The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Secrets of Psychics Revealed » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
BonzoTheClown
View Profile
Regular user
176 Posts

Profile of BonzoTheClown
I don't see what problem people have. It really is quite simple to define in a 'magical' context:

Exposure is the revelation of techniques and methods and mechanical means which takes away part of the inherent entertainment value of something, whether or not such a thing is used fraudulently or not. Contributing as such to facilitate such an activity deliberately also constitutes exposure.

Exposure only satisfies one group of people - sceptics. Those who want to believe will believe regardless. So the only thing that is being destroyed is the entertainment value. Sceptics who indulge in exposure because they feel they're educating are only educating sceptics how something is done rather than fostering an attitude of rationality.

This show, in case you didn't see it John, attempted to expose a whole bunch of things. Replicating many of the things that Uri did including metal bending as well as other things (including something that Annemann wrote). These things are in use by mentalists today. As such some inherent entertainment value is destroyed for those who watched the show.

Marc Climens
Greg Owen
View Profile
Special user
623 Posts

Profile of Greg Owen
“The 'fraudulent psychic' really is so rare that there really isn't any need for exposure of psychics.”

Hum…they are very active in my town (Washington, DC no less) and there are stories in NYC from time to time. The irony is that the typical scams don’t involve mentalist methods!!! For example, the querent is asked to bring an egg - the egg is broken and shown to have no yoke. This is a sign of an evil curse - one that can be lifted for a fee.

“Few readers and psychics want to take your life savings. It is like people are afraid of this unknown thing out there - lock your doors, argh the fake psychic is going to rip off grandma!!”

How do you know this??? And how many bad ones does it take??? I saw a show on con-Psychics - it showed the rooms/locations they “read” in and the rich, Beverly Hills houses they live in - complete with the Mercedes parked out front.

Just my $.02 -

- Greg Owen
Author of The Alpha Stack ebook - the balanced memorized stack
gobeatty@yahoo.com
pxs
View Profile
Loyal user
London
284 Posts

Profile of pxs
Unfortunately, fraudulent psychics are far from rare and can prey on the most vulnerable in society - particularly, the poor and elderly. You will remember premium-rate phone psychic Miss Cleo who was shut down by the FTC recently paying $5 million in damages and forgiving $500 million in unpaid phone charges.
shrink
View Profile
Inner circle
2609 Posts

Profile of shrink
That's right and she bent spoons and keys and was cruel enough to use billet switches. Im glad they exposed all that nasty dangerous fraudulent stuff. Esp the PKM.

Also to John and our friends outside of the UK:

I really do beleive if you ever get a chance to see the tv show in question you may be swayed to our point of view. It really lacked any creative imagination and was just an opportunistic grab for money based on the current interest in mentalism over here. Unlike the brilliant Derren Brown Shows there was no clever plots or routines just simple blatant exposures over 6 weeks.

The entertainment value was pretty minimal. If Derren becomes anymore high profile and continues down the NLP or body language route it is oly a matter of time before he to will get the same treatment.
John Clarkson
View Profile
Special user
Santa Barbara, CA
749 Posts

Profile of John Clarkson
Shrink, I will take your word for it. In fact, a program (but not a mini-series) recently aired over here that also purported to expose fake psychics. I suspect the programs are similar in both content and approach. On this U.S.-based program, they exposed I.T, and folding bills, and other things that really had nothing to do with fraud or protection, or even mentalism, for that matter. I have posted in another thread about my disapproval of it. My raising questions about the general issue of exposure does not imply support of this specific program. The specifics of any particular program aside, I think a respectful discussion about the issues of exposure helps all of us. The issue is larger than any particular program ... or any particular personality.

Smile
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener

"There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay."
—Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank)
teejay
View Profile
Inner circle
Liverpool, UK
1832 Posts

Profile of teejay
John and Bonzo
Whether Firewalking is exposure or not is a bit irrelevant here as it was part of a show which did expose other mentalist stuff. Smile Smile
shrink
View Profile
Inner circle
2609 Posts

Profile of shrink
[quote]On 2003-10-22 17:25, John Clarkson wrote:
Quote:
On 2003-10-22 14:27, shrink wrote:
...
respectful discussion about the issues of exposure helps all of us. The issue is larger than any particular program ... or any particular personality.

Smile


I respectfully disagree in this case the bigger and more general you become the less valuable the discussion. This thread discusses specific exposures that reach the masses of TV land and are being justified as fruadulent psychic scams that are praying on the public. In reality the only real people to suffer aren't the frauds but entertainers.

Within the parameters of this show it is easy to elimate certain exposures as legitimate. And these kind of exposures are the ones most likely to have deterimental effects for mentalists. I have had a few lay friends approach me already excited as they told me how to bend spoons, keys, switch billets, use PKM, and give basic cold readings.

NOw before this show they couldn't explain that. How anyone can say this doesn't affect us escapes me.
ESP Guy
View Profile
Regular user
Falls View, Vermont
137 Posts

Profile of ESP Guy
Quote:
On 2003-10-23 11:49, shrink wrote:
How anyone can say this doesn't affect us escapes me.


Right on, brother!

Thom
John Clarkson
View Profile
Special user
Santa Barbara, CA
749 Posts

Profile of John Clarkson
Quote:
On 2003-10-23 11:49, shrink wrote:
Quote:
On 2003-10-22 17:25, John Clarkson wrote:
...respectful discussion about the issues of exposure helps all of us. The issue is larger than any particular program ... or any particular personality.

Smile


[shrink]: I respectfully disagree in this case the bigger and more general you become the less valuable the discussion.
Oh? Why is that?

Quote:
[shrink]:This thread discusses specific exposures that reach the masses of TV land and are being justified as fruadulent psychic scams that are praying on the public. In reality the only real people to suffer aren't the frauds but entertainers.
Others disagree. That's why a discussion could be enlightening. I guess the danger of eschewing a more general, theoretical discussion is that it relegates "exposure" to an I'll-know-it-when-I-see-it category and places people in the position of announcing, "I have ZERO tolerance for it... I'm not sure what it is (or I am unwiling to say what it is), but, by Jove, I won't put up with it! And, you'll only have a hint of what it is after you've done something I don't approve of and I have bad-mouthed you in every forum, at every opportunity I get."

Quote:
[shrink]:How anyone can say this ["exposure shows"] doesn't affect us escapes me.
Yes, apparently, it does. Several prominent mentalists have, however, posted here on the Café about how they are not very concerned with these shows and how, in their opinion, they don't have much impact in the long run. There is, truly, more than one honest viewpoint about these shows held by people who earn their living by performing mentalism.

I think a discussion of the principles and concepts is productive; you, apparently, think that a discussion of this specific show is more fruitful. Since I've already agreed with you concerning the specific progam's being unhelpful and something (assuming it is like the U.S. equivalent) I don't approve of, and since you don't think discussion of more general principles is productive, it seems that you and I have no place further to go. Others, however, may want to discuss the concepts...

Smile

Quote:
On 2003-10-21 19:22, brownbomber wrote:
Hi John,

I've attempted to provide some answers to the very valid questions you raise, I hope that the debate will continue to focus on the issues.

>>1. How do we define a secret or secret method used by legitimate performers?

We define it by the context in which it is used, just as a piece of music, a work of art, or prose. There's nothing particularly complicated about this in other mediums, there needn't be for the performance of mentalists and magicians either.
BB, yes, context will be important, but I thnk we can do better. It may be that we have to approach it by analogy instead of definition... much like Anglo-American case law does. We decide on things we can all agree are "unacceptable exposure" and things that we all agree are not. Then, we will have to decide which case any specific incident is more like. The art and music examples, I think, don't serve well: after all, a common question, almost a joke now, is: "Yeah, but is it art?

Quote:
>>2. Are we obliged only to keep secret the methods used exclusively by magicians and mentalists, or must we also refuse to divulge information and methods that are used by magicians but are common to others?

I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to here - perhaps furnish some examples?
I am pointing out another difficulty in defining the problem. As an example, some people believe that "cold reading" is not a method used exclusively by magicians or mentalists, but that it is merely a general psychological principle used by many (salesmen, therapists, etc.). In this view, revealing cold reading methods to the public would not constitute unacceptable exposure. There are lots of examples, some clearer than others: a chemistry class, a physics class, a lecture about psychology... all of these could be revealing things that mentalists also use. Should we care?

Quote:
>>3. Are there circumstances which justify revealing these secrets or methods?

Of course,...
I take it then, that you are not an adherent of the doctrine of ZERO tolerance.

Quote:
...but more relevant and obvious are circumstances like the TV series we're discussing where they do NOT justify exposure. This is a simple tacky cash-in by some mercenary, or to put more kindly, misguided magicians and mentalists.
But that is cyclical reasoning, BB. I agree that this specific program probably failed to accomplish its objective and, therefore, was a waste and may have upset or even damaged some performers (at least temporarily). The other issue is whether the premise of protecting the publc is proper justification.

Quote:
>>4. What is the appropriate reaction to someone we believe has engaged in unaccepatable exposure?

This is a personal issue, or one for the appropriate organisations to decide. As with all forms of justice, everything should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I, for one, know that I will no longer purchase books or effects by those involved in this particular series.

>>5. Any other issue that would explain ZERO tolerance.

See above: I believe there will rarely be black and white cases in such an area, however, I hope most of us are in agreement that the series we're discussing is (a) very poor hackneyed television, (b) blatant exposure of working mentalists' and psychic entertainers' methods and (c) a crude way for Channel 5 to cash in on C4's success with programmes such as Mind Control and David Blaine.

Would be interested in hearing others' opinions.

...
BB Smile


Regards,

John

Smile
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener

"There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay."
—Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank)
Terry Holley
View Profile
Inner circle
1792 Posts

Profile of Terry Holley
I held off for a long time as I was involved in another thread of this nature a while back and it eventually got locked. I don't think the questions raised really were dealt with prior to the lock-up. This discussion seems as though it could be very fruitful if we can all stay civil!

Hopefully, I think the following question will "cut to the chase" to some degree.

Are those of you who are mentalists/psychic entertainers/et al, uptight over "exposure" because you want to keep the mystery in the entertainment, or because you want your audience to believe you truly have supernatural/paranormal/supernormal/psychic powers, and "exposure" will show that you probably don't?

Terry
Co-author with illusionist Andre' Kole of "Astrology and Psychic Phenomena."
Socrates
View Profile
Regular user
178 Posts

Profile of Socrates
This TV show is brilliant!

And it's good to see how such simple things can amaze people.

Anyone who is concerned by this show and it exposure need not worry. The only people who really take any notice of such programmes are magicians and psychic entertainers.

And if you're good then none of this matters, take the guitar for example.

Nowadays almost anyone can learn to play guitar as the resources are readily available and almost everyone knows a tune or two.

But this doesn't stop people being amazed and entertained by guitar players. We know they make special shapes with their hands and press the strings in a specific order to make those sounds however this doesn't take away from the performance.

And it's the same regarding Magic/Mentalism, most people are aware it's a trick and enjoy it all the same.

If you understand anything about the magical arts then you'll know that the mechanical skills and techniques are nothing without showmanship.

Reading books like 'Magic & Showmanship' and 'Magic by Misdirection' should help improve your magic a great deal and can also help other ares of your life if you can do a bit of lateral thinking.

A final thought:

Don't take life so seriously, learn to laugh at yourself and the world now and again and don't whatever you do miss tonights episode of 'Secrets of the Psychics Revealed'.

Socrates

'We are born unarmed, our mind is our only weapon' - Ayn Rand Smile
mithrius
View Profile
Regular user
Chicago, IL
127 Posts

Profile of mithrius
Quote:
On 2003-10-13 08:57, dyddanwy wrote:
I thought the 'black coffee' shiner and billet switch behind writing pad were clever(!) 'give-aways' (non-secrets) that lay-people (I hate that term) can 'do' (fairly badly) at 'parties' as entertainment (sic).

However, hardly 'real' exposure. Since 'we' (most of us anyhow) can easily convince 'our' audiences that we don't use those methods(!)

Jack - being a devil Smile

Smile


This is the most intense use of punctuation I think I've ever seen in my life! =)
shrink
View Profile
Inner circle
2609 Posts

Profile of shrink
Socrates: You obviously have no distinction between Magic and Mentalism. For many people on here there is a distinct difference. Anyone who saw the show will not be stunned or amazed at stunts or effects that include metal bending or using PKM anymore.

Yesterday I did a spot of mentalism on a personal development course I was running. And yes it went down really well. However when I first started to move into this section a delegate shouted out " Your not going to do a Derren Brown are you...youve not got a fake gun or bullet?).

If exposure continues it will eventually destroy or at very least lessen the effect of mentalism to the lay public. Derren has already (perhaps willingly)shifted closer to becoming a magician through his last show.

To get the intended effect of being entertained by listening to guitar music doesn't depend on the method being hidden from public. Your analogy is way off the mark. If you do shows I suppose you tell everyone which publications they can read to find out how you did it?

I don't think so
teejay
View Profile
Inner circle
Liverpool, UK
1832 Posts

Profile of teejay
So much circumlocution about so many obscure ponts of
order. Definitions, analogies and references
Here are some points of consensual reality
1)Everybody KNOWS what a secret is
(It is something you are not supposed to tell people about)
2)Everybody KNOWS what exposure of a secret means
(It means telling people you shouldn't tell, things you shouldn't tell them)
3)Everybody KNOWS that exposing secrets has a downside for the people who shared that secret originally
4)These turncoats did it for money
The only analogy that springs to my mind is Judas selling the secret of who Christ was for 30 pieces of silver.
Some people on this forum don't agree
Some of these are very intelligent and articulate
I would like to point out that what they are,
so cleverly, supporting, is behaviour that 99% of ordinary people would find disgraceful and disgusting. Being clever is not always being right.
The people who go along with my opening simple 4 points about this whole sorry affair should be concerned with stopping the turncoats enjoying their silver and making sure others are discouraged
Instead of pointlessly discussing the ins and outs of a cat's backside, think of how you can upset the people who have upset us.
:bigsmile:
bevbevvybev
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
2586 Posts

Profile of bevbevvybev
Open the Jinx back to the late thirties

Sounds like us lot

Smile
shrink
View Profile
Inner circle
2609 Posts

Profile of shrink
Quote:
On 2003-10-24 05:30, Socrates wrote:
This TV show is brilliant!

A final thought:

Don't take life so seriously, learn to laugh at yourself and the world now and again and don't whatever you do miss tonights episode of 'Secrets of the Psychics Revealed'.

Socrates

'We are born unarmed, our mind is our only weapon' - Ayn Rand Smile




I doubt very much if you perform or rely on making a living from this.

And a point about the Jinx from the thirties. Like most things they come and go in popularity. Exposure is one of the reasons things go. It killed stage hypnosis here in the 90s with anyone selling courses books teaching as many people as possible to learn how to do it. This flooded the market with badly skilled hypnotists. |Then the problems arose. Sure in 2050 we might be saying exposure won't hurt hypnosis as it may well be vback in the Uk.

Do we want to screw up mentalism so that it may disappear for a number generations before being reborn? Sadly I feel that is what may happen. Perhaps its different outside the UK but that's how things go over here.
John Clarkson
View Profile
Special user
Santa Barbara, CA
749 Posts

Profile of John Clarkson
Quote:
On 2003-10-25 06:24, teejay wrote:
So much circumlocution about so many obscure ponts of
order. Definitions, analogies and references
Here are some points of consensual reality
1)Everybody KNOWS what a secret is
(It is something you are not supposed to tell people about)
2)Everybody KNOWS what exposure of a secret means
(It means telling people you shouldn't tell, things you shouldn't tell them)
...
Teejay, the "everyone knows argument" just isn't persuasive. Yes, there are things that most of us would agree are secret. There are also apparently things that people do not agree are secrets. For instance (and just an example), you yourself mentioned that firewalking was irrelevant because the program revealed other areas that were definitely secrets of mentalism. Others in this same thread apparently lump firewalking into the same "secrets" category. If we are going to call for boycotts and other punitive measures, I think we owe it to the target (and to ourselves) to come up with something better than "we all KNOW" you did it. Would you want a jury at your trial to say,
    "Judge, don't bother telling us what the definition of the crime is, and, attorneys, don't bother with evidence or argument... we all KNOW Teejay did it. Let's go directly to the hanging stage of these proceedings!"

Quote:
...
3)Everybody KNOWS that exposing secrets has a downside for the people who shared that secret originally
4)These turncoats did it for money
Some prominent professionals who earn their living by performing mentalism have posted on the Café that they doubt that exposure has any long-lasting effect. I suppose this doesn't rule out "some" downside, but apparently, Teejay, even amongst the "good guys," there is a difference of opinion about the degree and importance of the "downside."

Some people who have been involved with what others claim is exposure may have done so believing they were harming legitimate performers and not caring. For them, money, sense of power, or some other nefarious motive may have been more important than keeping a secret. Other people who have been involved with supposed exposure, I am sure, do not believe that what they exposed falls within the category of protected secret (or that if it does, that revealing it would cause significant injury).

Quote:
The only analogy that springs to my mind is Judas selling the secret of who Christ was for 30 pieces of silver.
Some people on this forum don't agree
Some of these are very intelligent and articulate
I would like to point out that what they are,
so cleverly, supporting, is behaviour that 99% of ordinary people would find disgraceful and disgusting. Being clever is not always being right.
This bothers me, Teejay. There is a group that seems to believe that if someone wants to discuss the ideas instead of engaging in name-calling and planning revenge, he somehow supports exposure.

I wonder if 99 percent of "ordinary people" agree about anything, teejay! Those kinds of remarks tend to undermine your clearly strongly-held opinion. One of those nasty "definitions," "arguments," and "circumlocutions" -- even if poorly constructed -- would serve you better than that kind of gratuitous assertion, don't you think?

Quote:
The people who go along with my opening simple 4 points about this whole sorry affair should be concerned with stopping the turncoats enjoying their silver and making sure others are discouraged.Instead of pointlessly discussing the ins and outs of a cat's backside, think of how you can upset the people who have upset us.
:bigsmile:
Some people don't think that discussing ideas is pointless, Teejay. And I suspect that there are those who, even though they may agree with you about what constitutes unacceptable exposure, would disagee about whether to react in a punitive or vengeful way.

We do not need to demonize everyone who has a different viewpoint. Although I may be optimistic, I believe (hope?) that a discussion of the ideas is more likely to help construct an ethic than name-calling.

Smile
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener

"There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay."
—Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank)
hkwiles
View Profile
Special user
Howard Wiles
797 Posts

Profile of hkwiles
So what do you all think about telling kids there's no such thing as Santa and there isn't a Tooth Fairy.
that's exposure isn't it?

Howard Smile
shrink
View Profile
Inner circle
2609 Posts

Profile of shrink
Save you money on presents though I think its a good thing Smile
hkwiles
View Profile
Special user
Howard Wiles
797 Posts

Profile of hkwiles
Shrink.

Yeah right on!

Also.. tell the kids that the ice-cream man turns his music on when he's run out of ice cream Smile

Howard
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Secrets of Psychics Revealed » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.27 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL