Revisiting: The Look of Love

The Look of Love was a trick I published on the site back in 2016. Familiarize yourself with it if you want this post to make sense.

I wanted to mention how I do this effect these days, one-on-one, with no wingman helping me out.

The trick looks the same. I ask the person to name an object of a particular color and then I remove a photo of that object in that color from my wallet. While the effect is pretty much the same, there are some slight tweaks to how I approach it.

So let’s say I’m seated with someone out at a cafe or restaurant.

Imagine

“Let’s try something,” I say. “I’ve got an object in mind. First, think of any color. Not like a super-specific, 64-count Crayola box color, but just any regular standard color.”

“Pink,” she says.

I become slightly excited. “Ah! This just got more interesting. Okay, now think of any sort of object in the world A tangible thing you can touch.”

“Anything?” she asks. “Uhm… a palm tree.”

My jaw drops. “Are you kidding me? Did you see something? Did someone tell you? Someone told you.”

She’s on the defensive now. “What? What do you mean?”

“Don’t play with me. Someone told you.”

“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” she says.

“Are you serious? You don’t know what I’m talking about?”

I let my attitude change from skeptical to, “Did this really just happen?”

“Okay… so… uhm… there was this old game show… Hold on, check this out,” I say as I pick up my phone and search for something online. “If I can find it… wait… here it is.”

I then show her a blog post called, “The most fruitful game show in TV history.” It’s about an old game show called At First Sight which paired up random men and women and the most compatible ones—as determined by a series of challenges—would be matched up on a date and win a cash prize. I don’t read the post word-for-word, but I just sort of summarize it. I mention how they only shot three test-episodes of the show but four couples that met on the show ended up married.

Then I get to this part which I do read word-for-word:

“Okay, check this out, it says, ‘The show was made up of different games, challenges, and “tests.” Of these, the one that seemed to be most predictive of a compatible match was a segment called “At Second Sight,” where the man would have an image of an object of a certain color on him and the women would have to guess what it was, based solely on intuition. Of the four couples produced by the show, all had at least a partial match of color and/or object during this segment.’

“Apparently that was based on a game people played at the time called, The Soulmate Test. Where guys would carry a picture or drawing with them and if a woman named a similar object they were compatible or something.

“I’ve been trying it with people, just because I thought it was interesting to hear what people would guess. Not because I really thought much about it.

“But check this out.”

I pull out my wallet, remove an envelope and give it to the person I’m with. She opens it and finds a picture of a pink palm tree.

Method

I think you can put the pieces together. You send the image to the printer while you’re supposedly trying to find the article. There is more than enough time to do this. If I said, “Find a picture of a yellow can opener,” you would just google yellow can opener and hit images. If I said, “Find this article on a blog you once read,” that would be a more time-consuming thing. So don’t worry about rushing to find the right picture. You, of course, just have the article bookmarked so you can bring it up immediately after you send the picture.

I now ask for the color first as opposed to the object. This makes a little more sense, because if they get the object right first, then the color would almost be an afterthought. But if they get the color right it’s more like, “Huh, okay, this is interesting. But now for the real test.”

I don’t bring up anything about the old show or the old “soulmate test” until they’ve got it right. Then at that point, when I’m excited about it, I begin to explain it, realize I’m not doing it clearly, then go to the phone to bring up the article to help explain. That, to me, feels very natural. I wouldn’t bring out the article initially because why go to all that trouble for this thing that probably isn’t going to work anyways? And pulling up the article before showing the picture also makes sense, because I want to put the picture in context and explain why I even have it.

So that’s how I do the trick with no secret partner. In an ideal world, I’d use the confederate method, but this is just so much easier to pull off, so it’s the version I use most often.

The blog the article appears on is a supplement to this site which features a few different articles I use to work my way into tricks, as well as a whole lot of articles that have nothing to do with any trick. So the blog really seems like it’s just someone’s collection of interesting stuff. It feels completely normal. And the fact that it hasn’t been updated in a couple years only makes it more normal.

You can read more about the idea behind that blog here.

I have the printer in a pocket in my computer bag which is at my side. The photo spits out pretty much right into my hand. I use my own card to sealed envelope set-up which isn’t written up anywhere because it’s not the sort of thing anyone else would like. Just search for “card to wallet” and “sealed envelope” and you’ll find a number of different options online.

Two potential changes I’m considering making.

1. I may start using this Instax printer rather than the Zip printer. I like that the photos look like those mini-polaroids. Potential issues might be the size of the printer and if they’re nosier than the Zip printer. The cool thing is, if they do work for my needs, I might be able to us some of my ideas for aging a Polaroid to create an older looking photo. (Thanks to ML for suggesting this.)

2. I may go with David Regal’s Cop Wallet for this. That wouldn’t allow me to use an envelope, but I could just throw the wallet on the table at the very start and say, “We’ll get back to that later,” which I think would feel very fair to the audience. I’m considering it.

And finally, while I refer to this game show and the “soulmate test” when I perform it the trick, I don’t then say, “Look, this must mean we’re soulmates and have a special connection.” The purpose of mentioning the show is to give some sort of historical context for why I might be carrying a “random” picture with me. That’s all.

Break Glass In Case Of Emergency

I have a bit of an emergency to deal with today. It’s nothing serious, but it’s going to keep me from having the time to work on a post today.

Fortunately, I have something saved for just this type of situation.

It’s a Penguin marketing email from 2009 where Alvo Stockman rhapsodizes about gum. (This is real, I didn’t make it up.) He speaks of gum with more reverence than people speak of the polio vaccine. I held onto this email for a decade plus because it always made me laugh. I’ve heard people talk about their newborns with less adoration and awe than he lavishes on gum.

But you also get the sense there are some gum regrets lingering under the surface as well. It ends on a bittersweet note that suggests his gum experiences—while having a profound effect on him and everyone else in his life—had the potential for so much more.

Here it is…

✿✿✿

Magic is all about giving.  Giving an experience of wonder, laughter and excitement.  But wouldn't it be great to give all that AND something that's slightly longer lasting?

In high-school, I was the gum guy. I always had a pack of gum in my pocket and I loved how easy (and cheap) it was to put a smile on someone's face with a fresh stick of juicy, flavorful gum.  They'd be chewing it for hours.

It AMAZED me how simple it was to start talking to anybody, even the prettiest girl (Kristen, 5th period) when I had such a casual, fun gift to offer.  Who doesn't want a piece of gum?

To this day, no matter who I'm talking to, or who I WANT to be talking to, it's ALWAYS a great time to ask, "Want a piece of gum?"

Enter Jeff Prace.  GUM by Jeff Prace takes this simple RANDOM ACT OF KINDNESS to a WHOLE NEW LEVEL.  Jeff is pretty much doing what I WISH I could have done growing up. Blowing people away with super cool closeup MAGIC with gum.  And people are eating - well, chewing it up! ;)
Check out the trailer here: http://bit.ly/7iifOG

And what are the two DREAM effects people want to see with gum?  1) Making MORE appear, and 2) turning OLD gum back to NEW gum - DONE and DONE.  This DVD knocks both out of the park! PERFECT for anyone looking to interact with humans in their natural habitat, Jeff goes through in detail how to perform AND get the most out of these EASY-TO-DO and KILLER effects plus two more!

Oh what I wouldn't give to go back knowing what I know now... enjoy GUM!

Taking Risks

[Yesterday’s] post makes me think that you’re not much of a risk taker when you perform. I agree with you that psychological forces are generally not reliable but I still like using them and using other risky methods when I perform. If you saw Asi Wind’s Masterclass he talked a lot about how much he enjoys taking risk in his shows. It can be a pretty exhilarating way to perform. —BD

Yeah, I’ll be honest with you, I don’t really get the “taking risks” thing when it comes to magic/mentalism.

If you were eating at a restaurant and the waiter came up to you and said. “Are you enjoying your meal?” And you said you were, and he responded with, “Want to know something cool? When the chef was preparing your meal, he was flipping the knife around and doing all sorts of crazy shit with it. It’s a really sharp knife. So it’s real risky.”

Your response would be, “Uhh.. Okay… thanks for letting me know.”

You wouldn’t care, because a chef flipping around a knife in the back of the restaurant wouldn’t have an effect on your enjoyment of the meal. It’s more something the chef is doing for himself.

You might say that’s a bad analogy. You might contend that you’re not using the risky method for your own entertainment. You’re using it because it allows you to do the most direct and powerful magic.

I think that’s less true than you might imagine.

The problem with a lot of “risky” methods is that they are very susceptible to an “Easy Answer” that not only undermines the effect, but is also often correct as well.

For example: You light a lighter, have someone look into the flame and name a card. They say the queen of hearts and you turn over the lighter to show that card is engraved on the lighter.

This is a very direct effect with a risky method. (The method being you just hope they name the Queen of Hearts, otherwise you transition into a different effect.) But when it hits, you would expect it to be very strong. Unfortunately, what you find if you ask people about effects like these is that after that initial moment of surprise they will then conclude, “Well, I guess everyone names that card.” Some will also recognize that you never told them there was a card engraved on the back of the lighter so you could have gotten away with never showing it to them if they had named something else. And since you can’t repeat the trick and the selection process was sort of rushed to begin with, it becomes very easy for them to fall back on that Easy Answer because you’ve done nothing to combat it. I find this to be true with a lot of methods we would consider “risky.”

We romanticize the idea of Derren Brown forcing a card with nothing but his words because we are putting ourselves in his position. But from the audience’s perspective, it may be the least interesting thing Derren has ever done.

Risky methods often require a bland presentation, because you don’t want to commit too much to one direction if you’re going to have to pivot to something else if your method doesn’t hit. So you have to just say something like, “Look into the flame and name the first card that comes to your mind.” Or something equally uninspiring.

Now, obviously if there is a moment in an effect that can be enhanced by taking a chance, and it will be unnoticed if it doesn’t pay off, then I’m happy to try and capitalize on that moment. I just don’t see the benefit of building an entire effect on a method you can’t fully rely on.

I do understand that if you’re a professional magician, doing the same tricks night after night, then you might get bored, and perhaps incorporating some risk is a way to keep you engaged. I get that.

But for the amateur, it doesn’t make a ton of sense to do a risky method with a standard, traditional presentation. Instead, what I recommend is to use a tried-and-true method with a risky presentation. From my perspective, that’s the more interesting and fun way to incorporate risk in my performances. Not wondering if they person will name the card I hope they will. But wondering how they’ll react to an audience-centric presentation that puts them in a situation they couldn’t have expected.

Invisible Gestures

A number of people passed along the results of this recent study that looked at Derren Brown’s psychological force for the three of diamonds. In total, when they used this force, about 18% of the people chose the three of diamonds.

We’ve tried out this force in our focus-group testing as well and while I don’t have the numbers with me, I think we got about a 15% hit rate. So about the same.

They seemed to think the results of this study showed the force to be a success. We interpreted our results as the force being something of a failure. But this is the difference between looking for results that are “statistically significant” and those that are “magically useful.”

We have looked at so many types of psychological forces over the years in our testing that I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a purely psychological force that is both reliable and invisible to the audience.

(I’d love to be proven wrong. If you believe there is, I have the infrastructure in place—once we’re back to a more normal sort of human interaction—to test it out for you. Come to NYC, I’ll put you in touch with the group I work with, and you can go out and test it for 100 real people. If it fools even just 51% of the people, I will cover the cost of the testing and your flight and accommodations. If it doesn’t, you will cover the costs.)

While I appreciate people trying to test magic methodologies scientifically, I’m not sure it’s the best approach. I say this as someone who has been involved with more magic testing than anyone in the history of the universe. If your process is a little too clinical, you’re not going to get the best feedback. In our earliest days of testing, we would try to have a process that felt very formal and “scientific.” And we found people claiming to be fooled by things at a much higher rate than we expected. It was only when we shifted our approach to being more of a “focus group” style of interaction, rather than a “scientific study” type of interaction, that we started getting the best feedback from the participants. When they saw a trick as some sort of clinical research, they tended to be very forgiving in their assessments. It was only when we made it clear that we wanted their critical analysis of an effect or a technique that we would get their true thoughts.

I’m not suggesting the more scientific studies aren’t useful, just that in my experience, it’s not the best way to test these things.

I’ve found the best use for Derren’s force in a social context is to use it as the starting point presentationally. “I’m going to try and send a card to you without saying the name of the card. You need to be very attuned and focused on me, or this isn’t going to work.” You may even have them film the process with their phone. You do the priming procedure until they name the three of diamonds. If they don’t get it immediately, you make the gestures more and more obvious until they do. At some point they’ll get it. Then you spread the deck and show them the reversed three of diamonds in the deck.

If they pick up on the force quickly you say, “You’re very good at this, let’s try something a little more challenging.”

If they don’t pick up on the force quickly you say, “I don’t think that style of non-verbal communication is a strength for you. But I have a feeling you might be more sensitive to something a little less direct.”

Either way, you continue on.

“If you were to watch back the video you just shot, you would see me indicating the three of diamonds to you via my movements and gestures. There is another way to transmit information that’s similar, but it’s not something you would pick up with a camera. It’s something called ‘Invisible Gesturing.’ Well, that’s not the technical name for it. The technical name is sub-perceptive trans-lexical kinesic communication. But the guy I learned this from just called them ‘invisible gestures.’ It’s communication that happens on a subliminal level. That sounds potentially kind of scary, but the truth is you wouldn’t be able to perceive the invisible gestures without me telling you they were coming. So it’s not like I could just walk into the grocery store and implant messages into the checkout girl’s head without her knowing.

“So let’s try it. You can record this too if you want, but there won’t be much to see when you rewatch it.”

You then “send” them the image of another card. This time using “invisible gestures.” (In other words, you don’t really do anything at all.) And incredibly they will again pick up on the card you were sending them, which you reversed in the deck (thanks to it being an invisible deck). However, this time they should truly have no understanding of how they did it.

While We Were Out

Here are a few of the things that happened during the July recess.

A reporter from the New York Times reached out to me…

She somehow stumbled over the GLOMM site and sent me an email asking if I had any insight into a story she’s doing on prisoners who “use magic as a way to cope with a difficult situation, and some of the challenges that there are for incarcerated magicians.”

Given that The GLOMM tracks magicians who, primarily, have used magic as a pretext to get close to children for the purposes of taking advantage of them, I had the feeling that whatever information I could give her wouldn’t really help her feel-good article. I think she wanted to hear something like, “These poor bastards can’t get a quality close-up mat! They have to weave one out of whatever toilet paper they can sneak out of the bathroom over the course of 18 to 24 months.”

Really though, what was I going to say? “Yes, my understanding is life on the inside is very hard for these gentlemen. They got into magic to be near the taut, tight buttocks of the young. Not the sloppy, baggy rectum of a grizzled lifer. Pray for them.”

My actual response to her was this:

The only thing I know about magicians in prison is that I keep track of the ones who are there for diddling the birthday boy and things like that. I don't think those people were in it so much for the "love of the art" but more so for the proximity it put them to pre-teens who might be easily convinced about the importance of "keeping a secret." So I don't really have anything that will help with your story. 

I don’t expect to be quoted.

---

I got pump-faked by a magic ad…

A reader forwarded me an email from Mystique Factory advertising a Jewerly Box Prediction. Not jewelry. Jewer-ly.

I was willing to cut them some slack on that. It’s an easy word to misspell.

But I did get intrigued by the idea of this product. What was the jewelry box prediction? I could see some interesting possibilities.

Maybe it’s one of those jewelry boxes that plays music, with the spinning ballerina. And when you open it, it plays the song they’re thinking of. Even if their song choices were limited in some way, that could still be very strong. The tinkle of a music box is such a unique and evocative sound.

Or what if the spectator “built” a piece of jewelry in their mind. They decided on the type of jewelry, the metal used, the type of stones and how many there were. Then, in the end, they slide open the jewelry box and inside is just one thing: the piece of jewelry they just created.

Even if the attributes of the jewelry were on cards and you just had a routine to force a specific “random” grouping of the cards—that wouldn’t be as great as them just thinking of something—but it would still be kind of cool. Especially if the selections lead to some weird combination of elements and that’s the exact thing in the box.

“Okay, let’s see what cards you picked, So it’s a bracelet… made of copper… with one pink crystal… three black crystals… and a seahorse charm. I know that sounds… kind of hideous actually. But that was exactly my great-great grandmother’s prized possession.” They open the box and find it in there. And you let them keep it, of course. A truly memorable, quirky souvenir with a great little story behind it for them.

These thoughts come to me in the two seconds it takes me to scroll down the email and I’m actually kind of enthused to see what this “jewelry box prediction” consists of.

Only to see this…

Right, right. Of course. Silly me for forgetting how fucking stupid magic is and expecting this to look like anything other than a magic prop.

---

Ellusionist got weird…

Ellusionist sent out this email a few days ago…

We won't keep you long. This is just a quick reminder to let you know, without intent or irony...

YOU
ARE
AWESOME

Why are we sending this email?

We text this same message to our friends in the Ellusionist SMS group earlier today and people really appreciated the reminder... So we're more than happy to remind you of your awesomeness too. 

Then they provided a few screenshots of how well this went over in their SMS group.

I like to picture that guy: tears streaming down his face, barrel of a gun in his mouth. <DING> Okay… let me read this one final SMS message. What? I’m awesome? Thanks, Ellusionist! That means so much!

Listen, if you get any validation whatsoever from a generic message sent en masse by a corporation there is something wrong with you. That’s not healthy. Seek help.

C’mon, man. You’re not going to fall for that, are you? A big, strong, smart guy, like you? You don’t need Ellusionist to tell you you’re special. I mean, you’re so smart and cool! And everyone likes you.

See how fucking stupid that is?

I do appreciate how honest Ellusionist was in the email though.

They tell you they’re sending the message to you “without intent.”

Intent
Definition: purpose, meaning, significance

I agree. Generic praise from people you don’t know doesn’t have any purpose, meaning, or significance.

I truly hope that someone at Ellusionist just made up those responses for the sake of the email. That’s the only possibility that doesn’t depress me. I don’t like to imagine there are people out there whose sense of self-worth is so low that they’re like, “Hey! Great news. The company that I bought the Fiddle Stick from thinks I’m awesome. (As well as every other person on their mailing list.) So long, suicidal ideation!”

The only acceptable response to that SMS is this:

Early Edition

Here’s an idea I’ve pitched to a few friends who have had some success with it. It’s not something I do because it doesn’t really address an issue I face myself. But you may find it beneficial.

Similar ideas may already exist in the self-help literature, but I don’t read much of that sort of thing so I don’t really know.

Here is the idea as I wrote it up in an email to my friend.

Here’s what you should do. Get yourself a blank notebook and every night before bed you should write a diary entry in it. So, for example, your entry might look like this:

July 15th

Woke up in a great mood today.

Ran three miles before work.

Got lunch with Tim and we went over some really strong ideas for the next season of the show.

After work I practiced guitar for a half-hour.

Then grilled up steaks for Kim and the girls and after dinner we went out for ice cream.

Afterwards I worked on the new book for a little bit and banged out a couple pages before relaxing for the rest of the evening.

Now, that might look like a pretty standard, even bland, diary entry. It doesn’t really delve too deep into your hopes and dreams or whatever. But that’s not the important thing about it. The important thing about it is that you write it on July 14th.

Get it? So it’s not a record of your day, it’s your intention for what the next day will bring, but you write it as if it already happened. So it’s part to-do list, and part intention-setting visualization exercise of what you want to get from the next day.

I suspect you will find your days will end up looking very similar to what you write.

So that was the idea I gave him—and some other people since then—and it seems to be working well for them.

Now, the people I suggest this to are people who have issues with anxiety or getting the things done that they plan to or people who find themselves entering into situations with a negative mindset. I don’t know the psychology of why it works (if it even does work, generally). But I’m guessing if you go into the day and you’ve already seen it in your mind being a success, then you’re more likely to get that outcome. And writing it down in the past tense just reinforces the strength of that process, I would imagine.

I would only write things in the book that are within your control, like your emotions and your actions. Don’t write things like, “And the yankees won. And I found a $100 bill. And a pretty lady said I’m the handsomest man she’s ever met.” It’s not supposed to be a book of your special wishes. It’s intended to be a book that focuses your mind for the coming day.

(Long time readers will recognize a similarity between this concept and something in The JAMM #12. It’s not quite the same idea, but it’s similar.)

The Juxe: Unreal is Here

I was emailed this list of “10 Bands from the 90s You’ve Never Heard.” While I had heard of many of them, some were new to me. But I wanted to highlight one that wasn’t, and that’s the group Chavez, a math-rock band from the mid-90s. I never followed them too closely but they do have one song I particularly like called Unreal Is Here.

The video is pretty funny. Chavez were not a well known band, but the video presents them as if they were in a faux “behind the scenes” style manner, catching them in fake candid situations that a “big” band might find themselves in (riding in helicopters, dropping off a big check for their “Chavez Kids” charity, excitedly rushing out of the shower to see their video being played on tv). My favorite moment is when the bass player plays basketball while wearing his bass (Which is something Metallica’s bass player bizarrely does in the video for Nothing Else Matters.)

Also, this would be a dope “theme song” for a magic show. “Unreal is Here” is a solid show title. And the lyrics fit too…

Yes, you will do now
What can't be done
Your unreal is here now

Correct, you can learn now
What truth denies
Your unreal is here now

There is nothing to not be amazed at
There are weeks upon years upon days that...

Things that can happen
Happen to you
Your unreal is here now

There is nothing to not be amazed at
There are weeks upon years upon days that...

Just take this with you
Just take this with you...

Here’s another bizarre, funny, weird Chavez video for the song Break Up Your Band.