On Mar 31, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I hate to go off-topic, but I'm getting tired of insight telling us all what is and isn't appropriate in mentalism. It's really starting to seem like trolling.

Nonetheless, I'll give a final response: My card memory plainly establishes how I developed the skill at mental imagery that allows me to send and receive thoughts. It is a memory demonstration and has NEVER been viewed as a card trick by reviewers, producers, directors or audiences. And it gets a standing ovation nearly every time.

So, insight, I suggest that I have a much better idea of what belongs and doesn't belong in my own act than you do.

Regards,

Bob

BTW- Your comment that mentalism has nothing to do with playing, and therefore 'playing' cards have no place in the art is something I never thought of before. Probably because it's ridiculous- kind of like saying that mentalists shouldn't bend house keys, car keys or dinnerware because mentalism has nothing to do with houses, cars or dinner.

On Apr 1, 2015, Sean Giles wrote:
He should change the spelling from Insight to Incite. It a much better fit

On Apr 1, 2015, Lord Of The Horses wrote:


Stick around as long as you like but don't bring Dr.Crow with you because, as "insight" would explain you, all crows are black therefore all what is black has to be a crow...

Plus, you should know well that crows are neither a playing game nor Mentalism!

"To upset the conclusion that all crows are black, there is no need to seek demonstration that no crows are black; it is sufficient to produce one white crow; a single one is sufficient."

On Apr 1, 2015, bbarefoot wrote:
I read this the other day, and thought about it for a while, and I think this has some potential. The biggest suggestion, is make sure you have a clear idea of who you are as a performer and what your abilities are. Once you know these two items, it will be much easier to come up with your reason for doing the deck change, or perhaps, as much as you like it, maybe there isn't a reason and you just have to let it go. As a couple examples, if you use a psychological approach, the change blindness mentioned above (great idea btw) could be perfect. IF you use a mind control approach, you could explain that you "made" them see red when really it was blue or vice versa.

For a source of inspiration, Luke Jermay has an effect where he shows a spectator a card, then the audience as a whole the card and and then lays it facedown on a table. Then he asks the spectator what card they were just shown. The spectator can no longer remember the card or remembers the wrong card, while the audience remembers the correct card as you flip it over to show everyone. You could expand on this ploy to create the effect you are going for, or, you could work out a way to chain the two effects together so that it builds from a one on one effect to a whole audience inclusion.


All the best,

Brad

On Mar 31, 2015, insight wrote:
I suggest keeping playing cards out of your mentalism routine. They are called playing for a reason, and mentalism has nothing to do with playing and everything to do with portraying phenomena as real.

Regards,
Mike

On Mar 31, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I'd suggest that "tutorial" sites purporting to teach Criss Angel and David Blaine "mentalism" are the worst places to learn anything at all about mentalism.

On Apr 1, 2015, Mike Ince wrote:
Without giving away any methods, here's something I worked on last year. Try putting a block of red-backed cards in the middle of a blue-backed deck. Maybe have six blue cards on top followed by seven red-backed cards. Deal the cards face-up one at a time, calling attention to the faces, as you say, "look at the face of every card as I deal and see if one stands out from the rest...". Don't deal through the whole deck unless you can keep their attention. When you reach the red-backed portion, your audience should be so focused on the changing values of the face-up pile that they'll miss the changed backs on the red-backed block of cards. It isn't magic but it's definitely mental. It's a real demonstration of something called "change blindness". Do a web search on change blindness for ideas. I think Tom Stone published an unfinished card plot like this in Genii and I ran with it.

Go a step further. The red-backed block of cards can have instructions clearly printed on the backs, not too dark, one word per card. They might read: "thanks... for... choosing... the... nine... of... spades". Stop dealing soon after the red block has been dealt past and say, "... just say stop anytime" in a hurried manner, as if you'd been clear from the beginning they were to call "stop". Just make sure they stop you on the nine of spades or whatever the subliminal prediction/command says, and afterward you can deal through the deck again and call attention to the red block and the subliminal message.

If you'd like to know my favorite way to make that effect happen (a demonstration of "change blindness" and subliminal persuasion) in a fair manner that allows the participant to stop you at any face-up card while you deal, you'll need to learn to cull the right information and to study mentalism classics until you've earned Five Stars on your final exam.

On Mar 31, 2015, insight wrote:
I suggest keeping playing cards out of your mentalism routine. They are called playing for a reason, and mentalism has nothing to do with playing and everything to do with portraying phenomena as real.

Regards,
Mike

On Apr 1, 2015, Lord Of The Horses wrote:
all crows are black therefore all what is black has to be a crow...