Hasn't happened yet.

Bob is a mind reader, as he got into my head and said exactly what my thoughts on the matter are. Freaky.

I suspect that those mentalists who believe that the ESP approach is inherently less believable to intelligent audience are themselves skeptics of psychic claims (whether they've actually studied the research or not), and assume that those who believe otherwise must, therefore, be less intelligent.

As you've pointed out, Scott, that simply isn't so.

Good thoughts,

Bob

I have experimented with both in all kinds of ways, and have ended up not feeling comfortable with either...taking feedback on board and thinking long and hard about it - though both have interesting plots available, neither really suit me...so I've gone a different route that also lets me use some family history too as jumping off points...

if I had to pick one though, definitely the more paranormal and psychic side of things, I think it can be easily explained on what level you are operating on, without the use of a traditional disclaimer, and is a far more interesting plot/story arc...

there are always exceptions, however I find the psychological side of things to be either too mundane (oh? anyone can do this if they study the right techniques? I know that psychology papers are written up because that's how the whole process works - unless he's saying he knows some kind of different psychology from everyone else, if so, how? and why is he selling tickets to a show if he can do all this? why not for some huge corporation instead?) - I know there's answers to those questions, just not always very sound ones...

as for the psychic side, there's the same kinds of questions (why hasn't he won the lottery? why is he selling tickets? why is he wearing my pants - where AM i? where's my jewelry gone? why doesn't he save lives and predict air crashes and so on?) - there's answers to those questions too, and for me anyway, the answers are more solid and reasonable (can't predict the lottery because its a machine, can't see into the future in that kind of detail unfortunately - let me show you the difference between predicting a machine's behaviour vs a person's) and so on...

i think both can be done extremely well, and embarrasingly badly - and by the power of google if you tell me you are using a certain psychological technique and you do something unthinkably amazing with it, I will try and look it up...i'll even trust in wikipedia if I have too...

plus, if you've performed at a party or similar, you will (sooner rather than later) have people talk to you about the subject matter you bring up... psychology is a pretty popular degree after all, and there's plenty of people interested in the occult, the paranormal and other related themes...

so if you don't know much about jung, freud, and all the rest of it - you're gonna look a little odd (if you don't already)...just like if you don't know what a witch's ladder is and you're talking about the occult and paganism kind of things - it'll knock your credibility...

saying that, I love both when its done well, and it always, always boils back down to character, persona, credibility, consistency...all of it helps create what we want people to experience...that's how I see it anyway...

On the psychic side, Iain, questions like "Why hasn't he won the lottery?" only come up when the performer has been way too broad in his/her claims.

All I claim to be able to do, for example, is to send and receive thoughts when they are projected in a certain manner. I don't see how that would benefit me in the lottery.

Yeah I know bob...

but a lot of people do the fork bending, then a which hand, then a PK thing...its like a psychic buffet!

These are interesting takes...
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvand......ntpage=2

http://sabotagetimes.com/reportage/dont-......n-brown/

Again, that goes back to my assertion that the more abilities one claims, the less believable he will be.

Indeedy sir... you could almost write it out like an equation...

the cassidy equation would be a great title for a book!

I think the same rule holds true even if your claims are purely psychological. I'd have a hard time believing that any one individual was an expert in NLP, hypnosis, body language, subliminal perception, psychological persuasion, etc. And it's even harder to believe when the claim(s) is made by someone who is barely old enough to have graduated high school.

For me, the psychological angle can sound a bit creepy when you think about it...

"i can make you do what I want by influencing you without you knowing it...i can control your mind..."

sounds a bit...well...

whereas saying "with your permission only, and under these conditions, I can read your mind"

the subtext feels different to me...but as I say, I am biased towards the psychic side...

Additionally, the psychological approach requires a certain gravitas and appearance of being highly educated and experienced that isn't quite conveyed by teens in tee shirts and jeans table hopping or working street shows.

Agreed that one would need to look the part for psychological premise especially if there is emphasis put on "science".
But similarly, one has to invest equally in trying to look the part for the paranormal premise.


The reasons why every teen picking up Banachek's Psy series cannot become Derren Brown are:
1) You need to pick up cordina before anything else.
2) You need to look the age of a guy who could have earned a BA in Psychology to say the least
3) It is likely that your audience knows more about psychology than you and using lingo to throw them off can be counter-active
4) Derren Brown has taken theatrics before he came on the telly or the stage. He knows how to be convincing without even doing a trick. He is smooth.

The reason why every teen picking up any book cannot become Uri Geller (or equivalent) are:
1) Because you are more likely to start showing effects to your family and friends who wont believe you got super powers over night
2) Because you have to put on a convincing act, without being influenced by the movie-psychics. It is way harder than you think.
3) I cannot think of more as of now.


Anyway, what I derive is:

Whichever be your premise the following are a must:
1) Look the part, know what you are talking about at least more than the audience.
2) Be convincing without the tricks (with patter etc. in front of a mirror)
3) Practice the hell out of your work
4) Do not demean your audience: "oooh I know more about body language than you" or "ooooh I have super powers you don't have" are equally obnoxious.


P.S. I have derived most of this from thoroughly reading this thread. I really would like to thank everyone who participated so far.

If we could focus on the beauty of each premise, it would be lovely.

We can't write your thesis for you!

I think that if pinned down and forced to answer honestly, more people would believe in psychology and directly observable and provable aspects to the human condition than metaphysics. I respectfully stand by my previous statement. Even many (if not most) people who "believe" in god actually do not.

Let me make an analogy. Lots of people have jobs, and bosses. They know that they need to be good employees, in order to not get fired or demoted. So, they abide by the rules, and try to make the best impression they can, ESPECIALLY when the boss is around.

Now, consider this same person, who also claims to believe in god. In many mainstream faiths, god sets out the rules to live by, and to do otherwise will condemn you to an eternity of hell.

This person, if he REALLY believed in god in the same way he believes in his directly observable boss at work, would never sin. To do so under the ever watchful eye of a supreme being would be far, far more terrifying than showing up late for work.

People's claimed beliefs in the supernatural are tenuous. Their actions in life portray this, and their behavior tends to more reliably reflect that which they can directly observe and experience. Sure, lots of people claim to believe in psychic phenomena. I assert that deep down, they know it's BS, but enjoy the fantasy of it all.

I suspect that this post will annoy some people here. It was not my intention, and apologies if I've offended anyone. I'm just being honest about what I believe.

The focus should be more on the entertainment, above all else...

"But similarly, one has to invest equally in trying to look the part for the paranormal premise." how do you think someone should look? isn't it more interesting and 'real' that all kinds of people like all kinds of stuff, and sometimes that "stuff" is a bit of a surprise when you learn that aspect of the person's nature...

if you like the paranormal, you don't have to have a pentagram or a crystal ball...avoid all cliches...

do you have any proof of this, ben?

The data is a little out of date, but a quick google around gives us this..
http://www.livescience.com/16748-america......hic.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayof......ristian/

not the be all and end all obviously...

I do not. I am simply stating an opinion, and using my own frame of reference and observations about people.

Here's another viewpoint. As a semi-intelligent person, I do not claim to know for certain that psychic phenomena do not exist, despite my leanings toward skepticism. If someone were to come around claiming to be the real thing, then obviously that would be one of the most important revelations in human history about the true nature of existence. I would wonder why this person is "doing a show" rather than submitting him or herself to science for the betterment of mankind. If I were a genuine psychic, it's most certainly what I would do.

As per my previous post, claiming to believe in something, and ACTUALLY believing in it are two different things. If I walk up to someone on the street and ask them, "Do you believe in psychics?", their answer may very well be "yes." But if that same person were to be approached by a supposed psychic (even a famous one with a stellar reputation) and told to abandon their wives or quit their jobs, I bet their faith would quickly disappear.