Re: Derren -- Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying, although there are nuances to it that are too technical to go into on this forum. People do choose to rationalize and avoid reality at times, even though they understand (on a basic level) the reality underneath what they experience.

I apologize for not replying to your earlier post. I missed it completely, and just now looked back and found it because of your questions above.

Yes, I perform Mentalism for a living and have done so for years. Before that I made my living as a stage illusionist for many years, often incorporating mentalism and hypnotism in my shows. In total, I've made my living as a performer of mysteries for about 35 years, in 31 countries, in every conceivable venue, from theaters (where I perform mostly these days) to cruise ships, television shows, trade shows, corporate shows, theatrical Seances, etc, etc. I've also acted as a magic consultant for stage, television, films, etc., in the past. Before all of that, in University I studied an eclectic combination of Psychology and Film.

I do offer a disclaimer at the beginning and at the end of my performances. I don't suggest that anyone else needs to do that. It's a personal choice for me. The disclaimer changes from time to time. Right now, I use a variation of Maurice Fogel's disclaimer at the start of my show.

I come out after a voice-over introduction to music, accept the welcoming applause, and say:

"Good evening. My name is Thomas Baxter and the show is called: ThoughtControl... but don't let that intimidate you -- TOO much.

"What is Thoughtcontrol? Well, I can read your thoughts. I can look into your very souls and tell you your past, present and future; I can tell you the winning lottery numbers before they're drawn; I can heal the sick and talk to the Dead!

"...and of course all of that is complete nonsense, because if I could do ANY of those things, I wouldn't be here in (name of city) on this stage performing for you tonight. I'd be on my own private island somewhere, counting my billions, and making babies with a Spice Girl!"

"No, what I do is based upon the psychology behind illusion. Through the years I've developed a series of experiments in human behaviour. I use my understanding of the psychology of illusion to manipulate your perceptions, to direct your behaviour, and to control your thoughts. Just out of curiosity, how many here think that it would be totally impossible for me to control your thoughts?"

Then I go into an opening effect, using purely psychological tests straight from the Psych. texts, to show that it is absolutely possible for me to control their behaviour and their thoughts.

At the end of the show I remind the audience that my performance isn't meant to be a science lecture or a demonstration of the supernatural. It's a theatrical performance that's meant to remind us all of how we are all connected, in the most unusual and fascinating ways -- not supernatural, not psychic -- but as human beings.

How about you, Andy? How long have you been performing professionally, what sorts of shows, etc?

- entity

LOL - thanks Entity - I really enjoyed that post - I love the 'making babies with a spice girl' line - really nice and disarming and I can imagine the beginning of what is a very entertaining show - thanks for sharing that.

As for me - in comparison to your extensive resume, I am very much a fledgling in the field. I suppose like many mentalists, I found my way here from mainstream magic - I studied under Bobby Bernard in the UK and Eugene Burger in the States - both performers for whom I retain much respect and affection.

I found my way into mentalism about 6 years ago although I suppose I had been exploring parallel areas of interest since childhhod. I am a literature teacher by profession (11-18 year olds) and my passion has always been to empower students to 'learn how to learn' - I teach mind mapping, memory techniques, speed reading etc as a supplementary discipline to my core subject. This interest lead me to study for a diploma in psychotherapy with a specialisation in Eriksonian hypnotherapy - and that in turn informed my magical studies.

I was lucky enough to hang out with Andy Nyman and some of the other UK luminaries in the late 90's and this influence coupled with my growing interest in human potential led me to embrace mentalism. I dipped my toe into the cold reading waters but quickly came up against ethical lines I was unwilling to cross and so concentrated on performance rather than consultancy. I began with strolling and close up sets which I offered during holidays and weekends as a supplementary form of income. In time this lead to drawing room performances although always in a semi-professional capacity.

I lectured to my peers at the Mind Magic convention in London in 2001 and shared my place on the panel with David Berglas, Marc Paul and an emerging Derren Brown that year - which was reason enough for me to take a sabbatical from magic and commit myself to more serious study soon afterwards!!

I also had a change of career and served as a security consultant and bodyguard for a year or so (I have enjoyed a lifelong study of the martial arts and this combined with my background as an educator meant that I was headhunted by a start up company offering training packages to front line operatives in conflict resolution and physical intervention). 2 years ago I returned to education, and to mentalism, refreshed, reinvigorated and have gourged myself on the rich variety of thinkers our artform seems to attract ever since!

I now have a full stage show and have recently broken it in with modest early success. I have no aspirations towards full time performance (I love my day job too much!) but I do hope to contribute to the field and continue to refine and improve my own work in front of lay audiences in the 'real world'. I'd like to think I am an innovator in terms of routining and I recognise that I am very much beginning on what is a long and fascinating road ahead. So that's me - and to reciprocate - here is my opening few lines -

"Ladies and gentlemen - welcome to an evening of mental mastication and sensory stimulation, which is nowhere near as kinky as it sounds but will still, I hope, be a whole lot of fun! I would like to begin by proving to you that each and every person in this room has a 6th sense...and it will take me less than 30 seconds to do so. I'd like you to all close your eyes and now, without opening them again - I'd like you to touch the tip of your nose with your right forefinger...thankyou - notice that none of you has thrust your finger through your orbital socket - and yet what you have just so aptly demonstrated cannot be explained by the 5 senses we are told we possess. This is a 6th sense - the ability to know where your limbs are in space relative to one another. We call this proprioception.

In fact most experts agree that we have between 9 and 27 distinct modes of sensory input and each and every one of them can be refined to an extraordinary degree. Take a good wine taster for example - he can take a sip of burgandy and tell you the exact plot of land that yielded that vintage and the year in which it was bottled. Imagine what might be possible if a human being were able to refine each and every one of their senses to that same degree and along with them, tap into the vast potential of the human mind....ladies and gentlemen I AM....not that man! I am however, an explorer along that path and what I'd like to share with you this evening are a number of games and experiments that I have developed to test my skills and the limits of your senses along the way..."

I then go into a variation of Luke Jermay's 'Rubik' routine by way of a mental warm up for what is to follow.

Andy:

Very nice. And by the way, I love Bobby Bernard. I think he's a genius in magic who doesn't get nearly the acclaim he deserves in North America.

Do you use hypnosis in your stage show?

Ooops. This is taking this thread waaaay off topic.

PM me.

- entity

Will do

Can I thank most of the posters for offering their opinions and arguments in a constructive and thoughtful fashion. While a few flamers and rabble raisers have tried to start a s*** fight, most of us have been adult. I avoided this thread for a couple of days for fear people just becoming rude.

Thanks for proving me wrong

****
I understand and appreciate and allure, the power and the enjoyment believable magic can bring. To see someone apparently REALLY doing the impossible can be life changing. There is not denying this.

However, this power is not without it's cost. To quote a great man (uncle ben) "With great power comes great responsibility" . Most magicians realise that they do not want the responsibility of great power and settle for the next best thing - a brief moment of exhilaration before the audience reminds themselves it's 'only a trick'.

So what is that responsibility.

Using the fast food example from earlier. It is common knowledge that burgers are bad for you. Therefore, a fast food company can not be held responsible for my getting fat. However, if it was found that fast food company MISLEAD or LIED about the health properties of their food, there may be a case. Just as cigarette companies can not be held responsible for NEW smokers but only for OLD smokers who were lied to in the past. (see 'The Insider' for more)

Removing this debate from a theoretical example for a second and let us consider this practical example from my experience:-

An elderly woman has a mentalist perform at a social event. She has always been curious about psychic phenomena and has an 'open mind.' The performer is very good and creates the illusion that he can read minds and predict the future. She is swayed towards visiting a clairvoyant who charges her $300 to talk to her dead husband.

Later she is told that the performer was using illusion to perform and she feels manipulated and lied to. What started as 'entertainment' now has a very real emotional and financial effect on this woman.

She made her own decisions about what she does and does not believe in but she has the right to make that decision without being given falsehoods.

The 'clairvoyant' is at fault here, preying on the poor womans grief and natural sense of loss.

The entertainer did not take $300 from the lady to talk to her dead husband - the 'clairvoyant' did.

Life is tough, sad things happen, bad things happen - we are meant to learn from them.

The fact that most of the entertainers audience did not (I assume) run off to clairvoyants, suggests this was more a result of the ladies grief than her exposure to the entertainment. So watching a certain television show, catching a certain movie, reading a magazine article or her daily horoscope could have all triggered the same response.

She needs friends to help her through her time of grief - not patronising agreement that the blame lies with the entertainer who supposedly planted the seed.

Destiny

In the hypothetical example Nicholas gave I would assume the woman would approach the entertainer first. At that point that performers ethics and beliefs would dictate how he proceeds. That has been my personal experience with people who find a performance believable.

I enjoyed seeing how some of you "set the tone" which is really my preferred way of thinking of disclaimers. Calling it a disclaimer assigns a cause and direction to what you are saying.

My experience also suggests that many magicians underestimate the propensity of an audience to buy in to a believeable performance. Analogies to movies and theatre performances are frequently used but I don't think you can compare the two. The movie sets its own tone by nature of being a movie. Same with theatrical performances. A magic or mentalism act does not have the advantage of a a built in tone.

Just sharing some opinions.

I too was interested in exploring the dichotomy erlandish was setting forth.

I’m torn on the issue. On the one hand, people are responsible for what they tell other people. You can’t yell, “Fire!,” in a crowded theater for a very good reason. If a salesperson lies to you about the history of an automobile, he ought to be held responsible.

On the other hand, belief in the supernatural is absurd and believers place themselves into the precarious positions of being vulnerable to any claim any person makes up that sounds exciting or desirable.

In an interview with Gary Dufresne, Sylvia Browne’s ex husband, Dufresne was asked to comment on one of Sylvia’s books in which she claimed her ex husband was aware of her psychic powers. Dufresne told a story about once asking Sylvia how she could tell people lies when she knew they would believe them. He paraphrased her response as, “Screw ‘em. Anybody who believes this stuff oughtta be taken.”

The problem is that people don’t just believe these things based on one performance from a mentalist or psychic. They are taught absurd notions from the time they’re born. I believe society is lenient on fraudulent mediums because deep down inside people know where questioning the validity of psychics will inevitably lead - to questioning the validity of religion. And I think that’s a direction most people just aren’t willing to go. The fear of the truth unraveling wishful thinking is enough to keep most people at bay.

People seem to live in this bizarre paradoxical balance between magical thinking and what we all really know to be reality. For example; people continue to believe in the power of prayer despite the fact that most people really know it doesn’t work. A scientific study of prayer revealed it to be exactly what one would expect - no more effective than any other charm or wishful imagining. When people get sick, they ask people to pray for them. In the meantime they go to a doctor. If the doctor helps them - or they just get better on their own - they will still attribute it to their chosen or cultural deity. They never think of going to the doctor in the first place as any sort of indication of lack of faith. They rationalize that one can be faithful to a deity while turning to a “lower power.” Or worse; someone will actually practice their faith and refrain from medical care - which usually leads to an early demise.

People who believe mentalists have powers had a predisposition to believe in such powers. I agree that a mentalist bears some responsibility for what he or she says concerning such abilities. But to what extent is the performer responsible? Isn’t there an accomplice who bears no responsibility regarding this issue? Aren’t the churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples; the priests, pastors, imams, and rabbis, responsible for cultivating the absurd paradoxical belief system that allows a mentalist or psychic to convince people he or she possesses such abilities despite the evidence to the contrary?

After all, we’ve all heard the very reasonable assessments of psychics and mentalists; why do you work as an entertainer when you have such abilities?; why do your powers not work under more stringent conditions or conditions which you do not control?

People seem to generally kind of know it’s fake while at the same time they kind of believe it might be real. Who’s fault is that? It may be the mentalist’s fault what he particularly tells his or her audience but who’s fault is it that people come to the parlor prepared to believe it?


Holly

Holly asked: But who’s fault is it that people come to the parlor prepared to believe it?

I would hope it would be mine in part.

-Jim

H.O.A-X

I would never suggest that a performer of believable mentalism should take the blame for what someone believes. Beliefs are seldom the product of one sole factor.

Let us consider this type of belief as a flame. It begins with a spark which is fanned by personal experience, ignorance and deception. The mentalist comes along and adds fuel to the fire helping it build when he could be putting it out or doing nothing.

If you're talking about the "There's no such thing as magic / There's no other explanation" idea, then I deserve no credit -- this is basically a big part of Whit Haydn's current "magic theory", for want of a better way to phrase it. A bunch of us on the Food For Thought forum call it the Haydn Dilemma, and Whit has at times referred to magic as Theatre of the Dilemma. Since that point he's made mention of the concept of there being a Theatre of Charlatanry. The last I read of it, this was an idea still evolving, and I don't want to make any statements about it except that I believe he's implied mentalism falls under that category.

I've also made mistakes trying to summarize Whit's theories before, so I implore you to skip me and go straight to the source for all of this. Read everything you can that he's published or posted here if you want to know more.

thank you, Jim!

...ethics...question of ethics..what the???

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm here by accident, I just clicked a link in an ebook I downloaded from bit torrent site.

Erlandish - no. Your specific labeling of those who believe after you craft a show designed to make them believe. This is the point entity has requested clarity on multiple times. I find it interesting. To put my interest in context I've performed for mentalism & sleight-of-hand 30+ years and have found myself on various sides of the issue at different points.

Whit's opinions I'm well familiar with and tend to find myself in agreement.

Hold on hold on hold on... This is slightly different from my claim. I'm not saying that the ideal show is designed to make them believe. I'm saying that the ideal show gives them a perfect simulation of the way magic (or mentalism, or whatever) would be IF it were real. These are not the same thing, as whatever feats or proofs or convincers I give them are within the dramatic context.

(The above assumes that the main aim of the show isn't something a little bit different, such as being character-based or comedy-based or metaphor-based, or whatever.)

As I said before, if they take what I've given them, use it as a basis for belief, take that belief outside of the show, then I feel they are ignorant, in the classic sense of the definition of that word, because they lack the necessary information to understand what really happened during that show. That necessary information is available all over the place from various sources, and it won't take much research on their part to find proof that people are able to use non-magical means to make something that looks like real magic. Now, on the other hand, if they leave the show with belief, and choose not to educate themselves over it but immediately incorporate it into their world view, that I am capable of real magic, and they willfully remain ignorant in defiance of anybody else saying "Look, it was just a magic show." then yes, I believe they are idiots.

There are convincers all over the place in art, not just magic. The point of those convincers is to give someone the perfect simulation of what's being conveyed. Look at Jurassic Park. The rendering of the CGI is there to make the dinosaurs look like they're really in the room chasing the children. The rendering is NOT there to make the audience believe in dinosaurs.

That's the difference I've been saying all along. If somebody leaves Jurassic Park and genuinely claims "I believe dinosaurs are real, and I don't care what evidence you give me", then they're an idiot. If somebody leaves my show and genuinely claims "I believe Erlandish is capable of real magic, and I don't care what evidence you give me", then they're an idiot. If somebody leaves my show and says, "It's ridiculous to think Erlandish is capable of real magic, but for the life of me I can't explain how else he knew what card I was thinking" THEN I've done my job as a performer, and the spectator has watched the performance in the correct mindset. Some spectators will have it eating away in their brain and try to "catch" me the next time. Some spectators will say "I don't really want to know the secret". These are people who are observing the show with the correct mindset. Someone who leaves the show wanting to build a church in my honour has had a faulty upbringing and needs help, because people like this are in trouble regardless of whether or not they ever go to magic shows.

This is the point I made earlier, and I thought it was clear then, but I guess I was mistaken. I have no idea how to make it any more clear now than I just did.

Wait a second - are you talking about going to Jurassic Park as if you were in the world of the film - or a mock-up one in this world with animatronic beasts?

You see, if you are a character in the film - you'd be an idiot not to believe - as then the velociraptor would be eating your brains out of your skull... (they can open doors, they can make a skull into a soup bowl).

Now, the question is, if a velociraptor used a skull as a chop-cup and made the brain vanish (secretly eating it) - and you believed that made him have infinite supernatural powers... then perhap that might be foolish. On the other hand, if the beastie was performing for people who have no idea of chop cups etc. maybe they might think him a shamanic dinosaur.

Your point is unclear.

This is exactly the distinction I believe performers need to make. If you put on a show that designed to make them believe then you are providing evidence that psychic powers are real. By doing this you are assiting the con artists and the fraudsters. You are telling someone that a street is safe when it is not. They choose to walk down that road and they get mugged!

However, if the dramatic context of your show makes it clear and obvious that this is a PERFORMANCE and an ILLUSION then the audience would be entirely to blame for believing you are the real deal.

Erlandish - How do you make it clear to your audiences that you are faking it?

Forgive me Jim, but I hope it is mine. I have a case of eggs and a lot of curses to remove this weekend. Daddy has bills to pay!

I don't think this is the correct way to look at it. If I take a sponge ball and then split it into two, I have in essence provided evidence that I can manipulate matter. If I ask for someone to think of a number, they do and then say it, and I show that it was written on a card sealed in an envelope, that's evidence that I can predict the future. As a Mystery performer, it's my job to make that evidence as convincing as possible, in order to enhance the mystery. That's why, even though they know I can't make two whole spongeballs from one, I still only let them see one spongeball and nothing else in the hands prior to the effect. Or, even if they know I can't predict the future, I show them that I'm holding nothing but a sealed envelope right before I ask the number. Magic and Mentalism effects essentially are presentations of evidence that show magic or mental powers are in play. To get better effects, we need better evidence.

Mind you, even considering all that, the best evidence a performer can offer is still not GREAT evidence, because it's not done under the tightest conditions and scientific scrutiny. Why is it not done under those conditions? Because it's during a FREAKING SHOW. If I had real powers, and I wanted people to know about it and believe it, I'd offer legitimate proof outside the dramatic context. Sure, we play a little kayfabe with the audience outside the dramatic context, perhaps, doing an effect if someone asks and there's no show going on, but ultimately that's for the show's benefit. Somebody looking to scam somebody when a show isn't going on? I'm sorry, but that's not my responsibility.

Here, how about this. You and I are best friends. A man who looks and talks like me comes over to your house and asks to borrow $500. He takes off and of course you never get paid back. In this situation, who is to blame? I might feel terrible for you, but personally, I don't feel I'm to blame. The same logic applies here. If I do a show and I give evidence of psychic powers, and then somebody leaves the show, and somebody else comes up to him and scams him somehow out of $500 through false displays of psychic powers, who is to blame?



I don't. If I'm in a show, then it's showtime. I would rather play to the crowd that understands how to watch my show. Those people who I described as idiots earlier? Not my responsibility. I'm not about to ruin the illusion I'm putting on for those who "get it" just to coddle those who don't.

And one other thing... I have no trouble sleeping at night.

If the guy is doing his shows for more then just entertainment, then I begin to question. If he's doing his shows to get people to fallow him, worship him and take their money in the pursuit of false hope THEN I have a problem. Otherwise, let him do his thing.