The effect Magnas Veritas, from Deadly Mentalism by Ben Rayot is a very good, if you like NLP trick using eye cues, but I feel it could be better. Does anyone, who has read the book or at least knows the effect I am refering to, have any suggestions to improve this effect?
I'm thinking in the way of not asking them to visualise, hear, and feel, but to divine a thought. Or is this just a bit of a pipe dream.

I await your ideas,
Alex

And, clearly, Ben Rayot's magic is better than his Latin.

I was disappointed with this publication. I know a number of people have sang its praises, but it seemed to lack both in content and substance. Perhaps my expectations were overly heightened.

Perhaps, but if anyone could answer my original question.
How could one improve the presentation, pehaps in a walkabout setting, ask the subject to do it when you first arrive or when you bump into him away from his 'group' and then when more people are around him and you have done some other stuff, the 'divine the thought'?

Any other suggestions would be very welcome.
Regards,
Alex

Alexander,

The eye accessing cues (a bit unreliable in my experience) were developed by Bandler and Grinder. What information do you need? Could you describe the effect?

I feel exactly the same about this booklet, I was disappointed with the lack of substance it felt as it had been rushed and publish with little thought or consideration for the reader, although this is not the place to discuss the presentation angles in mentalism but one does start to question Mr. Rayot when he ends each of his effects with a comment along the lines of..."of course presentation is the key to this effects success"

I´ve created a version I call ”saint and sinner !”.
It properly exists in various other forms and under various other names – I honestly don´t know.
The routine basically goes like this:
I pick a willing participant and ask him/her to think of a short story. It can either be a true story or a lie. They must decide on which and must not tell me. I then ask them to keep a straight face and tell me the story. When they are finished I´ve “picked” their minds and I am able to tell whether they were telling the truth or a lie.
You can do the routine with more than one person at a time.
If you have some routine in NLP techniques it should play as stated above. If you are just starting out or are a bit rusty you might need to do some additional “mind reading” after having had the story told. Despite any potentially "additional mindreading" you will never have to ask a spectator(s) any questions during the routine or before you pop the answer.
If presented right it normally plays really cool !
Hope you can perhaps use this idea or some of it for further inspiration ?!?

b.r

Palawan

palawan - Very cool idea. I have used NLP Eye cues as a lie detector before, but only as the 'finale' to a "Lie detector game", as I like to call them.
But I really like the story idea, I will use that idea and adapt it accordingly, Thank you very much.
I have, now, come up with a different 'set up' (along with a few more) to this effect, I call one "False memory challenge", its basically the same but with a different set up.

I also agree with the above statements about the book in general, but the effects are very good.

Thanks again,
Alex.