In the field of humor there exist several theoretical explanations for why humor works, for example relief theory, superiority theory and incongruity theory. Are you aware of a theoretical book on magic that discusses similar theories for the value/utility/working of magic, for 'why' magic works? Thanks, Luc.

Do you mean why magic works, or do you mean why magic is entertaining?

There are books on perceptual psychology that use magic as an example, such as Sleight of Mind (Which is a pretty good read in my opinion)

Hi Christopher. Particularly why it works. Thanks for the suggestion! Regards, Luc.

I'll suggest two books:

Abracadabra: SECRET METHODS MAGICIANS AND OTHERS USE TO DECEIVE THEIR AUDIENCE

https://www.amazon.com/Abracadabra-METHO......02GHBS1A

and

Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals about Our Everyday Deceptions

https://www.amazon.com.au/Sleights-Mind-......03ZDNZYM

Magically

Aus

I believe magic is similar to Lewis Carroll Nonsense Literature, which derives its humor from its absurdity. Something absurd is stated then proven locally true creating an aside dilemma. Therefore then the theory of Nonsense Literature would apply.

Magic tricks cannot be solved deductively--the premises aren't true. They force the brain to use "what if?" reasoning--inductive reasoning. The dilemma created by the argument of the trick, creates cognitive dissonance. The discomfort caused by this dissonance seeks to be relieved by solving the dilemma. If the solution for the effect cannot be discovered by trying to create some means for it to have been accomplished--the rings have magnets?--then the other side of the dilemma--the impossible is real--leads to creative thinking along those lines: what if magic is real? What would it mean if I could will a color to change? etc., etc.

One of the great gifts of magic is that it is a spur to inductive reasoning. It is like a fountain of ideas.

A magic trick is like a burr under the saddle of the brain.

Magic tricks like nonsense literature are not meant to be solved, they are meant to prove that some nonsense apparently exists. They don’t think what if but think that is absurd, it can’t possibly make sense but does.

Hi Luc — To my knowledge, there's very little work on this. Books such as *Sleights of Mind* explain how it's possible to deceive us (and what this tells us about the mind), but there is little that's been done on why the experience of a magic trick produces the kind of response that it does. Psychologists such as Gustav Kuhn have started to work on this question, and I'm in the early stages of collaborating with some of them on this. The first step in the process is to give a correct characterization of the experience of magic, and I've made an initial attempt at this (inspired in part by Whit Haydn's work) in a couple of recent essays. I think the material that will most interest you is featured in an earlier draft of "The Experience of Magic," and deals precisely with the question why magic has the power it does. Part of my account appeals to a parallel with theories of humor—specifically, to incongruity theory. This part is rather brief and it was excised from the final version (it's the seed for a new paper, in progress, that addresses the issue in greater depth), but it's a start. Anyway, if you'd like a copy of the essay, you can find it here:

http://www.jasonleddington.net/publications.html

Best,

Jason

Thanks a lot!

Nicely said, Pop!

I had to read it several times, to be sure, but, I agree!

I think that this is where the joy of magic springs from. It is not the solving of a puzzle, or the shaking of a belief system as much as it is an opening of the imagination. Many people as they grow up lose the ability to be creative--to dream and wonder. Inductive reasoning is often overshadowed by deductive reasoning.

Sherlock Holmes was more of an inductive reasoner than a deductive one. He "invented" the crime that would fit the "evidence," rather than using a fingerprint or burnt tobacco to identify the culprit. He often assumed a fraudulent intelligence at work, and suspected "evidence" that might have been tampered with.

Magic is a similar sort of thing. But it is not just the positing of a fraudulent intelligence. We KNOW there IS a fraudulent intelligence behind the evidence, so we know it can't be trusted.

One can't use it to point to the culprit.

The only way to solve a magic trick is to invent the trick. You have to imagine a number of possible ways the trick could have been done, and then choose the one that fits all the "evidence" both true and false. Since the average person has little knowledge of the Technology of Deception, this is usually impossible.

"Wonder" is the process of imagining possibilities outside the world we know, and is just as an important source of knowledge as deductive reasoning.

The Theory of Relativity was created through imaginative "what if?" thought experiments.

Wonder involves both the real world, and the fantastic. Magic's dilemma sits at this exact apex. We give the spectator the gift of a prickly thing that hopefully will bother and annoy them every time the subject of magic comes up, and they will be compelled to rehearse the argument for the trick. They will be pushed into inductive thought--wonder--once again.

This is the joy of magic, and its goal.

As a loner growing up, I found great joy in fantasy, magic, science fiction and so on.

Magic gave me a way both to celebrate and to share this joy. "How did he do that?" "What would it be like to be able to will something or someone to disappear?"

The Trickster archetype is the one who thinks outside the box, uses his head instead of brawn and enjoys and celebrates cleverness for its own sake. He is the embodiment of creative thought and individualism.

To me, Magic is a celebration of the Trickster, and somehow an embodiment. I find it full of joy and wonder both to watch and to do.

It matters little to me which side of the dilemma resonates with the spectator. If they leave wondering if the rings have magnets, or what they would do if they could be invisible--I am equally happy.

Well, all magic is wonderful, including the magic of the charlatan. Our magic, as opposed to the magic of the charlatan, is "plainly illogical" which the very definition of absurdity is. If it isn’t as plain as the nose on one's face that the "patter" is absurd then isn’t our magic at all, no matter how wonderful it may be.