|
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
CONFIRMATION BLINDNESS
The following notes will not be of interest to many magicians. They explore a psychological ploy or principle that COULD enhance an existing magic effect or inspire a new one. I feel that this principle is used in many successful magic effects but never identified. One possible reason is that the neurobiological discoveries since 1990 had not been available to explain the phenomenon. Those not familiar with the “gorilla in the midst” experiments are encouraged to do so before reading this material. I had discovered a similar principle during the ‘80’s while performing thousands of magic demonstrations for business owners. I had no name to give it and was not sure of its possible applications. I have several other “principles” that might be of interest as well: Preemptive Susceptibility, Ownership Bias, One of Many, etc. I offer this to discover the interest in such ideas, and whether or not to post on the Café’ or to arrange some other venue. Thank you for your attention. Confirmation Blindness In its simplest form: An observer of an event will only “see/remember” evidence that confirms their expectations and ignore evidence that does not. There are tremendous implications for magic tricks with small objects, especially coins. The expectations of the observer are more easily identified and controlled than with strange objects. Factors like weight, tactile sensation, sound and flash enable an observer to form a prediction of results (expectation). One example is the very popular POV/ROV moves that rely on the flash of the coin to add inferential support to the coin’s location. By extension, the absence of a flash at least implies that a coin is not presence. The same can be said of the “clink.” The notion of Confirmation Blindness goes further than this. I suggest that a lot of the effort we go to conceal or mask a coin is unnecessary. Exaggerated efforts toward Directed Focus may only create suspicion where none exists. Just consider that when an observer “knows” a coin to be in a certain location, evidence that suggests otherwise will not be seen or will be ignored. Let me expand. Astonishment occurs when there is an anticipation of a result and something else occurs (surprise). It can also occur when the expected result is considered impossible (no anticipation), yet the predicted result occurs anyway. Both require that the observer and performer are in agreement as to what “real/normal” and what is “impossible.” Some factors can be assumed and confirmed. Others need to be taught and established as a pattern. In both approaches, the brain can be conditioned to provide rewards at the direction of the performer. Within this conditioning process the observer will observe results that are a confirmation of inference. The observer gets a reward for having “guessed right.” At that moment, the observer will be psychologically blind to any evidence that does not support the reward. This is similar to the “gorilla in the midst” phenomena. The observer will only “see/remember” evidence that confirms their expectation and ignore evidence that does not. Example: a copper and silver coin are displayed on the right palm, the copper on top overlapping the silver. The left fingers extract the copper that is now completely visible as that hand moves away. The silver coin is visible on the right fingers. Both hands close. When opened, the copper has jumped for the left hand back to the right. This is a “naked hand” maneuver because the copper coin never leaves the right hand. The approaching left hand has a palmed copper and performs a reverse utility switch as the coins in the right hand are inverted, I.e. the silver is now on top and partially masking the copper. Since it is know there are only two coins and the copper is now seen in the left fingers, the copper in the right is not seen even though not completely concealed. Seeing both “known coins” simultaneously in two hands precludes there being on still in the right. The mind is blind to its existence. Yes, the contrast helps, plus the fact that the copper is closer to skin color than the silver. If you tried to remove the silver a possible flash of the masked silver coin in the right hand might override the Confirmation Blindness. Consider that a TT is never seen because its presence is not suspected, and that many C&B moves depend on the observer “knowing” where the balls are. Routine flow allows the observer to predict where a missing ball winds up, and “being proved right” masks even fumbled handling. Hidden in this explanation is the distinction between having an observer “believing" a coin is in a specific location and their “knowing” where it is. Many sleights, moves and antics focus on the “believing” approach – in effect selling the observer on where it is. An alternative approach is to discover where the observer “knows” it is and build on that. Their brain processes “believed stuff” differently from things that are “known.” It is a function of Certainty, Certitude and Conviction and the level of confidence in each. In its finest application, if the observer expects magic to happen, trusts that you are capable of orchestrating this event, and is providing focused attention – magic will occur even if you botch the presentation. Consider these possibilities: a) you apparently place a silver coin in a spectator’s hand, but get her to close her fist around a copper coin instead. Later you get her to verbally announce what coin she holds. You tell her to peak inside her fist and make sure she only has one silver coin. She does, and announces she holds but one silver coin. b) you place one copper and one silver coin in the hand of a spectator who makes a fist. You later extract one of the coins, say the copper. You ask which coin he now holds – “silver.” You announce that coin will gradually get hotter and hotter until they can no longer hold it. He goes though some painful expressions and finally drops the coin, but it has vanished completely. One possible explanation is that they see or feel the wrong/no coin but desire to please you and be the center of attention (hero). So, they say what they think you want – sometimes called an “instant stooge.” A second explanation is that “seeing” occurs in the mind and not the eyes. The DO see or feel exactly what they expect to see following your guidance. Does it matter? The key is that you have the confidence to “know” what they will do, or develop the skills and techniques to create the conditions where such results can occur. Again, I am not suggesting that any magician has to learn such techniques to be successful or entertaining. But please do consider that purchasing an endless supply of “the latest” may not be the best approach to either. Given the impossibility of “know your audience” today it may not be practical to even try. Yet, if you ever are in an ideal situation and wish to perform that magic effect that produces a “30 year memory,” are you prepared? Itr is been said that the best magic is that which never happened at all. Are you prepared to cause that to happen, or take advantage of the opportunity. (PS - you won't learn this on YouTube)
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
Danwseers New user 78 Posts |
Great write up. I love the application of underlying psychology more so than emphasizing the latest sleight technique. Your term Confirmation Blindness I believe also shows up in the psyc journals as "Change Blindness". Another way of quantifying the phenomena is our brains can only attend to x amount of information, so it short hands plenty of our perceptions. It is why you might have a difficult time realizing your wife just got a haircut. Very interesting stuff, and very practical indeed.
Regarding your suggestions, namely b), I see a blend of what we would otherwise call hypnotic suggestion at work here. But, as you pointed out, our confirmation/change blindness is in effect the application of suggestion upon our perceptions. Jacquin/Shelldrake would refer to this as feeding the reality generator. Thanks for the thought provoking ideas. Cheers |
John Long Inner circle New Jersey 2826 Posts |
Interesting. I'm surprised others haven't commented (maybe the "nothing up my sleeve" section isn't giving your post much visibility.
I only had time to read part of what you wrote, but wanted to write a comment, and then come back to all that you said. Your premise in the title reminded me of a PBS special and associated book entitled "The Brain", by David Eagleman. Amongst other things, Eagleman said that our brain does NOT record everything that is present to be seen (that would take too much brain cpu's). Rather, over time the brain develops "models", models of what it can expect from the world. Then, when a new situation occurs, the brain matches the current situation to its model, and *fills in the rest*, and that filled in "picture" is what we are conscious of. This would seem to touch on a number of areas that magicians employ (e.g.; conditioning, false memories, retention of vision, hidden in plain sight) John
Breathtaking Magic;
Not Breath Taking |
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Thanks guys. One reason for my interest here is whether or not magicians should change presentations to accommodate various age cohorts,
each with a demonstrably different way of processing information, e.g. use of imagination, reliance on dogma and superstition, innate knowledge and even perceptions of what is impossible. Now we find that some "entertainment seekers" are chemically addicted to the endorphin rush -- meaning they will applaud no matter how much magic is involved. Is my "model" of what magic is about even close to the "model" of the average viewer today? What will they "fill in the rest" with if all experience is vicarious? Yes, John -- such a post perhaps belongs in a more general theory section, but recently all post there get drug off into the swamp.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
Andy Young Special user Jersey Shore, PA 813 Posts |
This is great stuff. I always thought of memory as a slide show. You basically have the main points and then your memory fills in the middle. This how we explain how to do things in writing also --- in steps.
The main thing is when they go back over the steps they have to set up the truths. Let's go with B. The idea is they rewind and say the magician put two coins in my hand. Next step is closed the hand. He took one out. Then there were no coins. By knowing that the first steps was correct that two coins were put in, even if there are none people won't recognize the fact that they aren't holding a coin anymore. Although I don't think I would be that bold to do that, but I would do it to my hands. This is the same principal at work when you fake taking a coin from the table in your hand and display it in the air. People think you took the coin so in their minds the coin in is at your fingers. Just knowing the theory will help you pick effects that you know will work. |
Rick Holcombe Special user 624 Posts |
This reminded me of this wonderful video
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 11, 2017, Andy Young wrote: but they do not recognize that. I have done this many times. Why? 1) they see two coins go in and one come out. So, they "know" there is still a coin there unless something clues them there is not. 2) they have no prior knowledge as to the weight or feel of two coins vs one or none. 3) they are focusing on the coin getting warmer and not the shape or feel of the coin itself. 4) they know something exciting is going to occur in their hand and wish to be a hero in the later story. 5) they trust you because of your wisdom in selecting them and allowing them to be a witness for others. thus, their mind fills in the necessary information to confirm there is a coin in their hand, and disregards any clues that it is not so. they are not hypnotized into thinking a coin is present -- they form the memory that justifies what they know and desire to be true. Now, what would spoil it is your belief and confidence. If the performer is not 100% sure that the spectator with "feel the coin in their hand" then don't do this trick. The key may be establishing the essential trust and presence. I do several "vanish to empty in the spectators' hand" effects, but never "on demand." I wait until I know it is right. I have performed my "Untouched" routine in which a silver and copper coin exchange places in two spectator's hands with me never touching the coins at all -- and each verbally confirms which coin they hold before the exchange. In the minds of the other spectators, each looks at their coin before announcing what they hold even though the switch has already occurred. In their mind the switch occurred after the viewing and announcement. One reason this works is that I am across the room and cannot touch the coins. They "know" which coin they have and feel it is their task to protect it from my influence. Thus, they are blind to any suggestion that they have failed in that assignment. The sleights/moves to accomplish the "no touch" switch and the timing are profound, of course, but the power of the effect comes form "happens in their hands and under their control." No one is going to take that away from them. Do they lie about what they glimpse in their hand? No, their mind provides the 'seeing' essential to their knowing and commitment. Again, I am not saying every magician should perform such effects (Untouched can be performed without the confirmation step) -- but any claim that "they notice there is no coin or the wrong coin" is not correct. Magic happens in their minds and I am not going to prevent it from happening
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 11, 2017, Rick Holcombe wrote: thanks for that - even better than Gorilla in the Midst.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Sorry Andy - I misread your post slightly. You were agreeing with me and the concept. Too late for me to edit my response.
Methinks you would have the confidence to do this -- just wait for the right conditions and never 'on demand."
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
John Long Inner circle New Jersey 2826 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 11, 2017, funsway wrote: and here I was hoping for a method for a very good color changing deck! It was funny to see the gorilla sitting in the background. attention focus; attention focus, attention focus
Breathtaking Magic;
Not Breath Taking |
Andy Young Special user Jersey Shore, PA 813 Posts |
Here is what Tarbell has to say from Volume 1.
"People believe not only what you tell them or what they actually see or hear or feel, but they believe what they imagine they see or hear or feel.Imagination plays as tremendous a part in forming ideas as do the senses. A common example of seeing with the imagination is one that we have all, no doubt, experienced. I refer to meeting a man on the street and saying "How do you do" to him, thinking he was Mr. James. There was a similarity of features between this man and Mr. James and your imagination formed the idea that he was Mr. James. It proved not to be Mr. James at all, and if you had looked at this man with your eyes, you would have seen that he was not Mr. James. You saw him, however, not with your eyes but with your imagination." If you make something look similar, but with a slight discrepancy people will see with their "imagination" and not their eyes. Filling in the gap. But unlike the above about Mr. James you can't go back in time to check what the situation was. Interesting thoughts. |
terryisaacs Regular user 110 Posts |
Super cool post. Really enjoyed reading it and it definitely had application to our art. Feeling like I'm treading in deeper water than I can contribute to other than to say, thanks for the post.
"What we do in life echoes in eternity"
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Nothing up my sleeve... » » CONFIRMATION BLINDNESS - theory (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < |