|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On May 15, 2016, backinblack wrote: I totally disagree and have written extensively on this. If there is no written record of the thought, a subject could simply say "That's not what I was thinking." As I have said in my own act for decades, "I have you write it down for two reasons. First, the act of writing it serves to focus your thought, And second, that writing will serve as proof and keep you from changing your mind and making me look stupid." While this is a funny line, it makes total sense. I can't even imagine a serious scientific experiment in which the thought was not verifiable in some manner. Keep in mind, that I go to great lengths to point out that, after the participant writes her thought and folds her billet into quarters, I will not touch it in any way. (Not possible if you are using peeks or CTs.) |
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
100% with bob on this...
Plus, the other side of the argument is this... If a real mind reader wouldn't ask for it to be written, neither would they indulge in a long verbal entrapment that is convoluted and sometimes confusing...the logic of that statement needs to be consistently applied and it rarely is. So the consideration is this...which seems fairest and a straight line in process? A set of spoken rules that might be hard to follow A secret thought that is remembered as never being handled and sealed in an envelope (as an example) Don't get me wrong, both can be done very badly as well as skilfully, but if we are talking 'real', a spoken set of rules and actions that goes beyond "focus on the word in your mind" is at odds with what mind reading can look like...
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
mindpunisher Inner circle 6132 Posts |
I think you are just thinking like a performer Iain. The audience is made up of layers of complete believers who will believe even if you tell them its a trick to those that are on the fence and then those that are sceptic no matter what methods you use.
I never ceases to amaze me the number of highly educated people who come up afterwards and are afraid to look at you incase you can read their minds. And then there those that spent the whole evening trying to trip you up or work out how you did it all at the same event. I think every audience has these different types the percentages may differ from group to group but they are all there.A good performer I guess knows how to manage this dynamic to get the best result. A bit of controversy in the audience can only be a good thing. Look at Uri Geller not so much these days but in the past. |
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
But I'm not talking about believability in a performance, I'm just talking about genres and sub-genres...
I agree with you about the layers of audience beliefs though for sure...
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
backinblack Special user 910 Posts |
Well you always need justiications for what you do.. exept you do it for real.. and even than you would have to tell the spec that he has to think at something.. so whats closest for me to do it real is: tell the spec to think at something.. do not need 20 questions but something like thought chunnel and be as close at the real thing as you can.. very simple thinking from my side - but everybody his opinion.. no prob..
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Do as you will. I'm just offering some advice based on my limited experience.
|
|||||||||
backinblack Special user 910 Posts |
Thanks for permission.. but without joke: I never questioned your experience, right? so: based on your experience: where is the locial mistake in the argumentation of my last post?
anyhow: what I would not understand as a spec: if you could do it for real: why should you choose a spec who plans/wants to trick you? |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Your mistake is the assumption that a "real mind reader" wouldn't have something written down, when he has perfectly valid reasons for doing so.
One of the most valuable skills of a mentalist is his ability to make his procedures seem perfectly logical and necessary. |
|||||||||
backinblack Special user 910 Posts |
I did not write anything about writing down in the post we focus on.. I wrote:
"(...) exept you do it for real.. and even than you would have to tell the spec that he has to think at something.. so whats closest for me to do it real is: tell the spec to think at something.. do not need 20 questions but something like thought chunnel and be as close at the real thing as you can.. (...)" anyhow: if I was a spec I would be confused if a perfectly valid reason for writing down is: the spec could try to trick the mindreader.. I mean: if this guy can read minds: why should he choose someone who wants to trick him? |
|||||||||
Mindpro Eternal Order 10603 Posts |
I think we have her another theorist rather than a actual performer as your questions would all be answered quite easily. Since most people don't know or have never encountered a mind reader how do you know how they would think or act? That's one of the liberties that comes with being a mind reader.
Also you're goofy if you don't think people want to challenge or test the performer. To try to trip him up. Happens all the time, especially by male participants. |
|||||||||
backinblack Special user 910 Posts |
Well, in fact I am just a normal guy who says what he would think about the argument: please write it down as there are people who like to trick me.. I would think: if this guy can read minds: why should he choose someone who wants to trick him and not someone who does not want to trick him?
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On May 16, 2016, backinblack wrote: All of the posts between us are part of a continuing dialogue initiated by your statement: Quote:
On May 15, 2016, backinblack wrote: And, as I said, I completely disagree with that. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On May 16, 2016, backinblack wrote: Now you are completely misquoting me. Look at the exact words I use in my script. I NEVER say that there "are people who like to trick me." In fact, I give two reasons for writing it down, and both are perfectly valid. (It helps to focus your thoughts and keeps you from changing your mind later.) And if you were at all familiar with my work you'd know that I claim to be able to read thoughts only if they are projected to me in a specific manner. (That makes the entire mind-reading premise much less threatening.) Thus, there is no way I could know, via my mind reading ability, if a potential participant was seeking to "trick" me. |
|||||||||
backinblack Special user 910 Posts |
Well, if someone comes up to me and says: I can read your mind I would ask him to tell me what I am thinking..
if he wants to demonstrate for a group that he can read minds it woulld be the same thinking I would have.. so if he would say: And second, that writing will serve as proof and keep you from changing your mind and making me look stupid.. I would think: if this guy can read minds: why should he choose someone who wants to make him look stupid and not someone who does not want to do so? i really do not want to offend anybody right here.. it is just my thinking as a normal guy.. |
|||||||||
backinblack Special user 910 Posts |
Just corrected the "tricking the performer" in "make him look stupid"..
well, of coure you can say this is the form I project.. and this is a reasoning: no question.. its just for me it is more convincing if it is done like thought chunnel.. spec thinks a view times and the performer reveals the thought.. just my 2 cent: nothing more.. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
I think you really ought to take the time to digest and try to understand what I've written before firing off responses that are purely defensive.
In this case you have completely ignored my point about using a particular cooperative process to read minds. One that takes away the inherent threat of mind-reading and the implicit challenge that results if you just go up to someone and say "I can read your mind." |
|||||||||
WitchDocChris Inner circle York, PA 2614 Posts |
It really comes down to persona and presentation style, I think. Some people can pull off a propless method, others can't.
Personally, I find direct mind reading to be far more effective and entertaining. Watching someone go through fifteen steps to read someone's mind screams "trick" to me. Or in the very least, it seems like the 'mind reader' is trying to confuse the volunteer until they just agree with whatever they say. Confusion is not mystical. To go with your same line of thinking, backinblack - If a person could read minds, why would they have to have the volunteer think of several different things before being able to read their thought? It all comes down to how it is presented and the persona and powers claimed by the performer, like Bob has been saying. Also, earlier in the thread you mentioned something that caught my attention - That speaking to the dead isn't mentalism. Many of our techniques were derived from those used by the mediums during seances. Speaking to the dead is, unless I am mistaken, definitely a sort of 'genre' of mentalism. It simply fell out of favor over the years.
Christopher
Witch Doctor Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4 Boffo eBook: https://tinyurl.com/387sxkcd |
|||||||||
backinblack Special user 910 Posts |
Well, if you found a particular cooperative process to read minds without implicit challenge that's great.. so you avoid what mindpro wrote: "Also you're goofy if you don't think people want to challenge or test the performer. To try to trip him up. Happens all the time, especially by male participants."
does not change a think that I would be more impressed if someone says to the spec: just think a view times and than reveals the thought.. but if thought chunnel does not work due to implicit challenge - well than it may be not possible to perform this of course.. |
|||||||||
backinblack Special user 910 Posts |
Good question: it shows that there will be never a possibility to do it for real.. so the question is: what comes closesed? thought chunnel is about the spec thinking a few times and that's it.. no writing down - nothing else than pure thinking. for me this is coming closesed.. but if the process turns to something like 20 quetions it becomes obvious of course..
|
|||||||||
Mindpro Eternal Order 10603 Posts |
I got a hunch you would be one of those challenging spectators I was speaking of, intentional or not.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Will there ever be a time.. (2 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < |