I see so many magicians and mentalists do this half hearted sideways "turn away" when the whole trick needs the spectators to be convinced that the performer did not see the action the spectator did. Like the spectator nneds to select one colored ball on the table and put a cup over it and put the other balls away out of view. Or any variation of this, where the spectator is asked to make a visible and open action and the magician is supposed to not see that. Please turn completely around. I see spectators looking at the half turned magician suspiciously before they make their action, wondering if the field of view of the magician is wide enought that the magician can see the action out of the corner of their eye. Well, I am not an actual mind reader so I don't know if that is what they are wondering, but that is what I would wonder if I was a spectator. I would wonder why does the magician not turn away completely. Its suspicious. Why would you NOT turn completely around, instead of just turning your shoulders and your head a little?

I would understand the half turn if it is a case where the performer could not see the crucial information even if he looked. Like for example if a card is selected and you ask the spectator to show the card to other people. The spectator would still take care to not flash the face towards you so in this case a slight turn away might suffice. But not in the case where the thing is right in front of you on the table and just looking at it you see it.

Concerning yourself with what others are doing/not doing is an exercise in futility. Why let it annoy you?

Here's an idea, why stop at turning? Why don't we just leave the room? Matter of fact, why not leave the building altogether? Let's take it to the next level: you could just hop in an Uber, go to the airport, board a transatlantic flight, and then call them when you arrive at your destination to finish things up, now that there's no suspicion of peeking.

Jokes aside, I think you may want to consider shifting your perspective on mind reading and mentalism. Mentalism isn't about convincing people of the legitimacy of your "abilities" beyond any doubt or scrutiny, that would be a seriously delusional goal. It's an entertainment art. People really won't care about the angle of how turned away you are, just as long as it appears you aren't looking directly and the effect itself is entertaining. That's why the G***y P**k is still a widely utilized method, even though you're practically looking straight at it in front of them.

I agree. "Don't worry, this kind of stuff just flies by everyone, no one ever notices" is a common cop out for not thinking through how your audience perceives you.

I don't feel that I need to, but just in case...

If you've identified something that is bothersome, then (hopefully) you won't do the same in your own performances. I don't see the issue issue here.

No offence, but this sounds like a rant for the sake of ranting.

Humanity would be better served if folks attended to their their own backyards without criticizing their neighbors'.

One thing Phedon Bilek consistently does that I like A LOT is to separate a participant who is writing something down from the rest of the group. He has them move away where they have privacy so this kind of thing is no longer of concern. It also makes for nice staging.

Honestly I don't think about it. I do whatever feels natural. Sometimes it's turning away completely, other times it's just turning my head. I guess it depends on whether or not I'm holding something for them.

Personally, rather than trying to prove something, I think it looks way better if it looks like it simply doesn't matter to me.

I think a reasonable way to think about this is, if it bothers you then create a solution that makes sense for you. I have been “taken in” by ideas and techniques that I know, because I was so engrossed in the performance. Only with the final moment did I seek to reconstruct, but it was too late (any work had already happened). I had been had. I think your concern is the seed of something wonderful for you.

This.

You perfectly stated what I was trying to get across with better nuance. I am sometimes blunt because that's just how I think. Re-reading my post, I can see that it may come across as snarky even though it wasn't intended to be. I hope I didn't offend.

And on another note, good to see you're still around; I was thinking about you the other day and wondered why I hadn't seen any posts from you in a while. Or maybe I just missed them?

I agree a half turn is just not enough if the fact the peformer sees what's going on could explain the trick (and ruin the experience) for the audience. Even when the performer isn't trying to set up "test conditions". Consciouly or unconscioulsy, spectators look dor a "rational explanation" and magic or astonishment happens when they don't find any, we all know that.

About the "they never notice" argument, I do find it is a false and lazy one --when stated in this uncomplete way. A truer version would be "they don't notice IF YOU DO WHAT'S NECESSARY". And "what's necessary" could be two different things: (1) misdirection, obviously, and (2) proper atmosphere. Which is, for instance, acting casual about "it" so spectators feel "it" isn't worth paying too much attention about.

Let's say the half-turn can efficiently be used in one of two ways:
1) it is not neccessary, no more thant a blindfold for instance. It is there just to add some "color" to the presentation and suggest everything is trully "hands off". That's just a matter of style and persona.

2) The method requires that turn to be only half, because the performer must see at least part of what the spectator does. Then I would agree it would be safer to adapt the method, but I also think setting the proper unsuspicious mindset (setting an "atmoshpere" that directs their suspicion to something else) can work, has worked.

That's really down to acting, what shows through subtext, body language etc.

I have to agree. And seems to be happening more and more here on the Café.

Yeah, I disagree. This is how we learn from others good or bad, what to do and what not to do. It is all part of the education process.

It's similar to sports with a large amount of review, analysis, critique, and commentary before, during and after the game.

Ironically, in many cases, the further a performer distances themselves from the action, the more room he has for trickery.
"I'll station myself way over here because I need to...uh...avoid seeing what you're up to!"

I understand what you're getting at, but it's a foreign concept for me.

That said, and continuing your analogy, who actually benefits and learns more in this instance - the individual players in a given game, or the reviewers, critics, and commentators of said game?

My point is this: Be the player - not the Chess piece or sideline commentator. Bobby Fischer took on the entire Russian Chess Federation and single-handedly defeated them all to become World Champion without any help or coaches and was completely self taught. He didn't give a rat's *** what others were doing or thinking and instead focused on himself to get there.

When smart and intelligent individuals realize opportunities to improve either their skills or themselves, they act accordingly and without fanfare. No rants or the modern social epidemic of virtue-signaling necessary. People spend far too much time searching for answers outside of themselves and the approval of others.

Talking is fine, but doing is better. That's just my opinion.