(Close Window)
Topic: Freudian mentalism?
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 18, 2007 07:16AM)
Does anyone know of any one-on-one mentalism effects that are Freudian or psychodynamic in their presentation please? Post-Freudian presentations also welcome!

I'm a big fan of psychodynamic theory and would be delighted to discover any effects that involve patter along the lines of defense mechanisms (such as confabulations and rationalisations), unconscious motivations, transference and counter-transference, scripts learned in childhood, dream analysis, free association … etc.

But let's please leave presentations involving Jung's concepts of synchronicity and the collective unconscious out of this discussion. Having said that presentations involving archetypal symbols welcome, but as long as they are heavy on the theory and don't just involve symbols for symbols sake (for example by introducing a tarot deck).

So basically I'm looking for ways of including psychodynamic theory into mentalism.

Message: Posted by: BH_Magic (Jul 18, 2007 07:55AM)
Yes, I know of a few - but is this with the intent of entertaining an audience or passing them off as truths? The latter I'm quite uncomfortable with...
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 18, 2007 08:09AM)
Er - both! With the intent of entertaining and with the intent of passing on the theory as ... a sort of truth - like most scientific knowledge, it is 'true' untill a better theory comes and replaces it.

But I would try not to leave the spec confused and misled or believing in ESP or genuine mindreading. I would try to be ethical in that regard.

Please remember I'm looking for one-on-one close up stuff.
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 18, 2007 08:16AM)
Roth's REFLECTIONS would be more than appropriate within the parameters of your request. Highly recommended.
Message: Posted by: BH_Magic (Jul 18, 2007 08:22AM)
Ah, okay. I will sit this one out then...

On 2007-07-18 09:09, Olly Crofton wrote:
like most scientific knowledge, it is 'true' untill a better theory comes and replaces it.

There is a lot of research showing that the Psychoanalytical approach to therapy does more harm than good; the Wish Fulfilment Theory of Dreaming really has been demonstrated to be pretty inaccurate too - which is why I don't believe it right to suggest these things as definite fact. Perhaps as a curious patter line, but not absolute truth.

I don't want to get off topic though so I'll say no more.
Message: Posted by: Mentalisten (Jul 18, 2007 08:25AM)
I think you should be careful when presenting it ie. are you intending to give the spectator some type of therapy or possible psuedo-psychodynamic 'insight' which may leave them worried etc.

As a psychologist I tend to apply psychodynamic and other psychological patter when creating a routine but am very careful to avoid the above problems. A quick example (made up now) could see you giving some patter about free association and how it can often give you insight into the unconcsious. Ask if they would like to try it out and if so have them free associate for a bit and then suddenly stop them. Say you have an idea now and you write a word. Ask them to say another word and then reveal that that is the word you knew would come next... or something like that. Keep it entertaining and light.

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 18, 2007 08:38AM)
Thanks for your comments so far guys!

Just to be clear - I would never ever, ever dream of using my effects as a therapy session - as some magicians suggest is possible. I understand your concerns here. I am concerned about magicians doing this too! That is something I'd simply never do.

I am well aware that psychoanalytic therapy is not the best therapy for many problems, (but may be appropriate for others).

But it is the theory that I am more interested in, rather than the therapy (although I find the therapeutic techniques fascinating). That is what I'd hope to get across in my routines.

I would not present psychodynamic theory as absolute truth. Just as a provisional temporary truth - and one truth among other competing truths about the mind (such as the cognitive and social constructionist perspectives). Having said that, I don't think anyone can deny that we are partially motivated by psychic forces which we may not be conscious of, and we are influenced by the events and people or our early childhood. And I don't think we can deny that we may sometimes behave in bizarre ways for reasons that are unknown to us, but which may be obvious to others.

Also, I'm more interested in the object relations school of psychodynamics rather than Freudian theory. I put that in for the sake of simplicity.

I hope that might persuade you to change your mind and contribute to this thread BH_Magic!

As a psychology graduate and member of the British Psychological Society I am bound by their code of ethics and conduct to behave myself in all aspects of life.
Message: Posted by: Mentalisten (Jul 18, 2007 08:45AM)
Do have/perform any effects which use ideas from the Object Relations theory? Am interested to hear an outline if you are willing to share.

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 18, 2007 08:50AM)
Yeah - I've come up with one presentation which I'm really, extremely proud of.

Never actually used it though!

I'll PM it to you, as I've posted it on another forum and I think that makes it their copyright.

Sorry to exclude other people, but I don't have many ideas of my own in mentalism, and I don't want to broadcast one of the ideas I have had any more than I have broadcasted it already.
Message: Posted by: BH_Magic (Jul 18, 2007 09:01AM)
That's very fair Olly - apologies if I came across as a bit of a grump! I'm sure you understand how it is though :)

One or two I can't share for certain reasons, but I know I've come across a few in my readings... I will try and dig them out later!
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 18, 2007 09:15AM)
Great. Thanks BH.

So many mentalist presentations are to do with unconscious subliminal influences, or hypnotism or doing things without knowing why we did it or whatever ... I want to find something new, and something that interests me even more than the more standard stuff.
Message: Posted by: Looch (Jul 18, 2007 09:49AM)
In SYZYGY there is a Freudian reading that is EXCELLENT for 1 on 1 performance
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 18, 2007 12:44PM)
Sweet. Thanks Loochy-baby.

I just looked at Roth's Reflections as advertised at the Outlaw web site.

But it wasn't obvious to me how this effect would incorporate psychodynamic theory into the presentation.

Could Mr Hastings (or anybody else for that matter) please explain to Olly Crofton how it weaves psychodynamics into it's tangled web - whilst obviously not having to give the game away.

Just a couple of lines from the presentation, for example ...

Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 18, 2007 02:37PM)
My presentation (as well my background) is post-Jungian, Ollie. I assume your background will enable you to script and cast best the divination of common dreams Reflections offers.
Message: Posted by: tnscot (Jul 18, 2007 02:45PM)
Sometimes a clipboard is just a clipboard.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 18, 2007 02:50PM)
Post-Jungian? Wow! I've never even imagined combining the prefix 'post' with Jungian ... !

So are you saying that Reflections is partly about divining a common dream? It doesn't explicitly say so in the ad ... but it does say that you can divine a memory.

Divining a dream would be cool and the gang!

You reminded me of the 'Subtle Dreams' section in Banachek's PS1. And his Freudian Slip effect, also in PS1. The former is one of the most fascinating things in psychology I've read. Too bad it came from a magic book and hence seems a tad untrustworthy compared to info offered by a text book (although I'm not saying Banachek isn't to be trusted, before I get cyber-mobbed by Café members).

And perhaps you could also please provide a few lines or a paragraph that says a bit more about post-Jungian psychoanalysis ... or rather post-Jungian analytical psychology, right?
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 18, 2007 02:55PM)
That's correct. I pm'd you, Ollie, and am glad to talk more with you privately.

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 18, 2007 02:59PM)
Sorry - just to clarify - am I correct about the effect, or just with my technical terminology? Ha ha.
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 18, 2007 03:01PM)
Is so? We seem to be one beat off in corresponding and posting. You can divine Memories, Dreams and Reflections from Outlaw's dandy little book of ESP research. I don't mean to be oblique. You can find my post-Jungian work in the Once Upon a Time forum of which this is a continuum.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 19, 2007 03:49PM)
I had another vague and a frankly unimpressive idea to 'go Freudian'.

Again inspired by PS1.

There's a psychological force about dogs not getting a particular illness. It also appears in PS2.

What if we preceeded that with something like: - the building blocks of our psyches and some of our most emotionally charged memories form when we are very young. Powerful physical experiences during childhood, such as being unwell, having sore skin, the pain of being hungry, or frightened, or hot, cold, alone and not held - these experiences and the confusion they cause may fade away from our immediate memories into our unconscious mind, but still remain meaningful and motivating. It's the therapist's job to pick up on such aspects of our minds. But, if you are happy with this, I'm going to have a go as a thought-reader.

Do the force.

Question is ... any ideas on how to follow it?

Maybe the lines would be better coming AFTER the force ...

If this presentation is potentially unethical or harmful, I'd love to be steered in the right direction.
Message: Posted by: BH_Magic (Jul 21, 2007 07:47AM)
Having sifted through some of my library it turns out I was mistaken - turns out I was thinking of some Jungian presentations and the Freud ones I have encountered I cannot share, I'm afraid.
Message: Posted by: Waters (Jul 21, 2007 01:17PM)
It was my pleasure. If anyone enjoys the presentation they are welcome to use it.

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 21, 2007 05:10PM)
Yeah - That is really nice - Thanks Waters.

And that was your own work as well? Respect!

That is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for.

I should have thought of that myself - 'going Freudian' in a drawing dup, especially as a couple of years ago a friend asked me to provide some notes on the psychological research of drawing duplications and some of the product may have been relevant to this thread. Mind like a sieve!

But I don't think I could have done it in such a fabulous way.

Thanks again.
Message: Posted by: Waters (Jul 21, 2007 05:14PM)
I would be honored for you to use it. Thanks for the kind words.

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 21, 2007 05:23PM)
Alright - here's one for you.

Young guy goes into Freud’s liquor store. The man behind the counter asks to see his id.
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Jul 21, 2007 05:25PM)
I like that Olly.

Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 21, 2007 05:42PM)
Me, too! I've got these Jung and Freud finger puppets who take turns with it now in their P&J jag! More material please, Ollie!! Keep 'em coming, lad, please!!!
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 21, 2007 05:49PM)
Well, to be honest, I cannot claim credit for the above gag, alas. Here's another I found on Her Majesty's internet, but I like it less, coz it's less like Bruce Lee's techniques - i.e. it's not fast and punchy.

Mr. Perkins, the biology instructor at a posh suburban girls' junior college, said during class, "Miss Smythe, would you please name the organ of the human body which, under the appropriate conditions, expands to six times its normal size, and define the conditions."

Miss Smythe responds.

Miss Smythe gasped, then said freezingly, "Mr. Perkins, I do not think that is a proper question to ask me. I assure you my parents will hear of this." With that she sat down, red-faced.

Unperturbed, Mr. Perkins called on Miss Johnson and asked the same question.

Miss Johnson, with composure, replied, "The pupil of the eye, in dim light."

"Correct," said Mr. Perkins. "And now, Miss Smythe, I have three things to say to you. One, you have not studied your biology. Two, you have a dirty mind. And three, you will someday be faced with a dreadful disappointment."

Please do not encourage me to start telling jokes as I'll be up all night, and we'll go off thread.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 21, 2007 05:51PM)
It is supposed to be about Freudian slips, in case it seems I've suddenly gone off on a tangent.
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Jul 21, 2007 05:54PM)
I do like that one also.

Thanks I was in a rather dark mood and am smiling as I type Olly.

Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 21, 2007 05:58PM)
It was fun while it lasted but we're here to work, right?

I should think that a few of Freud's defense mechanisms could be "mentalized." I want to think about this for awhile.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 21, 2007 05:59PM)
Just read through the gag.

Looks like I slightly mis-told it.
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 21, 2007 06:02PM)
Post-Jungian slip?
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 21, 2007 06:33PM)
Yeah ... or some such ...

I looked through your thread, Thomas, on Fairy Tales and found it became hard to follow quite quickly ...


I couldn't follow all the references ... maybe I missed some important link or something.

But it also got me thinking about the power of the symbolic, and reminded me of another reason why I love the psychodynamic perspective so much. The power of fantasy and imagination - it reaches parts of the brain that other beers cannot reach (to quote a well-known sales slogan in my country). Crucial part of psychology and what makes us human.

This is something that could be woven into our mentalism with ease. It's just doing it in a clearly Freudian (or post-Jungian!) way that might be a tad more tricky.

I'd be interested to read your Masters dissertation, if you'd care to PM it to me, although I may take a little while to get through it. If you'd rather not, no problems.

But also, as I'm none the wiser as to what post-Jungian analytical psychology (right?) is all about, would you please type up a few lines just to give a brief outline ...

I think others who have contributed to this thread would also be grateful to you if you made this effort.

I think you are right that a lot of Freudian defence mechanisms could be woven into our presentations. I would like to see a routine that demonstrates confabulation or rationalisation, if such a thing were possible.

Ultimately, people have to interpret what we do when we perform - even if their interpretations don't obviously seem to involve defensive manoevures. So us mentalists see confabulations and rationalisations whenever we perform. If only we could hold up a mirror and show it back to our spectators!
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 21, 2007 06:49PM)
I errored when I said Jung's Tower was on a river...it's on a lake...my own post-Jungian slip.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 21, 2007 06:55PM)
Put your analyst on danger money, baby!
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 21, 2007 07:28PM)
What is a Freudian slip anyway?

Isn't it where you do one thing, but mean to do your mother....
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Jul 21, 2007 08:50PM)
Ohhh do I hear rim shot?

Yep I did.

Killer line.

J ack

Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 21, 2007 09:02PM)
Jung puppet loved it but Freud puppet didn't get it.

Projection, anyone? Some sublimation, perhaps?
Message: Posted by: Jim-Callahan (Jul 21, 2007 09:34PM)
Yep my favorite thread this month is this.

Of course the Freud puppet would not get it he is an ID-Iot.

J ack

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 22, 2007 05:54AM)
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 22, 2007 06:16AM)
Alright - I want to keep this thread afloat, so here's something that is potentially controversial, but isn't intended to be. Please don't over-react. It's supposed to be food for thought.

Psychodynamic theory can be applied to the UK public's response to David Blaine's ‘Above The Below’ stunt. A recent (well, OK, not so recent anymore) TV poll concluded that about three quarters or so thought that Blaine's efforts were a waste of time, stupid, he had his head up his own behind etc. He was awarded the 2004 Luvvie award by ITV for having the world's biggest ego. Anecdotally, many would say things like "Oh he's a great sleight-of-hand artist, but these glass-box-goings-on are stupid".

In my analysis, based on sound psychodynamic concepts, the reason why Blaine became so unpopular was because he became a substitute Osama Bin Laden for the population at large. In other words he was seen by many people, in unconscious fantasy, as a possible threat. Through interaction and conversation, and encouraged also by the media, people colluded in a mutual unconscious collective defensive manouevre with each other. A group defense. And as a result of this mechanism, an emotional climate of cynicism and hostility towards Blaine emerged. In other words, he was scapegoated for the events of 9/11. Nobody consciously held David Blaine responsible for what happened, but unconsciously, irrationally and in phantasy he WAS held responsible by the majority of the British public.

This may sound stupid and illogical. But remember, we are talking about people's unconscious minds.

Both consciously and unconsciously, many would have seen Blaine as representing the unknown. It has been argued that people fear the unknown. But further than this, it is my firm belief many British people adopted the irrational viewpoint, although unconscious even to themselves, that Blaine represented the face of terror. He was unwelcome, mysterious, impossible to get rid of ...

As a friend put it, nothing unites a crowd like a common enemy. In other words, Blaine was being psychologically mobbed. He became a hate figure, an object of ridicule, rage, jealousy etc, onto which negative emotions could be projected (and we all need hate figures, right?). After the awful and tragic events of 9/11, a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety had been aroused in the Western world, and for Londoners, this psychic energy found an outlet, target or object in Blaine. He set himself up as a sitting duck to be the object of aggression and other unsavoury emotions.

Using people or groups as tools (i.e. receptacles) to help maintain and/or defend our psychological equilibrium is thought to be quite a common mechanism (for example when an infant hurts himself and looks to his mother for how to react. If the child is very upset he may throw a tantrum, and take out his anger on his mother. Hopefully his mother will be psychologically health enough to contain the infants strong emotions and feed them back to him in an ‘easier to digest form’). We project and transfer our emotions (whether positive or negative) onto others. This is what happened to Blaine.

Like the unlucky child who is bullied by other children in the school yard, Blaine provided an emotional conduit through which anger, aggression, fear could be displaced...

On top of this, Blaine actually resembles Bin Laden in certain respects. That swarthy look, thus dull, dark eyes, the same skin tone etc ... He was also, like an extremist, seen to be watching the wider population from a distance, while being invulnerable to our influences. He was among us, yet seperate from us. Like a terrorist, he was untouchable. All we could do was watch him with impotent rage.

And speaking of impotent rage, as an American Blaine was (unconsciously) associated with George Bush - also an object of impotent rage. Also, as an American, Blaine was an outsider to London to begin with thus heightening his chances of rejection by the wider group.

Anyone who thinks I am talking garbage is in denial!

Thanks for reading this. I apologize if this post is offensive to anybody.

Yes, I'm going off thread - any more suggestions for Freudian mentalism?
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 22, 2007 06:49AM)
I suggest there is no such thing as fruedian mentalism just an unconscious reaction to Chris Angel who is conduit for those with supressed feelings of cross dressing..

Speaking as a Brit I can tell you we are far more rational than you. It had nothing to do with terrorists. (give me a break)

It was all about the stupidity and self indulgence of an idiot who got paid millions to starve himself. When there are millions of people starving all over the world.

We found the whole stunt offensive and pointless. And boring and pretentious..

Brits are like that. Much more down to earth and less gullible than many other parts of the world.

This thread is silly....there is only one kind of pure mentalism one that entertains and mystifies.

That should be your end goal. Not looking for ways to install an outdated outmoded and obsolete set of theraputic and psychological theories.

I reckon those that do unconsciously want to wear their mothers clothes as a way to regress back to the days when their world was more simple and secure....long before terrorists were part of their consciousness.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 22, 2007 07:03AM)
Thanks for the resonse Mindpunisher.

Just for clarity's sake, I am a Brit, living in Britain.

I agree with most of what you say Mindpunisher - apart from your point that psychodynamics is 'outdated outmoded and obsolete set of theraputic and psychological theories'. They may not be in fashion at the moment, but I think they have a lot to offer. So does my University. I was recently at a hospital treating people with personality disorders using mainly (or even exclusively?)psychodynamic therapies at great expense, but with much success - so I think NHS practitioners might disagree with you also. Although your view is quite a popular one.

But what you write about why us Brit's didn't like Blaine's stunt - that is your conscious mind speaking. And no one can dispute those rational reasons because they are sound.

But I was talking about British people's unconscious drives, which will have biased them towards hostility.

Unfortunately you don't have access to your unconscious mind, but I'm sure it would agree with me, if it could speak for itself...

Perhaps what you have posted is a rationalization ... a confabulation ... of something that your unconscious mind motivated you to say for mysterious reasons.

Also, yes - our goal should be entertaining mentalism. But psychodynamics is what interests me, it is what I know could interest many others, and I want to be original ... so ... this thread will hopefully me do something new and entertaining.
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 22, 2007 08:23AM)
I think there's stark truth in both your observations....how negative psychosocial triangulation manifests toward collective conscious trickster figures like Blaine and Angel.

Ollie, I like the presentation you sent me you're working on. Is so.
Message: Posted by: Hoff Man (Jul 22, 2007 11:23AM)
On 2007-07-22 08:03, Olly Crofton wrote:
I was recently at a hospital treating people with personality disorders using mainly (or even exclusively?)psychodynamic therapies at great expense, but with much success - so I think NHS practitioners might disagree with you also.

Hey, that’s good to know.
I’m working with some Borderlines that would’ve made Sigmund weep.
I could send them to you Air Express, if you like.

Here in the states I think Blain’s ill-conceived publicity stunt was simply perceived as another example of a celebrity plummeting over the edge. Something the public comes to expect, and in some cases, even relish. I don’t think his fall from grace is a racial thing. I tend to believe that the majority of Americans are much more tolerant of others than their government intends or portrays them to be.

I suspect Blain’s final chapter is far from being written.
I’m hoping to see a comeback.

It has always interested me how quickly Freud’s theories and verbiage became a part of everyday Western thought. As if the validity of his ideas were a given, if not, self-evident.

“Unconscious Mind” … I don’t know.
(Unfortunately, the updated Reticular Activating System idea doesn’t make for sexy mentalism).

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 22, 2007 11:49AM)
“Unconscious Mind” … I don’t know.
(Unfortunately, the updated Reticular Activating System idea doesn’t make for sexy mentalism).

Would you care to elaborate on that Steve, for those of us who are not familiar with what you are talking about - like me?

As for Blaine - now just to be clear - I'm not saying that the British public's reaction to 'Above the Below' was a flat out racial thing, although yes, I am saying that it may have been a small contributing factor (even though British is a (largely) harmonious multi-cultural society and proud of it).

What I AM saying is that the determining factor that caused the general public's rejection (of what I felt was a rather nifty and beautiful piece of performance art) was that the public needed a 'psychic punch-bag' for the anxiety that followed 9/11, and this scapegoating would have happened regardless of his colour.

Apparently it is a common defence mechanisms for groups to adopt, as I'm sure you know.

Perhaps I was wrong to mention Blaine's physical appearance ... I am in no way saying that the British public is racist ... but then again, as we know, in psychodynamics, multiple determination is the rule ... and perhaps the British public's implicit attitudes (unconscious prejudices as described Mahzarin Banaji) were at work.

Although we are going off thread a bit here ...
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 22, 2007 12:05PM)
Oh yeah - another clarification - it wasn't me delivering the therapy at the hospital I mentioned. It was the hospital personnel. I was there for an interview, not to give treatment. Apologies for ambiguous language.
Message: Posted by: james1a (Jul 22, 2007 12:07PM)
Then there is Chandu's 'Psychoanalysis'.
Message: Posted by: Arnon (Jul 22, 2007 01:04PM)

I think Mindpunisher's abrupt reaction may be resistance and an indication that you are getting close to the root of things. :lol:

Anyway, I find this thread fascinating, and a potential springboard to new and entertaining mentalism plots and routines.

Here's one idea that occurs to me:
1) Have the participant recount several hurtful events from his/her past, synopsizing them into ONE REPRESENTATIVE WORD for each event;
2) Memorize those as you are being told the words (use a peg system, etc.);
3) Ask the participant which one was most hurful;
4) Write all of those words down on the back of your business card (a somewhat impressive display of memory skills)
5) Fold the card in half, and have them burn it out of their memory as you heat up the folded card with your lighter; and finally
6) Reveal that the word for their most hurful event has vanished from the list!

Comments are invited :D

(college minor in Psychology)
Message: Posted by: Hoff Man (Jul 22, 2007 01:05PM)
On 2007-07-22 12:49, Olly Crofton wrote:
“Unconscious Mind” … I don’t know.
(Unfortunately, the updated Reticular Activating System idea doesn’t make for sexy mentalism).

Would you care to elaborate on that Steve, for those of us who are not familiar with what you are talking about - like me?



I think of the RAS as a part of the brain, or network of cells, that act as a regulatory or filtering system for sensory input so that one’s nervous system isn't overwhelmed by the stimuli bombarding it constantly. I know that a lot of research has been done related to the RAS role in ADHD, Alzheimer’s disease and self-motivation.

It’s also that part of the brain that wakes you from your daydream during the morning commute the moment before you might drive through a red light.

I guess in a New Age sense of things, it can be described as, “the witness”.
Come to think of it, that might be sexy afterall.

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 22, 2007 01:55PM)
James1a - Thanks for the reference

Arnon - I'm glad you find it fascinating. Psychoanalysis is a cool subject. But, with respect, your routine sounded a bit ... painful for the spectator. And we discussed the dangers of conducting pseudo-therapy sessions while doing magic and without proper qualifications at the beginning of this thread. I could never do that (if the BPS found out I'd be subject to disciplinary procedures, I expect), although I do find the idea of using magic as a kind of healing tool fascinating. I think Jeff McBride was doing workshops on this subject.

Also, the other problem with your routine is that the spec loses only one painful memory, but gets to keep the others ... alas! Still, nice try.

I apologize for raining on your parade.

Steve - Hoff man - thanks for your extra details. But I think the discourses of psychoanalysis and of neuroscience are still pretty darn incompatible. I do like the idea of trying to explain(!?!?) consciousness as a function of the ARAS. I also like the possibility of describing empathy, identification, intersubjectivty (aka theory of mind - or mind reading (as performed by lay people when you know that they know that you know that they know what you are thinking, for example)) and imitation in terms of the newly discovered mirror neurons in the temporal lobes.

But ultimately, I want to use the concepts and language of psychoanalysis, rather than neuroscience, in my routines. Or at least I think psychoanalytic routines and NOT neurscientific ones are what this thread should focus on, right? For simplicity's sake!

Oh yeah, and I'm just spelling out the meanings of these concepts as I understand them not to look clever or explain them to the Hoff man (who surely understands them already), but so everyone else reading the thread can understand them.

Alright, maybe it is to look clever.

OK, I admit, I'm just trying to look clever. Ha ha.
Message: Posted by: Arnon (Jul 22, 2007 02:29PM)
On 2007-07-22 14:55, Olly Crofton wrote:
James1a - Thanks for the reference

Arnon - I'm glad you find it fascinating.
Also, the other problem with your routine is that the spec loses only one painful memory, but gets to keep the others ... alas! Still, nice try.

I apologize for raining on your parade.

I guess the performer will have to return for encore performances! More gigs!
And get paid for 50-minute hours! :lol:
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 22, 2007 02:56PM)
Ha ha. Yes. Very clever. Good work Arnon!

Alright what about this one ...

Following a 'subliminal influence' force such as Banachek's/Hilford's 'For One to End' in PS2, or perhaps preceding a more sure-fire subliminal influence routine (like Killer Elite).

We could talk about how ...

In everyday life, by various unconscious, subtle, verbal and non-verbal means, an individual, or even a group, can unconsciously cause their feelings – their state of mind - to be felt and experienced by somebody else, who may thus subsequently identify with that state of mind and make it their own. This is the process of projection by the sender, and identification by the recipient. People often see projection as a process where we conveniently attribute our own negative qualities on to somebody else. But it is much more than this. It is a kind of communication. Projection, along with identification, are the unconscious mechanisms through which cross-over of emotions and mix-ups occur between individuals and through which boundaries between identities begin to break down. It is what causes contagion of emotion. For example, I'm sure you've been around somebody who's been sad or blue or even depressed, and come away feeling miserable. But conversely, I'm sure you've had another person's good cheer and enthusiasm lift your mood also, perhaps when that person didn't intend to inspire or enthuse you.

Nearly always the projector's conscious mind doesn't intend to influence the recipient's mood, but the unconscious mind needs to communicate a message (for example a need for comfort or to be understood), and so it makes the projection happen - without the person doing the projecting even being aware that they're doing so, or behaving in bizarre ways.

It is this process of projection I've just demonstrated to you/will demonstrate to you, although I've been doing it/will do it deliberately, when most of the time it happens unconsciously. (So try to be receptive to my signals)

Ta da!

Shame I keep having to resort to my Banachek books. Shows how little I know about mentalism doesn't it?

Any feedback or comments welcome. Any more psychoanalytic routines also welcome.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 22, 2007 06:14PM)
Actually there is growing doubt that we have a conscious mind. It takes more than 100 muscles to type this drivel. You couldn't consciously co-ordinate them. Like most things in life you do it unconsciously. Likewise the ability to organise these letters into such a waste of bandwidth...is totally unconscious as is the habit of hanging around here when we should be doing something better. Like ......er?

And the desire to look clever or utilise psychoanalytic routines and believe they will be entertaining...That urge is also unconscious.

Im not sure about the ability to treat personality disorders. I treat them all the time. Most of my ex's had them.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 22, 2007 06:34PM)
Anyway, focusing on what this thread is supposed to focus on - does anyone know Chandu's psychoanalysis? If so, can they please describe the effect for me? Thanks.

Any more psychoanalytically flavoured routines welcome.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Jul 22, 2007 08:08PM)
By the way - all of cold reading falls into psychodynamics

All audience management skills

All selling of an effect

Also, the Reticular Activation System would be beautiful for effects... as would doing some presentions using the limbic system... not to mention the wonders this term conjures up.. "the reptilian brain".... gee, the mind is housed in the brain - and so much fun to do effects featuring both
Message: Posted by: Mentalisten (Jul 22, 2007 08:23PM)
One little thing I would suggest Olly, based on my own experience of incorporating psychodynamic patter, is to make it a little more direct or clearer - just so that you don't lose the spec before you've even given instructions of what to do etc etc.

Just something I came across when trying things out. Osterlind also mentions something similar on one of his DVDs when talking about presentation.

From what I've seen you have a very keen interest in this field (especially made evident through your essay on Blaine) and you may end up over-doing some of your theory-driven patter in the process... as I once did.

For example, I devised a simple billet switching routine based on amnesia ie. it would appear that the spec forget something (see 'Subtle Dreams' in PS2 for further ideas). Nice routine.. however I would ruin it by going on far too much about the unconsicous mind, parapraxes or freudian slips and how sudden memory loss is a type of slip. Finally, I explained how we would attribute a socially unacceptable idea to something (a word, ESP shape etc), thus hopefully inducing an unconsciously-driven amnesic experience. I soon realised, via feedback and reflection, how I'd overdone the patter- tried to fit it all in like it was some thesis. Simple mistake! I have since edited it and now the effect goes down a treat - with the same reaction any good piece of mentalism does, with the spec and audience simultaneously thinking over the patter you provided and the usual 'how did he do that' thought process.

Just a thought to take on board. You may find, however, that you deliver it better than I did.

Still, hope it helps.

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 23, 2007 03:53AM)
Mentalisten - Yeah, I see what you mean. Maybe I am jabbering on a bit. But there is so much I want to get across. I feel psychoanalysis is such a rich and intellectually satisfying perspective. Thanks for the tip.

Dr Spektor- Thanks also for your contribution. But … with respect … it is not obvious to me how …cold reading, audience management and the selling of effect all fall into psychodynamics - as these seem to be conducted on a more strategic and conscious level, right? Could you please explain?

As for your comments on the Reticular Activation System … I agree, but I think we should set up a separate thread elsewhere to discuss neuroscientifically flavoured mentalism. As mentioned previously, I was taught that the vocabularies of psychoanalysis and of neuroscience don't really overlap.
Message: Posted by: Mentalisten (Jul 23, 2007 06:29AM)
Olly, any ideas on Adlerian psychodynamics? Birth order, first memories etc??

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 23, 2007 06:37AM)
Sorry Ross, but I'm not really up to speed on Alder's work, although I could read up on him tonight. Actually applying his work to an effect might be a bit more of a stretch.

I want someone to go Lacanian on us.
Message: Posted by: Virungan (Jul 23, 2007 08:42AM)
Well, a book test handled in the right way is a form of Lacanian 're-reading'...
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 23, 2007 09:26AM)
Alas, I don't know anything about Lacan's work so I don't know what you're talking about ...

I guess I'll just have to go and sit right down and do me some book-learnin'.

You know it dawned on me earlier that physiological thought reading or pendulum effects are potentially psychodynamic in their presentation. But how to make it blatantly and explicitly psychodynamic ... that is the question ...

Any suggestions anyone ...?
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 23, 2007 09:56AM)
Lacanian....we thought you meant Laconian. Then we could have recommended Isso Liwok's Father of All Book Tests (with Joyce's Finnegans Wake) or Isnot Liwok's Divine Child of All Book Tests (with Robert Graves' White Goddess).

--Lucia Von Franz
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Jul 23, 2007 11:59AM)
I'm a psychiatrist - I'm schooled in the techniques of group interpersonal psychotherapies and a variety of others... if you think people are doing things during interpersonal interactions totally consiously, good luck! I actually train big business corp. VIPS and teams in the area on what to pick up, how to facillitate and lead effectively based on these things. As for mentalism and such - most cuing involves directing the spec in a way he or she isn't consious of what you are actually doing.... from hypnotic suggestions to just positioning them in certain ways or getting them to agree with you with a simple head nod.

Hopefully, the person facillitating is conscious and using strategic techniques - but most be reflective of what is being stirred within him or her while doing so.

One day, I'll get around to writing all the above in way much more detail ;)....

As for cold reading - check out any psychodynamic formulation of a person and you'll find 90% of good cold reading ties right into it. Read some books like Ian Rowland's and you'll see how good psychotherapists become natural "cold"/warm readers with ease.

With respect, I'm basing this one not effects that use Psychodynamics as a McGuffin, but actually the way they effect cognitions, emotions and behaviours.

Lastly, the RAS/Limbic system etc. all tie up to the cerebrum... you see, thoughts get effected by chemical changes in the brain - psychotherapy and neurochemistry go hand in hand. e.g. It is ancient thought that likes to make the mind/brain dichotimy.. almost like mentalism/magic :).... but in fact, all should mutually support each other if it has any basis in fact. e.g. Cogntive Behavioural Therapy etc... plus all the reseach showing how psychotherapy is as effective as certain medications is mild /mod cases of depression / anxiety etc... seen also on PET scans and so on.

However, If you are just looking for effects/presentations supporting old myths of psychoanalysis or just for flavour, I can see why my contributions may seem strange. So, good luck with your quest, I shall now, with respect, bow out and go back to the shadows.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 23, 2007 01:51PM)
Thanks Dr Spector (I thought that that was just a stage name!)

As a humble psychology graduate and post graduate student, I appreciate you explaining your previous post to us lesser mortals (and I'd insert a smiley face her to denote an absence of sarcasm but cannot figure out how, dammit!).

It is not that I want to perpetuate old myths or weird science (and please good people, let's not begin to discuss the scientific status and/or worth of psychodynamics). I appreciate that many of the stories that psychodynamics tells are frankly a bit bizarre and lacking in credibility

It is more about the flavour, as you rightly say, but the flavour of modern psychodynamics, which I understand to be a vibrant and progressive research program. Psychodynamics offers social psychologists a unique set of concepts, a language and a technique (psychoanalysis) - for studying subjective experience (not to mention behaviour!). It has theories about the driving forces behind social life. It can describe and investigate the processes by which the social environment 'gets inside us'. Psychodynamics can explore the content of our internal worlds - the web of meanings that constitute our psychic realities and hence make us who we are. So it is a great tool for social psychologists to examine the way individuals construe and internalize the social world and are constituted by it. It is this view of psychodynamics as a form of social psychology that I want to communicate in some routines - the constant and profound presence and influence of other people, whether in the reality of the external world or in our internal worlds.

For the sake of clarity, everyone, psychoanalysis, strictly, refers to the work of Freud, his theories and clinical psycoanalysis. Psychodynamics is a much broader term that hopefully indicates that hings have moved on since his time. The only reason I used Freud's name in the title of this thread was to avoid frightening people off with unfamiliar and lengthy words.

As for the non-existent dichotomy between mind and brain - to be honest, I'm not so hot on my biological psychology ... and I appreciate that both are mutually interdependent and interpenetrate ... but ... as far as I am aware (and my knowledge is clearly very limited) ... the language of psychoanalysis does not easily translate to to the language of biology or vice versa ... although hopefully one day they will. That's the reason why I'm suggesting that neuroscience-based presentations for our routines should be posted in a different thread - so things are divided neatly, like in my text books ... Ha ha. No, not really - it's because we'll end up discussing two almost entirely different presentational styles for our mentalism.

I apologize if my post is a bit long, boring and/or waffly.

Anyway - keep those routines or comments coming in folks!
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 23, 2007 01:56PM)
Why can't I get these smiley faces working. It's really annoying.

Just read my last post. Suppose that last big paragraph of my previous post should read as follows.

As for the non-existent dichotomy between mind and brain - to be honest, I'm not so hot on my biological psychology ... and I appreciate that both are mutually interdependent and interpenetrate, or to be much more accurate, are one and the same thing ... but ... as far as I am aware (and my knowledge is clearly very limited) ... the language of psychoanalysis does not easily translate to to the language of biology or vice versa, even though both discuss similar phenomena (with biology focusing more on the individual and psychodynamics focusing more on the individual, relationships and groups)... although hopefully one day they will. That's the reason why I'm suggesting that neuroscience-based presentations for our routines should be posted in a different thread - so things are divided neatly, like in my text books ... Ha ha. No, not really - it's because we'll end up discussing two almost entirely different presentational styles for our mentalism.

Thanks. Don't want to look stupid do I?

PS - Also just noticed I spelled Dr Spektor's name incorrectly on my previous post. I apologize for being so rude.
Message: Posted by: Corona Smith (Jul 23, 2007 02:13PM)
Is so Is not so.
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 23, 2007 02:22PM)
Is not so as is is.
Message: Posted by: Corona Smith (Jul 23, 2007 02:29PM)
What happened to the attempted umlauts?
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 23, 2007 03:12PM)
Had to send them to Bill Palmer. He collects 'em you know.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 23, 2007 03:16PM)
What IS an umlaut?
Message: Posted by: Virungan (Jul 23, 2007 03:19PM)
Look up-words.... you might see one.... especially if you're feeling Teutonic
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 23, 2007 03:20PM)
Oh yeah - never thought of that.
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 23, 2007 03:27PM)
Are there pre-Jungian slips? Papyrus billets? Sly offense mechanisms lurking beneath the indexed togas of turban legends?
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 23, 2007 03:39PM)
Sly offense mechanisms? Now you're talking!

Psychodynamics is well equipped to discuss covert aggression (and even overt aggression) in a way that cognitive psychology or biological psychology are not.

In psychodynamic theory, what is said and done by individuals is heard and interpreted by the analyst as though it is intended (unconsciously but perhaps also consciously) to have an effect. An assessment of people's speech and actions (and speech acts!) and their impact on others is a central part of the process of understanding those people.

Gotta be a routine there somewhere ...
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Jul 23, 2007 04:06PM)
Covert aggression? Like

"As a humble psychology graduate and post graduate student, I appreciate you explaining your previous post to us lesser mortals (and I'd insert a smiley face her to denote an absence of sarcasm but cannot figure out how, dammit!)."

Nice ;)

If you want to be thinking of yourself as a lesser mortal, don't blame me - that was your statement.

(Oh, a Smiley face would just make it more covert :))...


Here is a real cool covert smiley :bat:

Lastly, if you do want to put in emoticons, look at the bottom of this page... just above submit reply see "options" and where it says disable SMilies on this post...click on the highlighted Smilies and it will show you how.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 23, 2007 04:33PM)
Thanks for the tip on the emoticons Dr Spektor! Most kind. But it's still not happening ... So the pop-up window appears when you click on the thingy you pointed out ... then what? I can't drag and drop (sad face here).

Anyway, to continue the general discussion - I don't really think of myself as a lesser mortal - except when I'm comparing myself to psychiatrists. I think maybe a lot of psychologists feel inferior to psychiatrists ... maybe ... or at least one or two do.

No covert aggression intended (at least as far as I'm aware of at a conscious level)... honest!
Message: Posted by: Hoff Man (Jul 23, 2007 07:00PM)

I apologize if one of the comments I made early on caused things to go off topic.
I was just making a meaningless aside and in no way intended to digress the thread into the area of neuroscience.

But from what I’ve continued to read I would suggest what many others have already stated, and that is to go somewhat light with the intricacies of what it is you are trying to translate into your performance.

And listen to what Dr. Spektor has to say. Not many people can give you the help you are looking for in a down to earth way and then, just as quickly, approach the same topic from the Twilight Zone.

But then again … it’s all connected.
Isn’t it?

Message: Posted by: Mentalisten (Jul 23, 2007 10:19PM)
Came across this on Paul Brooks' site:-

'More than Freud' - Simulate being able to predict human behaviour and movements, clearly demonstrating an astounding knowledge of psychology.

Its an effect that is included in his '14th Step to Mentalism' book. May be worth looking into.

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 24, 2007 06:36AM)
Thanks Hoff-man. No apologies necessary.

Yes, I will try keep my presentations light. Hopefully I won't end up lecturing to my participants, or ranting on in a one-sided way. But for now, let's allow this discussion to get heavier and heavier, and go deeper and deeper!

Yes, I hope to keep learning from Dr Spektor. I just hope he will continue to contribute to the thread, and does not bow out, like he said he might earlier.

Thanks also Mentalisten for the reference. Most kind.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Jul 24, 2007 08:28AM)
Thanks Hoff-man!

I try :)
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Jul 25, 2007 08:26AM)
Dr. Spek and Hoff-man provide excellent reflections for you. I am impressed by your curiosity and passion for wanting to synthesize two fields into one.

Heavier and deeper. All right. Explore the work of Enrique Enriquez, Ollie. Although certainly not for beginners, "Invisible Readings" will perhaps send you into further knowledge and applications of Dr. Arnie Mindel's Process Therapy. Arnie was my analyst's analyst and I also was fortunate to have private and group sessions with him. His analyst was Marie Louise Von Franz whose work was core to Isso and Ellen's fairy tale research last year. Lucia Von Franz is the imaginary half-sister of Lucia Joyce.

Hope this helps at least a little wierdly so.

"thomas hastings" and the inner beings.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 25, 2007 01:37PM)
Wonderful! Thanks so much. I wish I had more time for this kind of thing instead of ... statistics ...

Any more suggestions welcome.

Freud gags particularly welcome ...
Message: Posted by: Virungan (Jul 26, 2007 12:12PM)
Olly, I'd recommend reading the work of Bruno Bettelheim, particularly 'Uses of Enchantment'... it will give you plenty of food for thought, particularly in regard to childhood fantasies, fairy tales etc...

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 26, 2007 02:20PM)
Thanks Virungan. It seems you have a good knowledge of this kind of thing ... Are you some kind of therapist?

If anyone's interested, I've had a couple more ideas for possible presentations along psychodynamic lines in the past couple of days.

Disassociated states - splitting of consciousness - for example for a false memory or forced amnesia effect. Perhaps splitting of the ego to avoid feeling stupid ... although obviously, this would have to be handled with sensitivy, consideration and respect, so as not to be unpleasant for the spec.

Also, the nature of truth and reality. Possible presentation.

Something along the lines of ... 'Magic and science teach us to look beyond the obvious. But nothing does this more so than psychodynamic theory and psychonamic therapy ... Psychodynamics helps us understand the babbling of particular psychiatric patients when previously it would be dismissed as meaningless ... It opens up new perspectives on literary and theatrical works and helps us see them in a whole new way ... It sheds light on relationship dynamics and group dynamics - mob mentalities - the so-called 'energies' (and I use that term in a non-mystical sense) that emerge when unstructured groups form ... And we can even, with the help of a therapist, get to grips with the logic behind our own irrationalities and begin to see why we may behave, from time to time, in bizarre ways.

Having said that ... we should not accept uncritically or unquestioningly what scientists, magicians or psychoanalysts tell us. We should maintain a healthy scepticism, perhaps. (Dunno if I'll include that last bit in the presentation)

This second presentation would go well with some kind of lie-detection routine ... a variant of living or dead ... perhaps .... Or some kind of optical illusion. It might go well with Chuck Smith's Imagination, if anyone knows that routine.

But yes, also with a view to keeping thing light and entertaining.
Message: Posted by: Mentalisten (Jul 26, 2007 05:07PM)
If you're thinking on the lines of lie detection then a good idea is to maybe consider a routine based on the premise of the 'superego'. For example:

'Who here finds themselves always getting into destructive relationships? If you do then this could indicate unconscious guilt or 'silent guilt', repressed out of conscious awarness but still influencing your life. You see, there is a part of the psyche called the 'superego' that is partly conscious but predominantly unconscious. It is formed at around 4/5 yrs old through the internalisation of your parents ideals and is the part of the mind which makes us feel guilt or pride ie. the conscience. When we give into aggressive impulses we self-inflict oursevles with guilt as a punishment and, if we are consciously aware of it (often termed 'noisy guilt'), we tend to emotionally signal it via remorse. The reference I gave to destructive relationships is the more extreme, somewhat neurotic, case, so I will keep this demonstration far more light and engaging by...' and the you explain the instructions, for example '... by inducing a state of temporary guilt by having you lie to me and then I will hopefully be able to pick up on your subtle, or indeed explicit, signals of remorse'.

I've tried and tested the routine many times and it works great. Obviously its just an idea... you can adapt it anyway that suits you etc. Just thought I'd share.

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Jul 26, 2007 05:43PM)
Thanks Mentalisten. A welcome contribution ...

You've just given me another idea ...
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Aug 8, 2007 10:35AM)
Jung galvanized word association response and voilia lie detector as de-vice!

True or False? : Imagination > Affect + Behaviour + Cognition

Charmed, I'm sure,

Professor Lucia Von Franz
Z&LT Dream Clinician for Performance Artists
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Aug 8, 2007 10:58AM)
Violin lie detectors?

I guess that would work, my cat used to cry while I played. I guess it could force the truth from people.
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Aug 8, 2007 11:10AM)
Ah, my friend, do you know the shortest word in English that uses abcdef?
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Aug 8, 2007 01:06PM)
Well ...

I've looked through this thread and it seems that the recommended psychoanalytic effects are:

Chandu's Psychoanalysis
Roth's Reflections
The reading in Syzygy
In Your Hands - by Sean Waters
Invisible Readings - Enrique Enriquez
Mentalisten's Psychoanalytic Uncovering of The Truth - described above

Thomas - you recommended Isso Liwok's Father of All Book Tests (with Joyce's Finnegans Wake) or Isnot Liwok's Divine Child of All Book Tests (with Robert Graves' White Goddess) - but I'm not sure if these are real effects, or you being cryptic!

Apologies if I've overlooked any.

It's still not very many is it? (although I'm grateful for all contributions so far)

Surely there must be something in the Jinx? Anyone?.

Or what about Terry Nosek's book? Or is the title for that one misleading and ... Fraudian?

I can't believe more mentalist's haven't turned to Freud to provide a false solution for their shenanigans.

Anymore contributions welcome. Freud gags particularly welcome.
Message: Posted by: Mentalisten (Aug 8, 2007 05:02PM)
'So Old Freud Told It'

A guy goes to see a psychiatrist. "Doc, I keep having these alternating recurring dreams. First I'm a teepee; then I'm a wigwam; then I'm a teepee; then I'm a wigwam. It's driving me crazy. What's wrong with me?"

The doctor replies: "It's very simple. You're two tents."

Message: Posted by: Mentalisten (Aug 8, 2007 05:04PM)
Two guys are sitting at a bar talking and one guy asks the other guy, "Man, have you ever heard of a Freudian slip?"

"What are you talking about?" says the other guy.

"Well I was at the airport the other day and one of the clerks had a really big chest, and I meant to say, 'Could I have two tickets to Pittsburgh,' but I accidentally said, 'Could I have have two tickets to Titsburgh."

The other guy says, "Oh yeah! I know what you're talking about! I was sitting at the dinner table with my wife the other day and I meant to say, 'Could you pass the salt please,' but instead I said, 'B**ch, you ruined my life!"

Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Aug 8, 2007 05:16PM)
What is observable is in what light the feminine is portrayed.
Message: Posted by: Mentalisten (Aug 8, 2007 05:23PM)
I know... Oedipal issues I think.

Good boy Freud for realising this in his book - 'Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious'. Bad boy for not realsing it in yourself.
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Aug 8, 2007 05:28PM)
Bad boy
Message: Posted by: Corona Smith (Aug 8, 2007 05:29PM)
Out of the griddle and into the...
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Aug 8, 2007 05:54PM)
Gag order?
Message: Posted by: Corona Smith (Aug 8, 2007 05:58PM)
Nope, mirrors are allowed.
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Aug 8, 2007 06:01PM)
Shortest word is : feedback
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Aug 8, 2007 06:22PM)
Alright - this man goes to the psychiatrist and says 'Doctor, you've got to help me. My wife thinks I'm crazy because I love sausages'.

The shrink responds by saying 'What? That's preposterous. I like sausages, but that doesn't make me crazy'.

So the man says 'Great! You must come to my house and see my collection. I've got hundreds of them.'

Not exactly Freudian, but I found it amusing.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Aug 8, 2007 07:05PM)
But in hindsight - I realize now that my joke could be (and probably is) rather offensive to people who have been influenced by mental health problems. I sincerely apologize to anyone who may have been upset by this rather crude and insensitive joke. Sorry.

Shall we just focus on psychoanalytically flavoured routines?

Any more contributions?
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Aug 9, 2007 07:28AM)
How's this:

Develop demonstrable attributes for Jung's typological quartet: Thinking, Feeling, Sensation and Intuition.

Message: Posted by: Energizer (Aug 9, 2007 08:38AM)
What, are you suggesting CR's for each of these types?

Or some kind of prediction? Such as:- I knew you'd do that, because you're this type ... and this type has this quality ... which you've just exhibited.

Could you please elaborate T.H.?
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Aug 9, 2007 08:45AM)
Thinking Function could be demonstrated with a mathmatique perhaps utilizing the principle of throwing out the mimes.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Aug 9, 2007 09:14AM)
Yeah - I kind of like where you're going with it.

But on the other hand - unless I'm mistaken, that four-fold model of personality isn't widely respected these days. And I'd hate to present out-of-date science. And before anyone starts - psychodynamics is not out of date!

Although you are giving me some ideas ...

But anyway, we shouldn't have to invent our own psychodynamic presentations (although I'm not saying we shouldn't be original)! There should be loads out there, given that psychodynamics is the oldest school of thought in psychology. There should be an overabundance of such presentations.

I swear, there must be some in the Jinx. Alas, I only have the thing on CD rom, and I can't read it all off the screen. What we need is a Jinx expert to read this thread, then supply the references.

But thanks for the thoughts T.H.!
Message: Posted by: Mentalisten (Aug 9, 2007 09:53AM)
'Instant Transference'

Spectator is aksed to genuinely go along with the routine or it won't work. After a quick intro to transference, they are aksed to perceive the mentalist as someone they know (eg. parent, caregiver, aunt, uncle, grandparent, sibling, spouse, ex etc.) and to be comfortable with their decision. They are aksed to write down this person's name and relation to them and then, using whatever method (ie. acidus), you acquire the information.

You then ask them to continue acting toward you as if you were that person. You state that you are psychoanalytically reading their responses & behaviour to provide clues as to which person you are being perceived as- the phenomena of transference. Leave the mystery by revealing the name also?!
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Aug 9, 2007 10:13AM)
My God! That is really quite tasty. Good work!

And you could instruct the participant to 'hear that person speaking to you'.

So not only do you divine, say, a thought-of word (an object that was meaningful when the participant was growing up - such as a skateboard or a rubik's cube), or the name of the person. You also figure out exactly WHOSE voice the spectator is hearing. That is something I've always wanted to do in a piece of mind reading.

Nice one Mentalisten
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Aug 13, 2007 08:12PM)
Ollie, say you're not changing your name to The Nut Cracking Brain Crusher.
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Aug 14, 2007 05:23AM)
Yeah, I think I will if the mods let me. Don't you like it? You don't think it's over the top, do you?
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Aug 14, 2007 07:32AM)
Speaking for both the cracked nuts and the brain crushed, yes. How about: X?
Message: Posted by: Energizer (Aug 14, 2007 07:37AM)
Ha ha - Well, I was just trying to out-do Mindpunisher with the militancy of my name. Maybe I'll choose something milder ...

But what's in a name anyway?
Message: Posted by: coupcoupdaddy (Aug 15, 2007 12:06PM)
Well, now, you wouldn't want Oily Crafty, would you?

Cor Blimey that Banjo needs intoning Guvnor.