Here are some semi-disorganized random thoughts and conclusions I’ve come to so far, approximately 360 days into Iteration Testing peek wallets. Performing at least once every day and cycling through numerous variables in different combinations.
The biggest question with peek wallets is how you justify:
Having them write down the word.
You taking the word from them
You putting it in your wallet.
If you read me regularly, you know I want everything to feel logical. I don’t buy into the “you’re a magician so you can do whatever you want” mentality. I think the only way to get people to give themselves over to the experience in a way that will get them really caught up in it, is if things make sense to them (up until the moment of magic or mind-reading). I go into a trick assuming my spectator is bright and curious about what they’re seeing and the conditions surrounding what they’re seeing. So trust me when I say I resonate with the concern that people might question the need for them to write the word down and the actions of you putting it away in your wallet.
However, after performing this every day for a year, I’m beginning to believe it’s not that big of a concern. Well, I should say that I think there’s a very easy way to make this not a big concern.
Keep in mind that every piece of mind-reading has some sort of procedure. They flip through the book to find a word to think of. They choose a card to have a playing card to think of. They’re writing things down. They’re selecting something from a list. They’re telling you which of the lotto tickets have their number on them. Every mentalism effect has some element that would be unnecessary if you could genuinely read minds. But we still do all those other tricks.
And now I’m going to say something that I didn’t think I’d say before beginning this testing.
Having someone write down a word and putting that written word back in your wallet is one of the least questionable things we do when mind-reading.
The reason I say that is because the actions don’t really need to be a part of the “mind-reading” process. You can get them done early on. In fact, you should get them done before the subject of “mind-reading” comes up.
✿✿✿
If I say, “I’m going to read your mind. Think of any word. Write it down here. Give the card back to me. I’m going to put it in my wallet.”
Yes, of course, that’s dumb.
But it’s only the first sentence that’s dumb. Imagine this instead.
“I want to try something with you. I’d like you to write down a word for me. It can be anything. I’ll turn away. When you’re done, put it writing side down on the table.” They do and tell me they’re done. I say, “The writing-side is facing the table?” They say yes. I turn back around. “Good. I don’t want to see it just yet. I’ll put it back for now and we’ll get to it later if we need to.”
Now, there is nothing genius about that scripting. But it’s a good example of a generic introductory script for a mind-reading presentation.
“I want to try something with you.”
Notice what’s not said at this point? What’s not said is any talk about reading their mind. I’m not bringing it up, so they can’t question these actions at this point in the context of having their mind read.
What I’m going to show them hasn’t quite started yet. We are setting up the “mise en place.” We’re getting things in position and out of the way. This is the nice thing about using a peek wallet. This can all feel like “set up” for what’s about to come. Whereas if we have envelopes and billets or book tests or center tears. These are often in play at the exact moment we’re supposed to be focusing on the person’s mind.
“The writing-side is facing the table? Good. I don’t want to see it just yet.”
I’m establishing I don’t want to see the word just yet. This is mandatory. I’m gently telling them to be on guard that I don’t just take a peek at the information. You might think that you wouldn’t want to bring up the idea of you seeing the information because you don’t want to put that notion in their mind, but it’s the opposite. During the Iteration Testing participants have been 12 times more likely to suggest maybe I got a peek at the word when I put it in my wallet as being a possible method when I don’t mention that I don’t want to see the card.
You need to inform them what to take notice of.
“I’ll put it back for now and we’ll get to it later if we need to.”
This is some subtle justification at this point. Because they don’t know what’s about to come, this is not the time to overly justify your actions. The card is going “back” to my wallet. That’s where it came from, so it makes sense that’s where it goes back to.
“If we need to” is deftly doing a lot of work in that sentence. It suggests a rationale for why you put the card away (because there’s a good chance you don’t need it anymore). But it also justifies why the card exists in the first place… because it might be needed.
The wallet goes back in my pocket or in my bag. We’re getting it out of the way. The card is no longer the focus of attention.
Now is the point where I talk about what we’re going to do. Something like…
“Okay, so you have a word in your mind now. Wait… just to clarify… are you thinking of a word or a name?”
(It’s always good to ask a question like this at a point when you already know the word. It reinforces the idea that you’re still in the dark.)
“Okay, so there’s this technique I’ve been studying that will hopefully allow me to determine the word in your head.”
Here is where you discuss whatever the process is that’s going to allow you to read their mind. Don’t rush this part. If you write a word down, I put it in my wallet, and immediately tell you the word you’re thinking of, then of course the wallet part will be suspect, because that’s all that fucking happened. But if there’s some sort of process that takes place—and if it takes some time—then all the focus isn’t just on the card and the wallet.
✿✿✿
Now, here’s the cool thing about Iteration Testing. For the majority of the people I perform for, I have their feedback on how the experience was for them. Including a rating of how much they enjoyed it and how impossible it seemed. I literally just tell them that I’m working on a project and looking for feedback and people are happy to give it once I convince them I want their honest critiques.
So I have their ratings, but I also have all the variables I’m testing out coded in a spreadsheet. And I can isolate one of those variables and then compare all of the performances with that variable to all the ones without it. For example, of the 360 performances I’ve logged so far, in 40 of them, I’ve had the person put the card back into the wallet themselves. Now I can look at the scores for those 40 performances and compare them to the average score across all performances and get an idea of how changing that variable affects their enjoyment or their perception of the strength of the effect. This isn’t necessarily scientifically definitive, but it’s a good enough estimate for our purposes.
✿✿✿
One thing I’ve change my mind on is how much you should justify having them write down the word. I used to advise that you shouldn’t justify it at all unless they ask why they had to write down the word.
But I’ve since tested this with three levels of justification and come to a different conclusion.
The three levels of justification I’ve used are:
No justification - I never give a justification for why the word is written down, unless they ask for it.
Direct justification - Example: “Now, the reason I had you write down the word is to give your brain a focal point for both of us to zero in on. If I ask you, ‘What are you thinking?’ You’re going to have numerous conscious and unconscious thoughts at any given time. Trying to unravel all of that is not something I can even come close to doing. It’s probably not something anyone can really do. Mind-reading requires some level of organized thought. Just like normal reading does. If a book was just a pile of jumbled words, the message would never get through. But if you put those words in order, then you can communicate. Rather than wading through disorganized thoughts, writing the word down allows us to have you think directly of what you wrote.”
Casual justification - Example: “As we go through this process, your mind might wander. That’s okay. You want to treat this like meditation. When you sense your mind wandering from your original thought, I want you to bring it back to the word and see it written on that card in your mind. That’s what it’s there for, to give you a focal point.”
The highest ratings came with a casual justification. Not ignoring the written word, but not overly justifying it either. The difference wasn’t staggering, but it was statistically significant.
Now if I had to recommend something I would recommend a casual justification and then having a more direct one chambered if someone questions you about it.
✿✿✿
By the way… the worst rated justification? “I’m having you write it down so you can’t lie to me later on.” You can perhaps get away with that as a rationale when performing professionally or in a large group. But in small groups and one-on-one, it comes off as weird.
✿✿✿
Here’s something you might find reassuring. I’ve been involved with testing tricks in one fashion or another since 2005. When asked to suggest a potential method for tricks, people regularly guess trick cards, trick coins, trick rubber bands, trick pens, trick bottle caps, trick whatever.
But oddly enough, hardly anyone has suggested “trick wallet” as a possible solution for most of the peek wallets I’ve been using in this testing. It just doesn’t really come up. That’s a concept that seems to be completely foreign to most people.
The wallets only ever seem to draw suspicion when:
A) They look considerably different than a normal wallet
or
B) You have to go in a second time to get the peek.
Only in those cases did the wallet draw any significant amount of attention.
So if you have a wallet that looks normal-ish, and you don’t have to go back into it to get the peek, you don’t really need to worry much beyond that.
✿✿✿
I’m still about five months away from completing this testing. The full write-up with all the “highest scoring variables” will be in the next book.
