In various insightful threads Whit has been relating magic and Cognitive Dissonance. It did open my eyes on major magically practical (as opposed to analytical) implications. This thread is aiming at collecting experiences to enrich the methods involved in creating meaningful Cognitive Dissonances in Magic.

In short, Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

Cognitive Dissonance results from the early studies of Gregory Bateson on the Double Bind (from 1942 to 1956). A double bind is a dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other; a situation in which, if they succeed at responding to one message, they fail with the other and the person will be put in the wrong however they respond. The person can neither comment on the conflict, nor resolve it, nor opt out of the situation. A double bind generally includes different levels of abstraction in orders of messages, and these messages can be stated or implicit within the context of the situation, or conveyed by tone of voice or body language. Further complications arise when frequent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship to which the person or group is committed.

Thus magic would not be exactly or simply the art of creating impossibilities (even though it would include the time displacement in false cause to effect relationship). It would be the art of creating Double Binds. By studying at a non theoretical level the Double Bind, can we find new ways of doing a "better magic".

Bateson and colleagues defined the double bind as follows (paraphrased hopefully pertinently):

1. The situation involves two or more people, one of whom (for the purpose of definition), is designated the "victim". The others are people who are somehow in a higher position relative to the victim: a figure of authority, such as a parent, whom the victim respects.
2. Repeated experience: the double bind is a recurrent theme in the experience of the victim, and as such, cannot be resolved as a single traumatic experience.
3. A primary injunction is imposed on the victim by the other person in one of two forms: (a) Do "X" or I will punish you; (b) Do not do "X" or I will punish you. The punishment is assumed to be either the withdrawing of love, the expression of hate and anger, or abandonment resulting from the authority figure's expression of extreme helplessness.
4. A secondary injunction is imposed upon the victim, conflicting with the first at a higher and more abstract level. For example: "Do what I told you, but only do it because you want to". It is unnecessary for this injunction to be expressed verbally.
5. If necessary, a tertiary injunction is imposed upon the victim to prevent them from escaping the dilemma.
6. Finally, Bateson states that the complete list of the previous requirements may be unnecessary - in the event that the victim is already viewing their world in double bind patterns. Bateson goes on to give the general characteristics of such a relationship:
1. When the victim is involved in an intense relationship; that is, a relationship in which he feels it is vitally important that he discriminate accurately what sort of message is being communicated so that he may respond appropriately;
2. And, the victim is caught in a situation in which the other person in the relationship is expressing two orders of message and one of these denies the other;
3. And, the victim is unable to comment on the messages being expressed to correct his discrimination of what order of message to respond to: i.e., he cannot make a metacommunicative statement.

Thus, the essence of a double bind is two conflicting demands, each on a different logical level, neither of which can be ignored or escaped. This leaves the victim torn both ways, so that whichever demand they try to meet, the other demand cannot be met. "I must do it, but I can't do it" is a typical description of the double bind experience.

For a double bind to be effective, the victim fails to see that the demand placed on them by the primary injunction is in direct conflict with the secondary injunction. In this sense, the double bind differentiates itself - from a simple contradiction to a more inexpressible internal conflict, where the victim really wants to meet the demands of the primary injunction, but fails each time through failing to see that the situation is incompatible with the demands of the secondary injunction. Thus, victims may express feelings of extreme anxiety in such a situation, as they attempt to fulfil the demands of the primary injunction but are met with obvious contradictions in their actions.

The double bind was originally presented as a situation which could conceivably lead to schizophrenia if imposed on young children or simply those with unstable or weak personalities. Creating a situation where the victim could not make a comment or "metacommunicative statement" about their dilemma would (in theory) escalate their mental anxiety. Today, it is more important as an example of Bateson's approach to the complexities of communication.

One solution to a double bind is to place the problem in an even larger context, a state Bateson identified as Learning III, a step up from Learning II (which requires only learned responses to reward/consequence situations). In Learning III, the double bind is contextualized and understood as an impossible no-win scenario. Bateson maintained that in the case of the schizophrenic, the double bind is presented continually and habitually within the family context. By the time the child is old enough to have identified the double bind situation, it has already been internalized, and the child is unable to confront it. The solution then is to create an escape from the conflicting logical demands of the double bind, in the world of the delusional system.

The point here is not an ethical one (but naturally everyone should feel free to address it) but to enrich our entertainment abilities by understanding these processes better and putting them consciously at work.

It will most probably have to deal with scripting, acting, showmanship, misdirection as it did in other threads

How do you, consciously or spontaneously, use Double Bind practically to have a stronger impact on your audience? What makes it that it has a stronger impact? How can it lead to new effects? or does it only alters or improve plots and scripts?

Lawrence,

I am relying on your description and discussion for my background data to your suggested topic. Whit has described "cognitive dissonance" in the context of performance magic. I have never thought that the terminology is synonymous with what psychologists mean when they use this term. I have not researched this topic thoroughly, but that is my impression from the limited research on the topic I have looked at. Be that as it may, we have come to understand what Whit means by this, and we agree that it is a compelling insight to help frame our performance. I do not think the question of ethics can ever be left aside completely -- it is intrinsic to the continuum. However an understanding of the continuum must precede consideration of ethical boundaries.

What you describe, which may conform better to the Psychologists definition, implies a "demand to do something" made on the "victim," that results in this extreme conflict. Alternatively, this double blind relates to a mixed message that keeps the victim in a conflicted state, again, on how to act or what to do. As such, I do not think this model reflects the dilemma that Whit has written about. No demand to take action based on the experience of the performance is ever typically made on an audience, unless the performance is a political rally or something like that. We (must) give the answer to the spectator, "there is no such thing as magic" -- that much is unambiguous (and requires different means depending on the audience). And yet, there appears to be no other explanation. This generates creative thinking, as Whit would say. If done effectively, it also evokes a humor response. If this generated the kind of double blind you are referring to, it seems like it would hardly result in entertainment.

I think you would have to make a stronger case by providing your own examples, before I would consider this a useful model. Knowing your thinking to be deep and directed toward improving performance, I suspect you have more to say on the topic and I am all ears.

As a psychologist I believe the difference in the two views expressed above are the difference between theoretical and applied use of a theory. Lawrence O's definitions are right on the mark. Exactly what any competent psychologist or psychiatrist would say in defining cognitive dissonance and double bind.

I would also agree with Lawrence O that what Whit is proposing falls more inline with double bind, rather than cognitive dissonance.

Yet, what Whit proposes is an application of some of the principles behind double bind to an audience. This is much different from its application in psychological pathology. It is borrowing some of the concepts (not all) and applying them to create an environment for the audience to achieve a desired result.

In many ways it is like the difference between someone reading the criteria in the DSM-IV for a condition and then identifying those in another person for a diagonosis. To the trained clinician there is something called "clinical significant" levels of such behaviors.

To some degree most people exhibit some elements of narcissism in their behavior, but in most people those elements are not "clinically significant". Thus, a layman would probably look at the DSM-IV (theory) criteria and at the behavior in their subject and diagnose (apply) the subject as narcissistic, but a professional would not make the same application.

Whit is clearly approaching from a layman's view, and making a very lay applied use of some elements of the double bind (which as a layman has misidentified as congnitive dissonance). Thus, I don't really see any ethical implications in Whit's proposal. What I do see is a layman trying to explain something which he has observed in a layman's understanding of psychological theory.

If Whit were truly dealing with application on a clinically significant level, then I would have to be in full agreement with Lawrence O. and would pose the same questions.

An addendum, using my "magical" powers to post edit. Thanks to a PM from Michael, I may have misunderstood the particular ethical issue in question. Subject to the issue being a dilema between charlatanism (trying to convince people you have real magical powers) and theater (entertainment), this is an age old issue, which I see as totally separate from double bind. Even when I've given the audience a disclaimer, I still find people in the audience who choose to believe what I did was "real magic" and that I operate under the influence of demonic powers. (I've even had a brother priest accuse me of this after simply doing a sponge ball routine).

In such cases I don't believe either double bind nor cognitive dissonance applies. Rather it is a case of subjective reality. If the magician neither claims nor disclaims real magical powers, then it is purely the subjective reality of the observer which makes this determination. Should the magician make a disclaimer, still the observer can choose within their subjective reality to ignore the disclaimer, believing it to be a deliberate misdirection and deception on the part of the magician.

The old adage "what's the color of the sky in your world?" is a question directed at determining subjective reality of another. Cognition is one thing, perception entirely another. Unfortunately, even in professional language within psychology there are often differing definitions of these two words. So let me substitute "observable impression" for cognition and "analysis" for perception.

The subject may be able to form an observable impression, that is they can tell you what they observed in objective terms, i.e. I saw him place a red ball into his right hand and a red ball into my right hand. Then I saw him make a motion with his left hand and he stated "I am now moving the red ball from my hand to your hand". He then opened his hand and it was empty. He instructed me to open my hand and there were now two red balls in my hand.

That is a fairly objective observance of the "trick" presented. Now how that subject then perceived (analyzed or interpreted) within the context of their own subjective reality what took place can be quite different.

It can vary from "The magician by some means of sleight of hand manipulation managed to make it appear that he placed a red ball in each of our hands and made it appear to "magically" pass from his hand to my hand" to something as outrageous as "he used invisible dragons who penetrated his hand and by demonic power caused the ball to dematerialize from inside of his hand. Then the invisible dragon deposited the ball into the possession of an evil spirit, under the control of the magician, which proceeded to place me into a trance, during which I was not capable of being aware of anything. Then said evil spirit, using supernatural abilities, cut through the flesh of my hand and inserted the red ball within it. Then again, by supernatural abilities, healed my hand with no scar; and then released me from the trance."

Now the question becomes "to what degree did the magician/performer have and or exert influence upon the subject's subjective reality?" The answer is "unknown" as there is no means of measurement, since we are talking subjective realities. What occurs, occurs within the context of the chosen reality of the subject, over which the magician has little or no control.

True, the magician can set up a situation by what the magician says, does, claims, or disclaims which can make the subjective reality of the subject more easily accept a given situation, i.e. A magician who knowingly performs before a deluded subject prone to fantasy subjective realities who tries to influence that reality in a fantasy way, certainly is carrying out unethical behavior and is undertaking charlatanism.

If the same magician is not aware of the subjects tendency to create fantasy subjective realities (and this is delusion, not cognitive dissonance or double bind) and regardless of whether the magician gives a disclaimer (just as long as he does not profess he has magical powers) then the magician cannot be held ethically responsible. It is the subjects delusion, of which the magician is not aware, that results in the fantasy interpretation of the methodology of the trick.

Father, stipulating then that the subject is not delusional in a clinically significant sense, would you disagree that most (ok, lets say many) humans have a secret desire to find that such things as we simulate are actually possible through the force of mere will or supernatural intervention? If not, surely that raises the need for ethical considerations, factoring in a range of responses in any given audience. Not all can be covered obviously. Using the 1:1 case, performing for one other person, the possibility of flexing the performance to accommodate foibles, developing a sensitivity to recognize and adjust the claims to those foibles (short of pathological) exists. If pathological, I say end the performance then and there and reassure the subject that you were just teasing.

Sorry for my digression Lawrence.

My interrogation concerns the fact that I like to explore something to the fullest with as little prejudice as I can.

Since Whit has convinced me that magical entertainment with spectators is more cognitive dissonance than suspension of disbelief and that I'm not as much attracted to charlatanry (the other end of the line (according to Whit if I understood him correctly), I looked at what was creating cognitive dissonance. Thus I naturally arrived to the double bind and the question: should we not structure our magical performances as double bind to create the most efficient cognitive dissonance (meaning the most memorable magical performance)?

Since these concepts were developed, as Father Photius kindly underlines, within a clinical concept (essentially study of schizophrenia) what are the spectator for us are victims for psychologists. Thus we should separate clinicla double bind from clinical double bind. Personally I think that this only shows, as Michael Kamen immediately detected, a limit to the comparison. It doesn't mean that we cannot learn magical strategies from Double Bind and I tried to place aside for a while the ethical discussion about whether we should be allowed to do this.

My first question is whether Double Bind is the best way to get the result we want. However since I agree with, amongst others, Tommy and Whit that before exploring the pertinence of strategies, we must define our words and concepts. I proposed some definitions on the initial post. Then we may disagree on certain aspects but, at least, we will be talking of the same thing.

The second question is how can we practically apply what constitutes Double Bind in our magical strategies? Since psychologists detected the double bind as the most efficient source of cognitive dissonance, the question seems to stand.

Naturally the excellent thread on reality and perception calls heavily on the experience of our most experienced performers but, on another thread I dared reminding that Gestaltists are supplying even better (more accurate) mapping for the perception of reality by our audiences.

So now we have elements of strategy and tools or troops to apply such strategies.
Naturally the question remains the goal (solved by ethical considerations). We are not after making our spectators completely schizophrenic (if we could do that, it would automatically generate a cure for schyzophrenia, but alas...)

I (and I'm apparently not the only one) discovered thanks to Whit (essentially) that the impact of the goal lays in cognitive dissonance. However all of us, Whit included, are after entertainment (the goal if I'm not mistaken) but explicitly or implicitly the reference to cognitive dissonance implies meaningful and intense entertainment.

I'm still lacking a common definition for magical entertainment. I did propose the "feeling created by the sharing of everything which goes against natural laws". This definition however doesn't include the notion of show (which admittedly is already included in the Double Bind).

As I would not like starting a discussion of the same nature that Drew is carrying (not for resenting it, but simply because it cannot progress) I think that we should exchange first about defining magical entertainment.

Then considerations concerning building better Magical Double Binds to create more memorable magical entertainment will be a fruitful exchange (at least these are my premises) and hopefully bring magic one step further.


The futility of the props or of the situations seems totally irrelevant to me and Whit seems to confirm it. He creates cognitive dissonance using AL Leech's Hot Card Trick (or Red Hot Mama or Chicago opener or any way one may want to call the trick) and color changing knife.
Father Photius in his previous post referred to sponge balls...
Tommy Wonder created cognitive dissonance with cups and balls
John Ramsay with a cylinder, coins and a little cork
Bill Palmer with a chop cup...
R Paul Wilson with a ring and stick... (apologies to the other masters I cannot list them all)

The ultimate question is to explore the many corners of the processes of Magical Double Bind as a way to improve our performances further and gain a more durable durable magical impact.

We are borrowing from the technical jargon of psychology, and I am fine with your use of double bind to describe (what Whit calls) the horns of the dilemma. I think that is quite a valid and useful alternate description, borrowed from the psychologists while only marginally similar in meaning to how they use it.

I propose then that Magical Entertainment is the delivery of the double bind in a way which is intended to be entertaining. How successful that is becomes another matter, and raising the hostility of the "subject" assures us that we are lacking.

Let's not use the psychology or even therapy language unless we are also willing to back it up with experimental design, studies, citations and preferably a degree. We have folks here who think schizophrenia has something to do with multiple personalities and who don't get references to Pavlov and salivation. The question I tend to push around here is "how would/could one know/test that X" where X is the proposed/begged assertion the writer has asked the reader to accept. Are we ready for that in magic? IMHO not so far but I have hope and faith that we can get there.

There are things we can borrow from less formal understandings of how we think, like the notions of aversion (it's can't be a magnet - there was no metal anywhere) or functional fixedness (there are no wires here and all I have are a pair of pliers) or established belief (it has to be there - it was every time till now) ... all of which have use. Those are references to things one learns in a first course in psychology and also ideas one can lookup online up the terms are not familiar.

Here's where Whit and I usually take our discussion offline: Jon to Whit - I don't see how it will work to describe a dilemma to those who don't consciously use lemmas in their thinking. So far around here I find much resistance to even making the foundations of what we expect or believe and how we come to that place conscious much less establish a common language for those bedrock ideas - needed to even start a foundation so we don't wind up building on sand next to the ocean IMHO.

When the mechanics of guile are applied to the realm of belief... even if "for their own good".

Okay folks that's probably lots to go looking up and consider but what the heck it's the weekend and SNL is not on for a few hours.

Jon

PS my wand might not be loaded but my epistemology sure reads as if I were.

Experimental design -- well, performing experience provides the opportunity to observe. The problem comes, for those of us so inclined, with describing what we observe, then agreeing on a common terminology. My feeling is that even those of us without psych degrees deserve a common language around these things. What harm if we borrow some terms that sound about right? This is not rocket science after all.

Funny thing about observation - much better to have a camera or assistant there to do that part.

Rockets don't have feelings or expectations to manage.

As to who deserves what - I guess part of that "deserving" can come from careful attention to what the words mean. Why parrot and posture when one can use well developed tools to accomplish?

Michael
I'm not especially interested in the jargon. I'm exploring the processes which result in cognitive dissonance to see if magic can gain in adapting them.

I'll propose here below a translation into magic of the criteria described by Gregory Bateson for clinical Double Bind situations

1. The situation involves two or more people, one of whom (for the purpose of definition), is designated the "audience". The performer is somehow in a higher position relative to the audience: a figure of authority, whom the spectators respect.
2. Repeated experience: the double bind is a recurrent theme in the experience of the audience, and as such, magic is not resolved as a single traumatic experience.
3. A primary injunction is imposed on the audience by the performer in one of two forms: (a) Accept the facts presented in the premises not to look inconsistent for not accepting to look at emotional evidences; (b) Do not reject the logical process and the timing of the alleged magical cause. The punishment is assumed to be either the withdrawing of love by the performer, the expression of rejection and anger by the rest of the audience, or abandonment resulting from the performer's expression of extreme helplessness.
4. A secondary injunction is imposed upon the victim, conflicting with the first at a higher and more abstract level. For example: "Do what I told you, but only do it because you want to". It is unnecessary for this injunction to be expressed verbally. Do not believe that what I proved (perfectly consistent cause-to-effect relationship) is true because I'm a magician.
5. If necessary, a tertiary injunction is imposed upon the victim at the moment of climax to prevent them from escaping the dilemma.
6. Finally, Bateson goes on to give the general characteristics of such a relationship:
1. When the audience is involved in an intensely consistent relationship to reality; that is, a relationship in which the spectator feels it is vitally important that he discriminate accurately what sort of facts are being communicated so that he may respond appropriately;
2. And, the spectator is caught in a situation in which the performer is expressing two orders of message and one of these denies the other;
3. And, the audience is unable to comment on the messages being expressed to correct his discrimination of what order of message to respond to: i.e., it cannot make a metacommunicative statement.

So, IMHO, the potential essentially exceeds just a simple use of jargon and consists in a solipsism (logical minimalism) as mentioned by Whit. Could it be that the central assertion of this solipsism rests on the non existence of a contradicting proof, and strong solipsism (as opposed to weak solipsism) asserts that no such proof can exist?

Before possibly getting there, however, we still need to join hands in chiseling a definition of "magical entertainment" otherwise we won't really be able to progress and will turn in a circle. Not an easy task...

Agreed about definitions. Folks have spent centuries working on efficient and understandable language and procedures for learning things and describing what they've found when exploring. BTW earlier I was suggesting we can adopt more than just the words and even use the tools.

IMHO what we do FOR people is entertain - we offer diversions and amusements in for form of HARMLESS lectures, games and demonstrations OF ABSURD phenomena.

If we were magicians we would be changing the audience either directly or their beliefs by way of what they witness are go away knowing as real.

You lost me with "solipsism" Lawrence. My ignorance, sorry. Nonetheless, I proposed for Magical Entertainment: "the delivery of the double bind in a way which is intended to be entertaining." Would that work as a starting point?

As I said elsewhere in the café, we are all ignorant, just on different things.

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism defends the epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis. However it is now under fire due to the discoveries of the Professor of neurology at USC Antonio Damasio reported in "Descartes' error", "The feeling of what happens" and "Looking for Spinoza"

For those of us who don't get all the journals here's a link to an overview of his work:

http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/damasioreview.html

For those of us who read the NLP books from long ago and know about anchoring... should bring a big smile. Let's go ahead and explore what the mirror neuron model gives us if we take somatic markers as a given.

http://scienceandreason.blogspot.com/200......ons.html

That can't be true because it's against everything I know from experience.
That must be true because it's happening right in front of me.

Where expectation collides with perception.

If a discussion such as this is limited to those with psych/neuroscience credentials it appears to leave out most students of magic. Just my two cents worth -- carry on and I will try to follow as best I can. Please do take this somewhere.

I find formulating a hypothesis before looking at data, often very helpful.

The basic question is how to distinguish what we do from pranksters, kids showing how they can stick a spoon to their nose and what con men or charlatans do.

Whit suggested using a presumed rational internal/subjective phenomenon as part of defining our craft - ie our intended brand of internal affect we provide audiences. The above posts are a start at getting a handle on knowing exactly what that internal experience is and how to know if one is achieving that objective.

Please continue.

Here's a version of Whit's dilemma:

That can't be true because it's against everything I know from experience.
That must be true because it's happening right in front of me.

This looks about right for our brand of entertainment.

Does it work for you?

Yes.

Jonathan is a man of few words which go straight to the bullseye.

My only additions to his Feb 8, 2009 12:46am post would be: can we improve on the practical model detailed by Darwin Ortiz in Strong Magic and Designing Miracle to create more emotionally meaningful magical entertainment.

Is there such a thing as a model design which could serve as spine to a multitude of individual magical effects?

Is what Whit has unearthed a universal truth or is it just a pertinent truth in a certain number of cases?

Can we use the existing laws of perception as a basis to our appreciation of such phenomena? Is Gestalt (the way perception works) a pertinent filter to appreciate the experience of each of us (as opposed to personal conviction)?

No one needs to be a neurologist or a psychologist to contribute with his own experience. There are several members of the café who have more than enough knowledge in these various fields to help at gathering the questions and articulate them.

We only need to keep this in a language that all of us can understand: Thus the need to ascertain early in the exchange what the words mean and the "grammar" that we could propose to use for linking them together.

Posted: Feb 8, 2009 7:07am
Father Photius,
In my mind, the ethical problem was more to consider if I'm not a sorcerer's apprentice and if, by playing with the springs and wheels of double bind for a more efficient magical impact, I was not taking part in putting lay people at risk of clinical cognitive dissonance when my initial intent is magical entertainment.

In Jonathan terms it would probably be summed up as "aren't we playing with an atomic bomb to kill flies?"

Your input is naturally precious.


You're right it's much more complex than rocket science (rockets already exist, but the solutions to the dilemma do not... possibly for that very reason?)