Dustings# 82

/

Regarding Wednesday’s post on the Pseudo Chatbot, I did actually ask ChatGPT the prompt that I used as an example in that post. Here’s how that went…

“I want you to describe the configuration of a deck of cards that has been shuffled and mixed face-up into face-down cards by a 38-year-old woman named Carmen from Tupper Lake, New York.”

🤖As an AI language model, I cannot directly observe Carmen from Tupper Lake, New York shuffling and mixing a deck of cards face-up into face-down cards. However, I can provide a general description of a shuffled deck of cards that has been mixed face-up into face-down cards.
Assuming Carmen has used a standard 52-card deck, a shuffled and mixed deck of cards would likely have a random arrangement of face-up and face-down cards. This could result in any number of possible configurations, depending on the specific shuffling technique used and the number of times the deck has been shuffled.
Some possible outcomes include:
  • Some cards may be entirely face-up or face-down, while others may have a mix of both orientations.
  • The order of the cards may be completely randomized, meaning that cards of the same suit or value may be scattered throughout the deck.
  • There may be clumps of face-up or face-down cards, with alternating sections of each orientation.
  • Depending on the shuffling technique used, there may be some cards that are more likely to be face-up or face-down than others.
Overall, the configuration of a shuffled deck of cards that has been mixed face-up into face-down cards is likely to be unpredictable and unique to each individual shuffle.🤖

Super helpful as per usual, ChatGPT

By the way, if you’re writing a long prediction in that fake chatbot, and you find it easier to write on a computer than on your phone, just write it in a draft in your email, then go into your email on your phone and copy and past it over.

This may be obvious, but someone asked about it, so I figured I’d pass that along for anyone else who needs the tip.

In my March 9th post about two influence tools, I mentioned the Infamous release and said you may have a hard time finding it because it didn’t seem to be available at most magic retailers.

I know have a couple of options for you:

  1. You can get it from MagicWorld.co.uk.

  2. Or if you want to support the creator directly (which is always appreciated) you can reach Daniel Medows by contacting him here. He has the cards/DVD combo as well as just the download if that’s all you need/want.

As mentioned in that post, this is a helpful tool that can be part of pretty much any trick where you’re forcing a word, concept, drawing, etc.

I will often have the cards out and “test” someone with them earlier in the night, and then bring it back around to those cards and do the reveal hours later.

The fact that this is something you can add onto many influence effects, as well as the different reframes I’ve written about here, makes it particularly useful

Joshua Jay likes to portray himself as an all-powerful wizard, genius of the magical arts, master of deception and the human mind.

The real Joshua Jay?

Can’t quite figure out hyperlinks.

Do I have any tax experts reading this? Tax time is coming soon. I go to a cafe most days of the week. The reason I go there is because it brings me a stream of new people into my life to interact with and it allows me to test out ideas on new people rather than burning out my friends and family on magic.

Can I write off my coffee??

If I was renting a performance space, I’d be able to write that off. In this case, isn’t the coffee my rental cost for being able to use the cafe as a testing ground?

Influence: The Simulation Reframe

/

This is a reframe that I’ve only dipped a toe into so far, but I think it has promise.

The idea is that instead of them being influenced by something outside of them, it’s their choices that are altering their surroundings.

The notion here is that they are authoring the simulation and their thoughts are becoming manifest in the world around them.

Yes, I realize this is a bit of a wild idea. But people like crazier presentations. I’ve never met someone who was like, “I’m sorry, I’m not interested in being immersed in some fantastical story. Instead, I’d like to hear about the difference between a magician and a mind reader.”

So, as an example, let’s imagine a standard influence effect.

We’re at a bed and breakfast for someone’s wedding weekend.

I ask to try something with you and I spread through the faces of a deck of cards. Then I have you touch the back of any card. You pull it out and look at it.

I show you my prediction: “You Will Choose the Ace of Diamonds.”

My prediction is right.

I then say, “You see, I didn’t actually predict the Ace of Diamonds. In reality, I influenced you to take it. When I spread the cards, your subconscious picked up on the location of every card. And when I told you I was going to have you select any card—I don’t know if you’ll remember but I sort of gestured towards my chest. And when I spread the cards toward you at the beginning, it was in a way that put the portrait behind me just in your line of site. What’s on the chest of the woman in that portrait?”

A large single diamond shape. Ah! You were influenced to choose the Ace of Diamonds by this well placed portrait.

With the Simulation Reframe, I would first start by telling you the idea some people have that we’re living in a simulation and our choices and thoughts end up creating the simulation around us. And what we think of as “coincidences” are really those decisions and thoughts being made manifest in the world. The simulation has to essentially re-write itself after every choice we make. It’s the reverberations of those choices that we’re seeing in these little coincidences.

I show you the deck of cards and then have you touch the back of any card. I ask you if you want that card, the one above it, the one below it, or another one altogether. Whatever you decide I slide that card out for you and show you what would have happened if you’d chosen the card above it or below it or whatever. You turn the card over and it’s the Ace of Diamonds.

“Okay,” I say, “Now we look for evidence that your choice has altered the world in some way.”

For instance, I find a pad that I had been doodling on earlier and notice that some of the lines look like an Ace of Diamonds if you look at it just right.

I see that the video of sports highlights on my laptop is paused on Anthony David. “AD?” I ask. “Could this be one or am I reaching?”

Finally, you notice the large diamond on the necklace of the woman in the picture.

The fun thing about this reframe is that instead of me reciting a list of things that supposedly influenced you, we’re searching around together to find these things. They’re as much a surprise to me, apparently, as they are to you.

And, as far as stories go, “The universe is changing itself based on your whims.” Is perhaps the exact opposite of, “These outside factors are influencing you.”

Now, imagine sometime later I ask you to send me a video you shot on your phone of me doing some stupid shit when we first got to the bed and breakfast. You send it along and I take a look at it on my phone.

“Holy shit…,” I murmur, “Check this out. Remember that thing we did with the cards at the bed and breakfast? Remember we saw the Ace of Diamonds in a few things around the room and there was that portrait of the woman with a large diamond-shaped pendant? Look at that portrait before you selected the card.”

You look. She just has a ribbon around her neck, no pendant.

Proof that your choice altered the universe.

This is just an example, not something I would necessarily suggest doing exactly this way. But if you wanted to, it would just involve sneaking a framed portrait into the place you’re staying. It doesn’t need to be wall-sized. Just something you can put on a desk or end table. These sorts of things aren’t uncommon in small boutique hotels or B&Bs.

First plant the one without the reveal in it when you first get there and, at some point, have the person you’re going to perform for take a picture or video of you with that image in the background. Then, when you have some alone time, swap the image out for the one with the reveal in it.

As I said, this is just an example. You can reframe many, if not most, influence effects in this manner. For this presentation, I think a few “reveals” of the information are all you need.

Pseudo Chatbot

/

Taking a break from the influence posts today to mention a new feature in the Jerx App that will be available in an update either as you read this or very soon after.

This is an idea that came in from supporter Dustin W. in an email where he wrote:

ChatGPT and Bard and other AI programs are a great premise for a prediction if you want to dodge the psychic claim.

I think this is a very solid idea.

Imagine it as part of a Shuffle-Bored presentation.

You bring up an AI chat page on your phone. It’s not one of the standard ones. It’s a dark-web-only version or some proprietary site that you have to have an invitation to be able to use.

You enter a prompt that says something like:

I want you to describe the configuration of a deck of cards that has been shuffled and mixed face-up into face-down cards by a 38-year-old woman named Carmen from Tupper Lake, New York.

The AI shoots out a reply like:

🤖The configuration of a deck of cards that has been shuffled and mixed face-up into face-down cards by a 38-year-old woman named Carmen from Tupper Lake, New York is likely to be:
24 face-up cards
Of the face-up cards, eight of them will be black.
All the black face-up cards are clubs.
This is the likely configuration of a deck of cards that has been shuffled and mixed face-up into face-down cards by a 38-year-old woman named Carmen from Tupper Lake, New York. 
My mistake, I just noticed that one of the black face-up cards is actually the two of spades.🤖

You could scroll the page so that the Two of Spades punchline isn’t revealed until you want it to be.

Of course, this could be used as a reframe for any kind of prediction effect that forces the spectator into one outcome.

So I shot that idea over to Marc Kerstein and he has added it to the Jerx App. In the settings for the chat function you just enter whatever you want the AI to spit out and regardless of what you write in the prompt during performance, it will just shoot out whatever canned response you have.

It does it in the “typing” style similar to many AI chatbots.

What happens if your friend wants to ask it another question?

Additional prompts generate this message:

You have no remaining data credits. Credits renew in 30 days.

Aww, too bad. Sorry, friend.

Don’t call it like your “magic chatbot” or something corny like that. This is just some strangely accurate underground chat program that you have a special invite to.

If they come to you 30 days later and ask you to ask another question to the chatbot, just say, “Ah, they made that thing illegal. I wasn’t even really supposed to show it to you.”

Right now it’s very simple to operate. Just enter the wording you would like it to shoot out and it will do so. You could make it as simple as having it say, The 3 of Clubs, and then asking it in performance, '“What card did my friend pick?” Although when it’s that simple I think it will hardly have much of an impact. The idea of adding names and ages and locations into the sample question/answer mentioned above is to suggest that maybe there’s some sort of interesting calculation happening in the background. But you can do it however you like.

If I feel there’s demand for it, I may ask Marc to make it a little more complex, with multiple saved responses and possibly the ability to enter part of the output secretly during the process of entering the URL. That way it wouldn’t just need to be used for forces, but could also be used for free choices. (Similar to what we did with the Wisdom of Crowds word reveal that’s also in the app). But I may just keep things simple with it.

Influence: The Holmesian Reframe

/

This is a very simple reframe that takes a trick out of the realm of “influence” altogether. It’s certainly similar to ideas explored by others, but I think there is a way to do it that makes it feel more legitimate and less like just hollow taolk.

The premise of the Holmesian Reframe is that they’re not being influenced by these subtle cues that have been placed around them, instead, they are subconsciously taking in and perceiving these cues. Their mind wasn’t swayed by some little thing off in the distance. Instead, their mind keenly picked up on that thing.

We have Spectator as Magician tricks and Spectator as Mind Reader tricks. This reframe is, essentially, Spectator as Sherlock Holmes.

This requires a bit more explanation for the participant because the idea is that they’re absorbing this information and processing it subconsciously. If you don’t make that point to them then they’ll think, “What is he talking about? I just picked this thing at random. I never even noticed that half-finished crossword puzzle on the coffee table.” (Or whatever cues might be lying around.)

To make this premise really effective—as I suggest for other “Spectator as” premises,—there needs to be something that happens that allows for this person to achieve these feats. They need to go through some process or ingest something or listen to something unusual or something like that. Maybe they listen to some audio track that supposedly has a hypnotic suggestion that expands their attention and deductive abilities briefly. Maybe they go through some meditation process that does the same. Or maybe it’s a pill. Or whatever.

There just has to be some sort of reason why they now have this ability when they didn’t have it at any other point in their life.

The process of how they acquire this temporary ability is what will make this a memorable experience. That will be the physical/tactile/firsthand part of the experience for them that they can look back and remember. Since they don’t really have this ability they can’t actually remember the feeling associated with it. But they can remember the taste of some concoction they had to drink, or the sight of some strange imagery they were subjected to, or something like that.

The nice thing about this reframe is that it completely flips the script on an influence effect. It elevates the spectator’s cognitive abilities rather than diminishing them.

Mailbag #83

/

Years ago Ian Rowland released a humorous “influence” trick that I often perform. I don’t recall the original title, but the effect goes like this.  You show eight cards one by one, which you claim have been painstakingly chosen to influence the spectator’s choice of one of them.  As you show them, you comment on the appeal of each.  “There’s the Ace of Spades, which is the first card many people name when asked to name a card.  Very popular choice.  But also has dark associations, which is why many avoid choosing it.  Or perhaps you’ll choose the Seven of Clubs, which is attractive to those who think it’s a lucky number. Or maybe you were born in July, the 7th month.  The Joker represents the inner trickster, or the wild side of one’s personality and may be especially appealing as it can be a wild card in many games and assume many identities.  Just as you do from time to time.  Then there’s the Queen of Hearts, the feminine principle, the anima, the goddess….”  And so forth.  Each comment suggests why that card may be appealing, but perhaps reverse psychology is at play, and they are being influenced NOT to select that card.

After all the cards have been shown (including the Three of Diamonds which has the words “Don’t Pick Me” written across the face), the participant makes his choice by sliding the chosen card out of a face-up ribbon spread.  You then gather the remaining cards and show the backs.  Each non-chosen card is seen to have a red back with a large X drawn from corner to corner.  Now the selected card is turned over.  It is a blue-backed card with no X.

[Andy’s Note: I believe the effect is called Persuasion and is in the January 2004 issue of Genii. All digital back issues of Genii are available with a $35/year digital subscription.]

As for the reveal,  I ask why they chose that card, and comment on their response.  Then I say something like, “That felt like a free choice, right?  You could have taken the Queen or the Seven.  But you went for the King of Diamonds.  That’s what’s amazing about the influence of these cards.  You may not feel it directly—but it’s there.  Or maybe it’s the influence of what I said.  Or maybe these factors had no influence on you whatsoever. Maybe it’s all BS.  But then, how do you explain this?”  And then the reveal. 

Your thoughts?  Or not. —AK

I like that. It sounds like a fun routine.

This brings up an important distinction I haven’t mentioned in the influence posts this month…

The routine described in the email above is one where “influence” is the stated premise from the outset. It’s the theme of the trick. I think routines such as this come off as relatively benign for the vast majority of spectators. In this situation, the influence is set up almost as a game.

The influence effects that I think sometimes come off poorly is when influence is the surprise (supposed) methodological revelation at the end of the trick. “I didn’t really read your mind. I actually influenced you to think of the 3 of Diamonds!”

Think of how that can come across to some people. We’re enjoying a pleasantly fictional experience of “mind reading” or “coincidence” or whatever the case may be. Then at the end, I say, “Aha! What actually happened was that I manipulated your mind!” I think it’s understandable why many laypeople (not magicians) will hear that and be turned off by it. Whether they think it’s what really happened. Or just that you want them to believe that’s what happened.

It’s different when influence is the stated premise at the beginning of an effect.

Think of it this way. Imagine I had a trick where a ring disappears from a ring box. We put the ring in the ring box and I tell you to go home and put it on your kitchen table. Then I tell you to make sure all your doors and windows are locked and that there’s no way anybody could get in the house because at some point tonight I’m going to find a way to invisibly sneak my way into your house and steal the ring out of the ring box.

You wake up the next morning. All the windows and doors are still locked tightly, but the ring is gone. You probably wouldn’t really think I snuck into your house. And you’d probably be fine with the whole interaction.

But what if I said, “Place this ring box on your kitchen table.” And I never mentioned locking your doors or windows. Then the next morning I said, “I’ve used my magic powers to make your ring disappear.” Then, after you checked that it was gone, I said, “Actually, what I really did was sneak into your house last night and remove the ring while you were sleeping.”

You might feel like that was a violation. You might be unsettled that I would do that, or that I would apparently want you to think I would do that. Either way, it would be odd.

That how’s the “surprise” influence reveal can come across. Except instead of it being their house that you invaded without warning, it’s their brain.

Some years back I performed Michael Murray's "Sublime Influence Evolution" for my wife. (You have mentioned and recommended it some time ago, so I assume you know what it's about.) […]

After the ending of the effect, she was impressed and surprised, but she also seemed a bit unhappy. Normally, she is laughing and having a lot of fun with magic tricks, but this time she was just "fooled".

When I asked her about it later, she told me that she is generally concerned about being easy to manipulate. So me manipulating her in such a strong way did not feel good. […]

So since then I have been thinking a lot about whether I was doing something wrong or maybe she a bit sensitive in this area. Or could all those mentalists be wrong? Derren Brown bases his whole professional personality on "I influence you to think about a red bike". People still seem to enjoy it.—SM

Yes, your wife may be a bit sensitive in this area, but that’s not an uncommon thing. I’ve seen many people (usually women, but I tend to perform more for women) who enjoy all types of magic/mentalism, and joyously engage with the tricks and presentations, but who then get withdrawn or guarded when seeing a trick where someone supposedly “influenced” them.

Derren Brown bases his whole professional personality on "I influence you to think about a red bike". People still seem to enjoy it.

For the participant, this goes back to last Tuesday’s post on the Bombardment Principle.

And keep in mind, that unlike you or I, Derren Brown is claiming to influence one person, but millions of people are watching.

It’s definitely interesting to watch other people getting influenced. Whether you think it’s real or think there’s a trick behind it.

But for an amateur, performing socially, your “audience” and the person being “influenced” are often one and the same. So if they do have a weird reaction to claims of influence, then you’re potentially alienating your whole audience for the sake of no one else, because no one else is watching.

Coming up later this week: two reframes that take the word “influence” completely out of these types of tricks.

Dustings #81

/

To protect my supporters from the shame and stigma that comes with being someone who spends good money on magic, I’m thinking of using these padded mailers when I send out the new book this October.

A phrase just popped into my head and it made me instantly depressed:

“Zoom magic show”

I was doing some research on roulette and found this question. Why don’t I have friends this dumb? I feel like they would be a lot easier to fool.

I was informed by reader Stu Y. that the 52-on-1 card that’s used in the 52 Stunner effect which I covered in this month’s newsletter doesn’t have the 6 of Diamonds or 6 of Spades on it.

My routine (which is different than the one it’s marketed with) involves the spectator naming any card to start.

If they name one of these two cards, here’s what you can do. If they name the 6 of Diamonds, for instance, you could say, “Would you be amazed if the 6 of Diamonds was on the other side of this card?” Then you turn it over to show a full deck on one card (they will assume the 6 of Diamonds is there somewhere, because why wouldn’t it be?). When everyone is done laughing themselves sick at your wonderfully hilarious gimmicked card, then you can say, “Please, please, control yourself. Let’s try something actually magical. I’ll make your card disappear.” Wave your hand over the card. “The 6 of Diamonds has disappeared.”

And I’d just leave it at that. On this pre-printed card, the one card they freely named disappears? That’s strong. Hell, you’ll be hoping they name one of those cards.

Influence: Two Tools

/

Here are two tools I find useful when crafting an influence effect.

Pop-Eyed Popper Deck

If you’re going to be using a physical deck of cards in your influence trick (for example, if you have a bunch of cues in your performing area that point to the 3 of Diamonds) I find this to be the best way to actually get the forced card into their hands/head.

First spread the deck towards them so they can see all the faces. There are only 26 faces, with a Pop-Eyed Popper deck, but this is not something that I’ve found any layperson can distinguish. Don’t leave the deck spread face up, because then it may become obvious that not all the cards are there. Just keep the cards moving when you’re showing them to your friend and you’re fairly safe.

Ask them to just “take in” the deck visually. “You don’t need to try and memorize it or remember any particular cards.”

You can’t just force a card on a person without showing them the order of the deck and then say, “I influenced you to pick that card via these cues.” That doesn’t make any logical sense.

So the idea here is that when you’re showing them the faces of the cards they are “absorbing” the order of the deck subconsciously. When you turn the deck face-down and have them choose a card blindly (so as not to be distracted by the values of the other cards), they actually know the value of that card in their subconscious because they saw and retained the order of the deck when you first spread them.

The Pop-Eyed Popper deck works well with this premise because they can really touch any card and they’re actually given the card they touched without ever even taking their finger off it. You can immediately show the cards directly above and below their selection are different. And then show all the other cards in the deck as being different as well.

When they touch a card you give them the option to change their mind. If they do change their mind, you can immediately turn over the card they were touching to show them the card they would have had if they hadn’t changed their mind. And this card will be different than the force card.

It’s arguably the cleanest way to force a card with a gimmicked deck, and I feel it definitely works the best with the influence premise.

(The Mastermind deck is another good option. With that deck, they do get to see all 52 cards, but they don’t get to see the full face of any. You can decide which trade-off you’d rather live with. For me, the Pop-Eyed Popper deck slightly edges it out.)

Pop-Eyed Popper decks are cheap, but if you want to get one to force a specific card (rather than just whatever one you happen to get when you order) you’ll have to either make one yourself (time-consuming), have one made for you (more expensive), or blow someone in Penguin’s warehouse (soul-destroying).

Infamous

Infamous was a set of Stroop Test cards that looked like this.

It’s sold out in most places but can still be purchased here.

The cards are used to (supposedly) implant and then reveal the thing you forced on someone.

So, let’s say I start the presentation by running you through some quick psychological tests. One of those is the Stroop test (look it up if you don’t know what it is). Then I say that I think I have a good understanding of how your brain works. I have you choose a card (say, the 10 of Hearts) and then I “read your mind.”

I then come clean and say, “I didn’t actually read your mind. You went for the 10 of Hearts because you were compelled to do so. I’ve been implanting that card in your subconscious all night.”

And I would have a bunch different reveals of the 10 of Hearts around my place.

I’d point to the back of the card case on the table and show the 10 of Hearts is printed there.

Maybe there’s some left over valentine’s day candy in a dish on the end table— ten candy hearts.

Maybe at one point in the night I told you about my friend’s dog, Dano, and his intestinal problems and how he stunk up the entire apartment the other night. I go back and play a portion of that anecdote that I secretly recorded on my phone when I was telling it. I highlight every time I talk about when Dano farts. “And when Dano farts…” Dano farts, Dano farts, ten of hearts, ten of hearts.

Then I point out the cards we used for the psychological test that are still spread on the coffee table…

What’s nice about this is that conducting a psychological test does fit in with the general idea of anything “mind” related. So it can be seen as part of laying the groundwork for “learning how they think.”

And, of course, you don’t need to use this with playing cards. Any word/thought/image that you can force can seemingly be “implanted” by these cards.

I mentioned these are hard to find now. They’re sold out in most places. If you can’t track them down, you can always make your own. Get a bunch of colored markers and some blank cards. “Homemade” Stroop test cards are no more or less suspicious than professionally printed ones.