Jim, you completely missed the meaning of my post. And you’ve led others astray with your false understanding. But it’s nice to know you take responsibility for it.


Holly

I wish to very, very gently add my thoughts here. This thread has been extremely cordial, a rare thing considering the subject. I have been avoiding these types of discussions but this is overall quite a pleasant thread.

So, my thoughts...

With due respect to those who say they are creating illusion...

If not for the belief in the supernatural you are just another magician. If you do a good job on stage no disclaimer will change people's minds that you have done something psychic.

A friend recently told me of doing the Invisible Deck and having a woman deeply concerned that he had "evil" powers. No amount of persuasion could change her mind. Once she had seen the Invisible Deck then all his other tricks fell into the same category for her, including Professor's Nightmare.

She isn't as extreme as one might think. Various studies have suggested that at least 80% of people believe in this possibility. A disclaimer is not going to change that. The subsequent show, disclaimer or not, will increase their belief.

Most people start with this belief.

In my younger, skeptic years I used a stock reading. It was from the Mental Mysteries of William Larsen Sr. (if I remember the name correctly). It was the reading in that book that starts talking about humble beginnings and then goes on to talk about their life being lived in seven cycles.

Though the other stock readings in that book had little impact when I used them, this one worked very well. When I challenged Randi I was thinking this is the stock reading I would like to go up against as it would be a very good challenge (the Randi challenge is for illustration only, please lets not get sidetracked by this).

I remember one reading with a woman using this stock reading. After one use, with the woman completely amazed, I tried to tell her it was a stock reading and just used psychology. She refused to believe it. I showed her the reading in the book.

She got very, very angry with me. The disclaimer, including full exposure, did nothing to change belief.

This attachment to belief is true of all...in this case I will include the groups of skeptics and believers.

Skeptics will see in my post things that prove what they believe...believers will see my "growth" as a person and will be reaffirmed by that.

The late Robert Anton Wilson said, "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves". In other words your beliefs determine your logic, not the other way around.

There was an interesting MRI study done comparing Republicans and Democrats. Their brain patterns were compared when exposed to various images. The one that concerns us here is one where they reacted the same.

When a person saw a candidate they liked their emotion centers kicked in. When they saw a candidate they didn't like their logic centers kicked in.

I suspect this is true also for skeptics and believers.

Whether the belief in psychic powers is 80% or some other specific number it doesn't really matter...I think all would agree the belief is high.

The result of that is when you do a psychic show the vast majority watching you will increase their belief in the psychic. Disclaimers will be ignored no matter how honestly or cleverly worded.

So, to the ethical part...I don't think I can answer this except to say be sure you understand the effect you have when you do a psychic show. You will increase belief in the supernatural for the majority of your audience who come with the belief. For those who don't believe the disclaimer will strengthen their belief.

Both sets of believers will have their world view reaffirmed and will see your show as proof that what they believe is true.

If you are OK with that then you should be fine ethically.

I might add a technical correction.

After going to bed I realized the study could not have used MRI, but had to have used PET scans.

It is late.

I don't think you can split people in such simple groups. People do not 'believe' or 'not believe'. These are only the most extreme ends of the spectrum. There exists areas of grey in the middle. People with 'open minds' or a 'spiritual side'. People who might read a horoscope for 'fun'. I am sure you can find a tribe of pygmies who would see sponge balls as evidence of witchcraft and if I ever meet such a person, I won't do sponges for them.

A believable presentation of psychic powers muddies the water of what is very real problem.

Sure, your centre tear and your little newspaper prediction are just a little diversion and a bit of fun and are no real concern. But they add fuel to a very real and dangerous fire.

Accoding to my pal, Vladimir the Velocirpator, champion chop-cup mystery reptile, the stud likely used a functional MRI (i.e. a PET and MRI together so the PET's readings of the functions could be even more precicely linked to specific areas of the brain via the concurrent MRI for super-mapping)

Aside: everyone believes in magic to a certain degree - hence why mystery is in our lives and we also have small habits, supersitions, religions, spirtuality, to frank psychosis... I actually have ways to demo this but I need to publish it first - but it is my lead into doing mentalism and magic - by getting people to realize and accept this fact - it also leads well into gambling demos... and problem gambling is rife with magical thinking

The purpose of a disclaimer is not to change people's beliefs that they held before they came to your show. It is to set the context of your specific show as theater, so as not to contribute new false beliefs. A disclaimer is just one way to do that.

Nicholas: If the show is placed into a theatrical context (however that is done), the things you mention are no more dangerous or concerning than any other theatrical presentation.

MOTA: Disclaimers can work. You misunderstand their purpose.

- entity

Someone just steered me to this thread. I have nothing to add other than this: Erlandish, I very much appreciate all your thoughts and the time you've taken to express them here. They are very helpful to me.

I, too, have been thinking along similar lines (and have already expressed them in the Food For Thought forum). It all boils down, I think, to what your job is as a magician.

I once saw Anthony Zerba order the death of a man while on stage at the Old Globe Theatre in San Diego California, in front of several hundred wittnesses.

Do you think it's ethical for him to creat the illusion that he was Richard the III when in fact he was an actorm or should we let him off the hook?

Same principle involved here I suspect.

Not a question of ethic, IMO, inasmuch as stage presentation.

It didn't seem to be a question of ethics with Harlan Tarbell either.

"Do you think it is ethical for him to create the illusion of having actual paranormal abilities that he does not have?"

Yes.

"Does the fact he never claims he has the powers let him off the hook?"

Hook ? What hook ? Who's hook ? From the very first post on this thread, the whole concept behind it's suggestion reads like the start of a an inquisition. Read Tarbell, Corrinda, and T.A. Waters . Or better yet, write to Max Maven and ask him what he thinks of the above "questions". He will respond.
One would think that everyone performimg magical/theatrical arts should be that effective.

Thank you John!

I believe there should always be a disclaimer. It can be put in a classy way. Ie... "What you are about to witness this evening (or today, or right now) is based on my abilties of influence and my preception". I think it is very irresponsible to claim that you can do something that you really can't. As mentalist I think it is our basic responsibility to make people think and wonder how things are done. Not to scare them that we are superior to them. Just my thought though.

Thank you Tony, for thanking John. And John, I thank you too! Enough with the guilt and hand-wringing, already. There's nothing I enjoy more than meeting someone who has a pre-conception of magic's "cheese" factor; they challengingly (and condescendingly) say, "I hear you do magic"...show me a trick", after which I'll cold read, NW, PW, etc., and blow their mind.

I'm PROUD of the fact that after a lifetime of thinking magicians are "lesser-than", I've now made them question their own belief system. They cannot explain or wrap their head around what they've just witnessed. Often, I'll do a simple effect first, and they'll say something like, "Well, I guess everyone picks the number two, right?", rationalizing what they've seen as probability. They have to. And I'll just shrug my shoulders! But then... I'll move on to things I couldn't possibly KNOW, not just things I couldn't possibly DO.

When it all ends with the (sometimes a bit shaken) skeptic saying, "I...I've never seen anything like that", I feel my work is done. And when they ask me how I am able to do these things, I do not offer a disclaimer. I merely state the truth- "I read a lot of books, and have found I have some talent at this stuff. In fact, the more I do it, the more on-target I get." Every word of that is true, and it is open to interpretation-- but that is all I'll give them. And as someone mentioned earlier, I sleep just fine.

For Pete's sake, this is a big reason why I made the transition from magic to mentalism. To entertain people in a way they've never been entertained before- and leave them THINKING and WONDERING. If I make it a point to tell them it's "entertainment", or merely a "trick", they will immediately dismiss it as such, and never think of the effect I've shown them again. In addition to what I've shown them, I MYSELF have become forgettable, as opposed to showing them something mysterious they may well remember the rest of their lives. A "moment" that will be etched on their memory. To me, it's a no-brainer.

Amen!

AJ

Gabelson, I think I just learned an incredibly valuable lesson from your last post about the essence of why I am myself making the transition from magic to mentalism. It's fascinating when someone else clearly puts into words something that resonates. Thank you!

Yes, thank you Gabe. And thank you Tony.

Thanks MrX, John. I have been reflecting a lot on this particular subject lately, after reading all the threads about ethics in mentalism. I've come to terms with the fact that presenting mentalism WITHOUT a disclaimer, but also without a CLAIM of powers, is the route to take-- at least for me. I believe in being purposely vague. I don't lie, but I also don't claim that what I'm doing is a trick, or even "entertainment". I just show them something straight-out; I simply perform the effect and let it speak for itself. I leave them WITH SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. How long after a regular magic show will a spectator wonder, "How the heck did he make those bunnies multiply?" He'll probably forget before he reaches his car. But perform PK Touches, or MOAB, and I guarantee you'll have them talking.

Even if the spectator reflects on how a mentalism effect COULD have been achieved, and gets it head-on (a NW, for instance), it has inspired them to THINK, and they feel GOOD having figured it out. Or believing they have figured it out. It's an attempt, on their part, to solve a mental puzzle. People love solving puzzles. It's very affirming. Linking rings won't make them reflect, or try to deconstruct what they've witnessed in any sort of philosophical manner. If that sounds elitist, I don't mean it to be. But it is the reason, as I mentioned earlier, that I made the transition to mentalism. It's thought-provoking. It takes people outside their comfort zone, to a place that perhaps they have never visited. It makes people THINK- something of which many Americans do far too little, as we are increasingly inundated by mindless media, rather than media of the mind. Mentalism can make even the biggest skeptic believe in magic. And isn't that why we do this?

Gabe


I understand what you are saying and agree that for some it may be the right approach. But I have to be honest with myself, and will not hide my abilities. I may understate them, but I will not claim they don't exist by statement or omission.


Tony Iacoviello

Tony, I understand what you are saying, as well, and I just spoke about what works for me, personally. I agree that we must be honest with ourselves (and others); however I don't believe that by not making ANY claims we are being deceitful. When someone presses me on how I've learned to do "this", I state, "I have read a lot of books on psychology, influence, memory techniques, body language, and readings, and I continue to get better at it." Every word of that is true. Unfortunately, I'm not geting better as quickly as I'd like!

Do not try - do! Or do not.


(Ehhhhh.... You will be.... YOU WILL BE)