some free drinks? You know, I think it probably will. Know what else will? Going in and balancing a barstool on your face.

There's something that feels very transactional about showing strangers magic without establishing yourself as a real human first. There's a sense of, "The monkey did his trick, now the monkey gets his treat."

If your goal is free drinks, then showing up and performing some tricks is likely a good route to take and I'm sure Ellusionist's kit will help you towards that goal. But... is that your goal?

---

While watching the video, I realized why the approach offered here is so different from what I’ve found has worked for me. It dawned on me the second time Peter turned to the camera and excitedly pointed out that people were bringing over other people to see some mentalism. A bunch more strangers were coming over to meet the magician. He was smiling. It seemed like he thought this was a good thing. For me that sounds like such a hassle.

Why? Ah... here's what it all comes down to.

When you perform, is your goal recognition or is it connection?

I'm making no judgment on these. I'm only suggesting that they are different goals. And that the way to achieve one is often at cross-purposes to the other.

My style is generally anti-recognition. I want to perform in a way that takes the spotlight off of me. This is much more difficult in mentalism, because almost by definition it’s designed to be a demonstration of your own power. My style of mentalism, as discussed in TOY, is to try and undermine that and include the spectators as much as possible. For the most part, I'm not looking to get drinks or adulation from strangers. I want to take the focus from me and put it on the spectator, or the conversation, or the rapport, or the shared experience. This is not what you want to do if you want recognition or to build your name as a performer. So of course the methods I use in presentation will be different than what Brad and Peter are offering.

When I perform magic or mentalism for people, I have no desire for them to grab others to come see me perform. That would be a failure for me. Instead I want to increase the interpersonal gravity between me and the people I perform for. What does that mean? I'm not sure, I just made up the term.

What I'm saying is, my goal isn't to go from this…

To this…

My goal is to go from this…

To this…

Ideally, after I perform for people socially, I want them to pull in—almost turn their back on everyone else there—and feel like we had this unique, cool interaction that was about us. (I say "ideally," because obviously that's not a standard I can always meet.) I'm not wanting them to think, "Ah, that was great! Let's have him do it again for more people!"

If you're having difficulty understanding the distinction here, imagine you wrote a love letter to someone. You would probably want them to say, "Oh my god. This is amazing. Thank you." And for them to feel a stronger bond with you.

You probably wouldn't be looking for this reaction. "Oh my god. This is amazing. You have to write a love letter to my friend Susan too!"

Again, I'm not suggesting connection is a better goal than recognition. It’s a matter of who you’re performing for. I’m generally performing for people I already know and like, or for people I want to know better. So for me it makes sense to not try and make myself look good, but to focus on the experience or the connection. However, there are some times where I don’t really give a shit about the people I’m performing for and I just think, “Let’s blow these bozos away,” and in that situation I’m going to use an effect that is more focused on impressing people.

---

I’m actually trying to help Ellusionist here. They’ve sold over 1000 of these kits. Wouldn’t it be great if 1000 people were super happy with what they bought? I believe a full understanding of the two main points I wrote about in this post can help us achieve that goal.

Point #1: Manage your expectations. If you’re a total bore, there’s a chance this kit will keep you from being boring… right up until the trick is over. Then you’re fucked again. Magic/mentalism won’t make you entertaining in the long term. You’re going to need a different set of techniques for that. But that’s a discussion for another blog.

What it may do—which is also valuable—is help you get out of your shell a little and give you an excuse to interact with people. And from there you will hopefully find that’s it’s not that difficult and you’re not actually as dull as you might believe (or as Ellusionist’s advertising would suggest.)

Point #2: In the video and ad for this kit, they mention getting free drinks over ten times. It’s almost like they’re presenting mentalism as a needlessly complicated way to get drunk. I have no doubt that you will witness Peter impress people with his mentalism and get free drinks. But one thing to consider is that the way you perform magic for strangers to get them to buy you drinks may not be the same way you would perform for people you know in order to enhance your connection (and no, making people cry isn’t the same as “enhancing your connection”). So you may get more from this set if you take the advice given and then filter it through a different approach to performing (assuming you have different goals).

Again, I’m just trying to be helpful. Obviously Ellusionist wants to pump out as many of these as possible. So their kickstarter is full of stuff like this:

• Captivate ANY customer

• Be a stud, instead of a third wheel

• Boost your tips

• Make meeting people easier (especially dates)

• Get known as "the most interesting kid at school"

That’s good rhetoric for making sales, but not necessarily great for setting realistic expectations of a kit that includes a fakey-looking credit card and a 40 cent “invisible ink” pen.

If you go into this expecting a decently fun beginner’s mentalism kit, I think you’ll be satisfied. If you go into it thinking this is going to contain some life-altering tricks and gimmicks, I think you are setting yourself up for the most disappointing opening of a box since the movie Se7en.

Dustings of Woofle #19

If you are a 2019 Jerx Supporter on the installment plan, you will soon be getting (or have already gotten) an email from paypal saying “Your PayPal Profile is no longer active.”

The following PayPal recurring payment profile is no longer active. We won’t bill the buyer again.If you need any support regarding this recurring payment profile, please contact us by clicking Help and Contact at the bottom of the PayPal homepage.

This is paypal’s odd way of saying, “Hey, congratulations! Your installments are all paid. That plan you had set up has come to its conclusion, with no issues at all. As expected, we’re not going to make any more payments because why would we do that when you’ve paid the agreed upon amount? Everything went smoothly, isn’t that great?” For some reason they decided to phrase that message in a way that a number of you found confusing or alarming.

If you get that message it just means—other than the shipping, which you’ll pay when the items are ready—you’re paid up.

The book and the other bonuses for 2019 supporters are on schedule for the end of January.

---

I’ve never been drawn to the Ball and Vase effect that much. It’s just never a trick that seemed that interesting. But there’s just something about this set from Magic Makers that is calling to me.

I reverse image searched it (to see if Magic Makers was ripping someone off as they’ve been accused of in the past) and I learned that there are tons of ball and vase sets available on line. Now I just can’t decide which one to get. The sturdy looking black one, the bejeweled purple one, the stainless steel one, or the intriguing looking 7-piece set, which I guess you could do a full routine with.

---

---

Related to some of the recent posts on failure, here is a way to handle a legitimate failure. Let’s say a double splits and they realize you have two cards. Your initial inclination may be to laugh it off and move onto something else, so as not to draw too much attention to the screw up. “Okay, you got me. Here, check this out.”

Instead of that, an approach you might consider is to over expose the method, and explain exactly what you were doing, as if it’s so meaningless/useless that you’re willing to burn it completely. Treat it like a bad new idea you were just trying out this once. That way, instead of thinking they’ve stumbled on a fundamental technique in card magic, they might dismiss it somewhat as not being that important. “You know, honestly I figured you’d notice that it was two cards. I don’t know what that guy was smoking. There’s this guy on the magic message boards selling this new technique he came up with. It’s called “twin carding.” It’s holding two cards as if they’re one card. Like this, I guess? But who would possibly be fooled by that? This guy is a great salesman, he had me convinced I could make it work. But there’s no way. You can’t hold two cards like that for long. Cards are too slippery!”

---

Progress!

In the email for VanishingInc’s magic convention for children, they only mention the “hands on” nature of the event twice.

If this were the 80s or 90s, I can assure you that “hands on” would be stressed with much more vigor. in fact, let me go see if I can go find an old ad for a children’s magic convention from that time.

Ah… here’s one.

CUM ‘89

Now is the time to buy your tickets for the most hands-on magic convention for children ever! Children’s United Magic ‘89. In this hands-on convention we will put our hands directly on your child under the pretense of teaching them magic. Instead of stuffy old magic books, your child will receive hands-on teaching from stuffy old men who will teach your child magic via their loving caress.

Book soon! Seating is limited. It’s so limited in fact that your child will sit in an older gentleman’s lap for the duration of the convention, where he will be tickled and squeezed and encouraged to wriggle about.

Due to issues that arose after last year’s convention, there will also be a special workshop given on the importance of keeping secrets.

A Critical Examination of the How to Read Minds Kit Kickstarter

Big news…

Ellusionist is getting ready to do to mentalism what they did to magic!

Take a big, steamy shit on it?

How dare you. This is Ellusionist. Show some respect. Did you know David Blaine ripped off his entire schtick from Brad Christian? It’s true. I’ve done my research, now you do yours.

No, what they’re doing is releasing a beginners mentalism set, similar to their How to Be A Magician set that came out a few years ago. It includes things like a gimmicked book, a peek wallet, and an Add-a-No pad.

The kickstarter page is legitimately hysterical. They took every corny, sad, pathetic stereotype about the sort of people who are drawn to mentalism and then fed that to a bot or something who spit out this ad targeting the loneliest of the lonely.

“The ‘How To Read Minds’ kit is for EVERYONE who wants to be the life of ANY party or social situation. The normal, everyday person who wants to be anything but normal.”

“Here is the path the reaction almost always takes…..shock…. disbelief….. awe…. and finally….utter respect. We’re being honest when we say people want to buy your drinks for you, that’s not sales hyperbole. It happens time and again.”

Ah, yes… “utter respect.” That’s the reaction I associate with people who perform mentalism. And there is no question that’s the reaction you’ll get with this set. Well, either that or, “Look, everyone! This guy is carrying around a fake book with him so he can ‘read our minds.’ What a goon!”

---

There’s a telling moment in the video where Brad is describing the reactions Peter Turner’s performance garnered. He’s clearly in awe of the response Peter got and he says, “And he does it just through everything in the box!” And his inflection says, “And he does it just through this box full of garbage!”

I’m convinced there is a mole in the Ellusionist offices who can’t stand Brad Christian. Certainly if everyone was working for the same team, someone would have said, “Hey… uhm, Brad? Do you think maybe we should cut this part where you’re clearly shocked that someone got a good reaction from the kit we’re selling? I mean, we’re trying to advertise this as if a 13-year-old will garner incredible reactions from it. Why would you be surprised that one of the biggest names in the mentalism community could make it work? If we were selling a can opener we wouldn’t include a clip of you implying you were surprised someone was actually able to open a can with the hunk of shit we were selling, would we? That doesn’t seem like a good look.”

---

• Captivate ANY customer

• Be a stud, instead of a third wheel

• Boost your tips

• Make meeting people easier (especially dates)

• Get known as "the most interesting kid at school"

Okay… I’ve changed my mind. This ad isn’t hilarious. It’s wildly depressing.

Is this what it’s like to not have a personality? Is it just a constant search for a new hobby or outlet that will get people to pay some attention to you? I feel genuinely sad for someone who is like, “Oh, jeez, why doesn’t anyone like me? I know… I’ll learn magic. That will change things!” My advice to you is not to keep the Add-A-No pad in your breast pocket or it will fall into the toilet when one of the cool kids is giving you a swirlie.

---

That being said, I’ll still probably buy this. I’m a sucker. I love this sort of thing. At the price that this sells for—$99—I can’t imagine the props being anything other than hot garbage. I think there’s probably a reason you don’t get a look at any of the props, and that reason is certainly not because it’s really high quality stuff. It’s kind of a no-win situation for Ellusionist. They put this together at a super fair price so you can’t really expect too much from the props. If they sold it for $300 with really well constructed props, we’d all be complaining about the price.

One of the few props that’s mentioned in the ad is a “Credit Card with 3 powerful secrets.” You get a brief look at this in the trailer. So the idea is you’ll be carrying around a credit card that doesn’t have your name on it? From HTRM Bank? (How To Read Minds Bank) Oof. And this is one of the few props they actually mention. So you can only imagine what the ones they don’t mention are.

But who cares! I’m sure I’ll get something from Peter Turner’s teaching. I always find him interesting to watch. And it will just be fun to get a magic kit around Christmas, sit on the floor like a kid, poke around in it, pull out every item one piece at a time and examine it.

Despite the fact I make fun of everything they do, I have a soft-spot for Ellusionist, so I’m happy to support them.

Is it going to help the art of mentalism to have a bunch of awkward virgins stumbling their way through these tricks and exposing classic methods through sheer incompetence? Probably not. But whatever. Burn it all down, I say. It’s time for something new.

---

Okay, I do have one last comment…

The fuck are they talking about, “Hidden 2nd layer”?

You’ve made a box with two layers. The same way Russell Stovers does for chocolate. You’ve just stacked some stuff on other stuff. That’s not a “hidden 2nd layer.”

“Hidden” implies some kind of subterfuge. Maybe if the top layer was a chess set you could say the bottom layer was hidden in some way. But the top layer is fucking magic props, you goofballs! What are you hiding and who are you hiding it from? What is the benefit of this “hidden” layer?

“Heh, heh, heh. Look at all those unsuspecting people. All they see is an innocent little box with How to Read Minds on it and a single layer of magic props. Little do they know that hiding beneath this layer of magic props is… another layer of magic props. Oh, you poor naive fools! Blissfully unaware. ‘Oh, that’s just a box that holds 8 custom props,’ you think. None suspect the devious secret truth of the hidden layer !!!.”

Mailbag #17: Failure Edition

If you’ve emailed me recently and I’ve been slow to respond, it’s because we’re in the final week of preparation before sending the next book to the printers. Once that settles down, you’ll hear back from me.

Just read your post on testing near misses in a mentalist context. Interesting stuff, but Andy you guys missed a key variable I wish you had tested for: Order. In your descriptions the miss always came after a successful trick. That's misunderstanding the point of a miss. The miss highlights the difficulty of the *future* success. Think of the juggler who drops a ball the first two times and then succeeds on the third.

So what I wish you had tested was whether a miss *before* a given effect impacted positively the reception of a subsequent (or even the same) successful effect. My hypothesis would be in mentalism, yes, but in other magic, no. —JS

It’s definitely something that could be interesting to test—the extent to which a scripted failure might ratchet up the perceived difficulty of an effect—and maybe we’ll do so in the future. But due to the limited nature of the funds and the time the testing requires we tend to not test things we already know the general answer to.

What you’re suggesting is that we test the idea of a scripted failure that gets resolved in some way, but we already know that this works at generating dramatic tension. It works—as you said—in juggling, but it’s also the basis for all storytelling everywhere: in fiction or in real life. If this kid jumped on the stool the first time, that video would have 9 views. So we know that works. The actual extent to which it affects someone’s engagement with a mentalism/magic performance might be interesting to know, but that would fall a little further down our list of things to test.

What we wanted to look at were questions we didn’t know the answer to:

Is a near miss more or less impressive than a direct hit?

And

What types of failures, if any, do spectator’s find intriguing or off-putting?

---

I had an interesting conversation with a layman friend recently. About near misses too. And the opinion was interesting

They think you should get it 100% right. Because... they KNOW that you’re not a mind reader. And so, you’re PRETENDING. Which means, in their logic, if you’re pretending and you still get it wrong, then you’re shit. You’re not even doing the real thing because it’s impossible.

I gave the example of a tight rope walker who almost falls. And probably pretends to almost fall.. They said well, it’s different. Because they’re REALLY tight rope walkers. And if they make a mistake it’s understandable. But you’re not even a REAL mind reader and if you can’t even get it right 100% when you’re pretending, WTF are you doing? —MB/NT

I don't think your friend's position holds up under scrutiny.

Almost no one is 100% rational, so for most people a near miss will either seem reasonable (if they believe mind reading itself is reasonable), or it will at least raise some questions in their minds in regards to what is or isn't happening.

But let's imagine a robot who IS 100% rational. If that robot saw a mind reader who was a little off, would it think, "This guy is shit”? No, it would realize that in order for the mind reader to be a little off, he must have known EXACTLY what the thought was and then CHOSE to be a little off as an artistic choice.

There is no real-world scenario where someone thinks you're shit if you're a little off unless they actually believe in mind reading and think a REAL mind reader should be perfect.

---

Just wanted to add a little bit to the discussion about misses in mentalism.

I agree with everything you wrote and it mostly aligns with my experience. Near misses are powerful because they add to the logic disconnect (why would he say Jen if he had just read the paper that says Jane) and add a touch of perceived realism.

The big difference in results between a total miss and a missed connection is very interesting, and I'm not sure I would have guessed that.

However, with regards to a total miss, I do think that there is likely a difference between a testing situation where there are only two tricks, and a longer show (or a social situation where you've already established your 'abilities').

So for instance, if I'm doing my hour long show, and I've built up a rapport with the audience and I have a total miss sometime mid-show (not on purpose), very often I'll notice that the audience will actively try and make it fit as they want me to succeed. I think having already established your abilities and character really changes the way a total miss is perceived. —MP

There’s a couple things that could be going on here.

The first possibility—and the most likely— is that when you perform, you suggest that what you’re doing is based on psychology/body language/picking up on little clues. If that’s your character—or even if it’s part of your character—then I think a “total miss” makes sense in that context. In fact, it probably makes more sense than a “missed connection.” [See last Wednesday’s post if these terms aren’t making sense.]

If, however, you perform strictly as a genuine mind-reader, and you get a total miss, then what you might perceive as your audience “trying to make it fit,” may very well just be your audience feeling second-hand embarrassment. And they are trying to make it fit to ease that feeling.

Our performer during the testing was introduced as a mentalist who was going to do some mind-reading. In that situation, a Total Miss doesn’t make much sense to the audience. If he’s picking up on something, why isn’t that something the thing you’re thinking about, or at least close to it? There isn’t a very cohesive narrative that includes someone who really can read your thoughts, and ends up with something totally wrong.

But, if you’re saying your performance is based on psychology, then a total miss does fit in with that story.

This suggests a way of using failure to push your audience in the direction you want them to go.

If you want them to believe you’re using psychology or some other form of “educated guessing,” then use Near Misses and Total Misses and avoid Missed Connections.

If you want them to believe you’re “reading their mind,” then use Near Misses and Missed Connections and avoid Total Misses.

A big part of getting people to play along with a premise is simply to clear the path for them. Don’t make it so easy for them to deny the premise. If I want someone to entertain the notion that there is some psychic form of communication going on between our minds, then I’d want to avoid a Total Miss as that doesn’t support that story. If they’re thinking of a cat and you say they’re thinking of an airplane, it’s asking a lot of them to buy into a scenario where your minds were actually connected in any way.

But again, this is just my interpretation of the results of the testing as well as the impression I got being in the room and listening to people’s feedback. It’s certainly not intended as gospel, more as food for thought.

Food for thought. Get it? Like mentalism? Thoughts? Get it? Funny stuff, right? Like how thoughts are in your head, you know? But also food for thought. Like the saying.

A Magician’s Guide to Exploiting Failure Pt. 2

In the last post I wrote about Magical Failures. These were failures of effect that still maintained a magic element.

There is a second style of failure I use often that has no magic to it. At least not in the short-term.

Here is my thinking behind it. When I discuss magic with laypeople and ask them about potential methods and things like that, they always assume—correctly—that the methods in magic are mechanical in some way. That is, that there are gimmicks or sleights that work in some sort of way that—if explained to them—would make sense with their understanding of physics and the world around them.

They will often assume a method is more clever or complicated than it really is, but they will rarely assume it’s something more fantastical than it really is, which is the direction I often want to push them. And I’ve found the best way to do this is through a trick that fails.

Here are some examples

✿✿✿

I place a coin from my right hand into my left fist. I turn so we’re standing side by side and I place my right hand on your shoulder as we focus on my left hand. My left hand squeezes and slowly opens finger by finger. “And the coin… is… gone…,” I say.

But it’s not. You can see it right there.

“What are you talking about?” you say.

“Can you see it?” I ask. “Dammit.”

That’s the end of the trick. I don’t “fix” my failure. I don’t do another trick. You’re left thinking: Wait… what did he think was going to happen? What did he expect me to see, if not the coin?” You’re left to consider what methods might exist that would involve the coin still being in my hand, but me thinking you wouldn’t be able to see it.

If you follow up with me, maybe I’ll say, “Pressure points. I’ve had it work on me and I thought I had it figured out. If you press right here,” I say, and point to a location near your shoulder where I rested my hand during the trick, “it can affect your perception of certain metals and other materials. I have to work on hitting the right spot.”

✿✿✿

I sit with my friend and bring out some objects belonging to my great-uncle. A notebook and a ring. I also remove my own ring. We light some candles and I tell her about my old gypsy uncle and this notebook that has a bunch of different… well…”spells” for lack of a better term, written in Romani. I want to try something with her.

I put my ring and my uncle’s ring on her palm and cover it with my own hand.

I read from the book in a language neither of us understand. When I’m done I lift my hand. Nothing has changed. The rings still just sit there.

“Ah. Hmmm,” I say. and look at the rings closely for any type of difference. “I don’t think it worked.”

That’s it. There is no follow-up trick. That’s the end of it. We tried this thing and it didn’t work.

My friend is left thinking, “How could he have possibly expected anything to happen? He studies magic. He reads up on these things. What has he experienced that made him think it was even possible that reading a passage from a book might affect anything?”

Four months later. After the holidays. I tell her I spoke to my aunt about that ritual we tried from my great-uncle’s book. “I have an idea why it didn’t work,” I say. We sit down with the book and the rings and the candles again. “We need your ring too,” I say. We add her ring to the other two in her palm. I cover it with my hand. I read the passages from the notebook. When I’m done I lift my hand and poke the rings a little. “Holy shit, it worked,” I say. I lift her ring from her palm, and attached to it are my uncle’s ring and my ring, in a three ring chain. It doesn’t last too long. After a moment, they’re separated (and free for her to examine) but there was definitely a point where it was clear as day that the three rings were linked.

✿✿✿

One of the faux-techniques I’ll mention frequently when I perform is “sleight of energy.” So maybe I’ll attempt a card-across style demonstration but nothing will happen.

“Eh, that sucks,” I’ll say. “But I kind of expected it. There’s a way to do similar tricks with, like, sleight-of-hand or trick cards and things like that. But they don’t look so good. This version uses a sleight-of-energy technique. I don’t really have it down yet, but it’s not possible to practice on your own, so thanks for helping me with it.”

Sleight-of-energy? What does that mean? I have no idea. I’m just trying to paint a world that includes more wondrous sounding methodologies. I do this all the time. I’ll “explain” how tricks I’m working on are done and casually refer to “techniques” like sensory substitution, memory hijacking, dimension shifting, and so on.

✿✿✿

What I’ve found is that failure can actually be stronger than success when it comes to getting someone to consider more incredible ideas. This is what I think is going on… If I tell you that I want to try an old gypsy ritual and at the end of it something amazing happens, you are likely to look at that ritual as part of the “theater” of the trick. That’s what tricks are… moments of theater, moments of fiction. But if I try an old gypsy ritual with you and nothing happens, then you don’t really know how to categorize that experience. It’s not presentation for a trick, because there was no trick. But why would I bother doing it if nothing was going to happen, unless I believed maybe something would happen? And if I believed something might happen, does that mean that I really believe in this old ritual? Why would I—as someone who studies this stuff—believe in that (or in energy manipulation, or in pressure points that blind you metals, or whatever unbelievable thing I’ve suggested)?

This isn’t the sort of thing that works in a vacuum. This is a tactic I use on people who see me perform with some regularity. If I tried it on someone I just met they’d just think I was a lunatic. It’s only when you’ve seen some strong magic from me in the past, and you know I’m proficient, that you say, “Well, I don’t know what was going on, and it didn’t make sense to me. But he seemed to think it would work and I know he knows what he’s doing. So… maybe there’s something to it?”

I can’t make you, a reasonable 21st century adult, believe in the idea that I’m some sort of wizard. But I believe it is possible to get your mind twisted around itself to the point where I can at least get you to consider that the methods behind these trick are significantly more strange and mysterious than you would have ever assumed. And for me that’s a worthwhile pursuit