Well, in the case of Uri Geller and Derren Brown, what happened is that they became multi millionairs.

Laurent, I asked you about your work. Discussing this from the outside, cherry picking cases, is not the most efficient way to address this issue. Presuming you perform for people and notice your audiences - what happened when they did believe you even for a moment? What do you imagine would happen if they continued to believe you?

When a fellow says “Can playing cards be manipulated? Well yes!” and as he says it, demonstrates, what seems to be impossible. Then the fellows audience are pretty convinced its not achieved by magic power. What they are convinced of, is that the seemingly impossible can be achieved by manipulation. Manipulation so good they can not see it. They know that because its just been proven to them. It’s a pretty simple thing for an adult to conceive of, it seems to me. They understand the concept explained to them but they might call it magic. What ever they call it, in these circumstances, they do not think in terms of mystical magic power being the cause. There is the difference between what Jay calls a Card Artist and a Magician.

A magician on the other hand nurtures the fanciful notion of magic power. He does not mention manipulation, far from it, he avoids that subject. Instead he nurtures the notion of magic power by using magic words and gestures etc. He lulls them into thinking about magic power. He creates a lets pretend atmosphere of magic. That’s good when its done well, but in my opinion, some go a bit silly with it and become cheesy. And also the Card Artist can be bad by acting cleaver. But I am drifting from the point with that. The point is, well what I have explained already. I am trying to explain where and why I disagree with you Ken.

I think that, to illustrate your point the Open Travelers or Invisible Palm is a great effect.
The effect includes the admission that cards can be manipulated but demonstrates that cards can be palmed totally "invisibly" by magic. It's not a matter of skill for the spectator (who doesn't believe that the hand under his nose can fully hide a card under these conditions) its a subtle self denying demonstration that the trick is done by skill leaving only "magic" as a solution and canceling out the skill that it claims to use. A great plot: we owe gratitude to Mr Larry Jennings.

Laurent, this sort of thing is something I played around with recently: in the context of an ambitious card routine, do I want tell them that the card teleports to the top of the deck through magic? Or do I want to tell them that I'm showing them a forbidden technique at cheating which allows me to control the card invisibly to the top of the deck, without any perceptible motion?

I've played with both presentations, and to my surprise, the audience impact is the same. HOWEVER, the believable explanation allows them to sleep a little better at night. The magical explanation tends to make them not want to think about how it's done. However, the sleight of hand, card cheat explanation tends to captivate their imagination (lay people will ask to borrow my deck of cards, and play around with it, seeing if its even possible to move a card from the center to the top of the deck without appearing to do anything. Most will fumble, then immediately hand me the deck)

Some people above also mentioned congruency, and I think that is very important: I don't play a lot of card games, nor do I advertise myself as a card shark, therefore, it may seem out of character to go with the card cheat presentation. So in a sense, even though it seems more believable, it is actually less believable given my present performing character. Another way to look at it.

Evikshin

Evik
You are raising an interesting point which is largely debated and touches two layers of the discussion that often get confused

A demonstration of skill at gambling and cheating is interesting to people (it touches emotions like greed, fear...)

A demonstration of magic is also interesting but touches another part of psychology (what is stated as true and confirmed by personal experience: cognition, perception, knowledge)

The second category presents effects which, from accepted knowledge and personal experience, result from causes that cannot possibly produce such an effect, and the cause, for lack of better word is called magic.

The first one being admittedly resulting from specific performer's skills is unarguably attractive but it doesn't result from magic and is therefore, in essence not a magic effect.

The second category places the people in a dilemma (resulting from a cognitive dissonance) between what they know and what was just proven to them with admittedly flawed proofs but which spectators could not refute. This is unsettling and entertainment capacity is needed to keep it attractive and triggers a need to "know". This is a very deep impulse with human beings which is symbolically expressed as the original sin which drove us to be kicked out of the garden of Eden [which the Genesis describes as being located in today's Irak, so maybe it was a minor damage].

The first category, under the pretense of self protection and safety (but the most efficient protection still is to avoid gambling for money), triggers a secret desire to earn money without efforts and to exercise a domination over the other players, even at the cost of being dishonest provided this remains secret: the social rewards of power and money.

One concerns a deep urge the other one a superficial image, but the illustration of either dream come true supplies a form of enjoyment.

The problem is the proximity between skill and magic. There is nothing wrong to be a juggler, an acrobat, an actor and some of them are definitely worthy of admiration, but, for some reason, performers using cheating skills insist in calling it "magic". Maybe if we would find another term as charlatan or if charlatan was carrying a positive image, the problem would be solved. After all pick pocketing artists are proud of their skills and they don't claim doing magic, even if wome magicians delve in performing this sort of feat in between magic trick.

As a magician, I feel offended when people tell me that they would hate to play cards with me or if they mockingly put their hands on their wallets, to which I answer that I don't gamble because I'm bad at it and that I'm not a thieve and therefore don't steal wallets.

It should not have escaped card people that lots of them perform routines of magician vs gambler where generally the magician wins (maybe there is a reason behind this "wiseness of crowds")

I believe that the image of magic has to be protected in our performances. Now again there is a market, as Evik could feel, to sell the entertainment of showing people how to protect themselves against pick pockets and cheats. It should just avoid blurring the image of magic (in my strong opinion).

On the theme of believability, is there a good book which discusses how to increase believability in magic or mentalism?

Regards,
Mike

With all the experience wisdom on this thread, I hope I'm not speaking over my head, but here goes. Fresh on my mind is a wonderful book I've just finished reading. In "Strong Magic" by Darwin Ortiz, the author discusses "Intelletual vs. Emotional" Belief.

When we go to the movies we (Intelletually)know that toys are not really alive. Yet we become emotionally invested (even moved) by their outlandish exploits. We are made to care about and sympathize with what we know to be inanamate objects. It is the art we are moved by. Presented by a master story teller.

I suppose if one is able to emotionally engage the audience, it probably does not matter whether the performer is a card shark, a renaissance player or a wide-eyed tour guide of wonder. As long as the audience cares, they will go along for the ride and during that time (emotionally) accept any explinations no matter how outragous. Provided the presentation and "explinations" are carefully crafted and consistent.

I think it should be belevable within the terms of your reference. E.G. If you 'sell' yourself as a mind reader you can read minds, If you sell yourself as a mad scientist then you can perform scintific 'magic' and so on.