|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Dr.Strangelove New user 7 Posts |
Everybody's seen it on TV and elsewhere, many a mentalist uses it as a fake-explanation for his tricks, through shrewd observation the mentalist/fake medium/consulting detective knows things about people that he 'could not have possibly known'(BBC's Sherlock is a prime example of this(and a must-watch show, by the way)).
I would like to discuss this whole scheme here. Now, I am well aware that its use is far more limited than popular culture would like us to believe(and I myself would love to believe), but what exactly can be done, is there any literature(The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading from which I stole the thread's title has a bit on this), what are your thoughts? |
|||||||||
DrTodd Inner circle 1976 Posts |
I have appealed to the science of deduction in my shows, but I do it with a twist:
In the Man with the Yellow Face, Holmes gives a full profile of a client that had called at the flat using only his pipe. I explain the science of deduction first and then suggest perhaps Holmes was a magician and merely spotted the man before entering the flat and spun a tale for Watson, or perhaps Holmes had other powers. I then proceed to do a coin and date routine, a psychometry demonstration, and a book test using the Hound of the Baskervilles...the booktest revelation begins with things that anyone guessing would have a good probability of getting correct and then moves onto less probable revelations and then impossible ones.... I leave open the question: deduction? deception? something more? I like this very much and have had good positive feedback about this particular part of the show... Best wishes Dr Todd |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
It's important to note, though, that the type of reasoning used by Holmes was actually inductive NOT deductive.
|
|||||||||
BillyH New user UK 62 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-04-06 05:19, mastermindreader wrote: Elementary, my dear Mr Cassidy |
|||||||||
Yannou Veteran user 381 Posts |
Which reminds me of this joke:
Holmes and Watson are out camping. One night, Holmes wakes up Watson and asks him: "Watson, when you look up, what do you see?" "Well", says Watson, "I can see thousands of stars. Some of them probably have planets and intelligent life looking up to the stars right now as well" "No, you idiot" says Holmes, "someone stole our tent!" Sometimes, things are so obvious, it takes a genius to notice them. |
|||||||||
DrTodd Inner circle 1976 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-04-06 05:19, mastermindreader wrote: Absolutely! Doyle got it wrong. The philosopher Pearce said it was actually abduction, but that is a discussion for a different forum methinks ;-) Cheers Dr T |
|||||||||
Alexander Marsh Inner circle England 1191 Posts |
Holmes in his intuition;
''It was easier to know it than to explain why I know it. If you were asked to prove that two and two made four, you might find some difficulty, and yet you are quite sure of the fact." ''From long habit the train of thoughts ran so swiftly through my mind that I arrived at the conclusion without being conscious of intermediate steps'' ... an of course, from A Study in Scarlet: “By a man's finger-nails, by his coat-sleeve, by his boots, by his trouser-knees, by the callosities of his forefinger and thumb, by his expression, by his shirt-cuff — By each of these things a man's calling is plainly revealed. That all united should fail to enlighten the competent inquirer in any case is almost inconceivable. You know that a conjurer gets no credit when once he has explained his trick; and if I show you too much of my method of working, you will come to the conclusion that I am a very ordinary individual after all.” The last part about 'a conjurer' is often left out of quotations, missin the point somewhat.
My stuff: AlexanderMarshMentalism.co.uk
|
|||||||||
DrTodd Inner circle 1976 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-04-07 04:52, Alexander Marsh wrote: Lovely....nice pic dude! T |
|||||||||
psychospiel New user 25 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-04-07 04:52, Alexander Marsh wrote: All of that could easily have been written for a mentalist - curious psychologically-minded explanation, which still leaves the audience guessing (and doesn't dismiss the performer's skill as 'just some psychological tricks which anyone could do', which I am not a fan of). |
|||||||||
C.J. Inner circle There's a lotta rambling in my 2366 Posts |
To return to the original question, I have on some occasions played "The Sherlock Game", but only in a retrospective sense. It is something I've tinkered with in small one-on-one encounters, but I can see that it takes a very keen and quick mind to work it well, so I've not yet put it to work on a bigger scale.
What I mean by "retrospective" is that whereas Sherlock would note... I see A, B and C, therefore I conclude X ... I would have the solution in mind already, so my mental process would be the reverse, ie... I know X, therefore when I see A, B and C, I can note these and offer a verbal explanation that fits my needs Easiest case in point: A participant holds a forced Ace of Spades. I talk, asking them to think of the card's colour. They happen to flick their eyes slightly at this point, and I say "Ah, I notice your gaze wandered slightly there. Because red is a vivid colour, people's eyes tend to focus in when they imagine it. Black is processed by the brain as a more abstract concept, so the flicking of your eyes there tells me you hold a black card". That explanation is probably bunkum, but I have assumed the role of expert, and in their minds have just pulled off a Sherlock Holmes.
Connor Jacobs - The Thought Sculptor
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur Be fondly remembered. |
|||||||||
Doctor REvil Elite user 469 Posts |
Check out "Object reading" in Mind Myth & Magick by TA Walters....
Karma means you buy now & pay later.....think I've over spent....!
Check out my ebooks at the lybrary..... http://www.lybrary.com/david-gemmell-m-13404.html |
|||||||||
Hugh Entwistle Regular user 177 Posts |
Did anyone just love the cluedo quote?
"It's either this or cluedo" "NO! We are not playing that again!" "Why not" "Its impossible for the victim to have done it" "But its the only possible explanation" "But its not in the rules" "THEN THE RULES ARE WRONG!!!!!" I realise I have strayed off topic, as for the original explanation - you can mix the 'deduction' game with choosing options like in some of Derren Brown's 50/50 tricks when he rambles on about the most likely choice that they would make - Sherlock does a bit of this too |
|||||||||
Drewmcadam Inner circle Scotland 1239 Posts |
Purely as an aside, I'm now 56 years of age and I first read the Holmes canon when I was about 11. (I sdtill regularly work my way through the stories) I thought the whole concept was fantastic, and I've been obsessed by it ever since, and I HAVE used observation and deduction on numerous occasions during shows. It's amazing how often spotting and remembering little things from earlier in the day - dressed up and presented well - can blow the audience member away. Even at a more basic level, I often say to somebody when I want them to hold something - "You're left handed, yes?" and they are amazed that I know (they are wearing their watch on their left wrist.) People who are left handed ten to applaud by bringing the left hand to the right rather than the other way around.
Only two weeks ago - and I'm not making this up - I was performing for a select group at Gleneagles Hotel. When I finished, a woman called me across and said "My husband is a real sceptic." I went into my usual line that there is nothing to be sceptical about; I don't make any claims to have special powers, or a "gift" or to have been touched by the hand of God. The husband said, "Yeah, if somebody was really psychic, he could just look at somebody and tell them what their birth sign is." I asked the wife to look at me. "We've never met before, right? But I know you're a... Gemini." Their jaws about hit the floor. I then explained that I had simply noted that her name card was on the table in front of her. Her first name was 'June'/. People whose child is born in September or February don't call their daughter that name; they only give them that name if they are born in that month. (I have a cousin called 'June' and, yes, she was born in that month.) So, from all of that I could deduce that she was born in June, and was therefore a Gemini. They both looked seriously disappointed. Then - and this is great - the husband's face lit up. He looked at me and said: "Actually, that's even more amazing than just being psychic!" |
|||||||||
C.J. Inner circle There's a lotta rambling in my 2366 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-04-10 19:14, Drewmcadam wrote: I'd been led to believe that the majority of people wore their watches on the left wrist? I know I do, and I'm a righty. The applause thing is good, though.
Connor Jacobs - The Thought Sculptor
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur Be fondly remembered. |
|||||||||
Rafael The Master Hypnotist Elite user South East Asia 498 Posts |
This is a very good thread gentlemen, lemme prepare my cup of joe and read it again slowly
......
The BIGEST Room in the world is the Room for Improvement
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Drew-
You got lucky. She might well have been a Cancer and not a Gemini! When I read your post I just picked the name of the first "June" I could think of - June Lockhart, the actress- and Googled her. She was born on June 25th, making her a Cancer. But on the handedness thing- you can generally tell if a man is left or right handed by looking at his belt. If the tab end points to the left he's probably right handed and vice versa. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
Rafael The Master Hypnotist Elite user South East Asia 498 Posts |
About the "Left hand" gambit, you could just see their belt buckle just to be sure, since I'm a right handed person but I wear my watch on my left hand
...
The BIGEST Room in the world is the Room for Improvement
|
|||||||||
Billy-one Inner circle IOWA 1028 Posts |
I think most right handed people wear their watch on their left hand, I know I do becuse getting a snickers out of a vending machine with my watch on is a son of a b...er, gun.
respect, Billy |
|||||||||
Mr. Ree Elite user Sedona AZ 414 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-04-10 20:34, mastermindreader wrote: Yikes, I'm a mess. I never though of this. Now you have helped point out something else I learned from a righty that didn't take into consideration my left handedness. (I am left handed and put my belt on like a right handed person.) Thank goodness I clap like a left handed person. I do wear my watch on my right hand. But was taught to play guitar like a right handed person. I was 7 seven when I started and the guitar teacher didn't ask and he just started me like a righty. I'm starting to feel schizophrenic! But I am in my right mind. I think? - David
An idea can turn to dust or magic, depending on the talent that rubs against it.
---- William Bernbach (1911 - 1982) ---- (After 25 years of PCs, everything switched to Macs, June 2008) |
|||||||||
dusty Veteran user 352 Posts |
Trombone players tend to wear their watches on their right arm so they can see their watch face whilst playing...
Regards,
Dusty aka Max Gordon. "Always give 100%, Unless you're a blood donor!" Exclusive publications available from: www.solutions.yolasite.com |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » The Sherlock Game (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |