|
|
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Hi Folks,
A couple of days ago I started doing a survey looking at how interested spectators are in knowing how magic tricks were done, and how many people ever tried to look up how they were done. It’s hardly a rigorous and professional study , but offers some interesting indications and might encourage further, more serious research (if anyone is interested enough and has the money/time). This sort of stuff is probably of far more interest to hobbyists and those do magic socially than to working pros, but some here might be interested in participating. I've been able to get a few hundred responses from my workplace, which has already made it valuable to me personally given these are mostly the people I perform for, but to make the info more useful to others I'll need to get a few thousand responses rather than a few hundred - and although I could probably do that over a year, I don't want to wait that long. Already the responses have challenged me to re-think my approach to magic The survey is super-short and asks only three questions with multiple-choice answers (a limitation of the format, but it encourages more people to respond since it only takes about 30seconds): http://surveynuts.com/surveys/take?id=13......3941JHJR It’s aimed at non-magi, so if you want to get involved the idea is to pass it on to your friends, colleagues and families, and to upload it to social media, e-mail it to others, etc. You can also share it with other magicians or at any magic groups/you belong and ask others to do the same. I’ll be happy to share my findings in a few weeks’ time when I’ve got more responses. |
|||||||||
WitchDocChris Inner circle York, PA 2614 Posts |
Ha. As I suspected, your survey questions taint your data. The questions are phrased in such a way that it presupposes the answers are going to agree with you.
Christopher
Witch Doctor Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4 Boffo eBook: https://tinyurl.com/387sxkcd |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
How so?
I really tried to just ask plain questions with no agenda, and no one has commented upon the questions so far. |
|||||||||
WitchDocChris Inner circle York, PA 2614 Posts |
Of course no one has commented on the questions. Only someone who knew what you were trying to do could see how you're skewing your own data by specifically orienting the survey around being fooled. They're not neutral questions at all.
Let's break it down - first question, "Are you interested in knowing how it's done?" - Well, even if they weren't before, they are now, because your wording has made them focus on the fact that there's a method. Even if they felt a magical experience at the time, your question is now specifically asking if they'd like to know how it was done. That's not the same thing as being focused on method at the time of performance. Therefore, they could well have had a magical experience at the time and never thought about even the possibility of a method until you asked them if they wanted to know how it's done. Second question is pretty irrelevant, really. You're not controlling for ... well, anything. The data from magicians would throw this off completely, for example. The third question is meaningless because "magical" is an ambiguous term with no general consensus definition. Ask a hundred people what "magical" is and you'll probably get at least 70 distinct definitions. Focusing the question around the term "fools" is also problematic in that even that is not defined among laymen. Is someone fooled if they only have an idea of how something is done? If someone fooled if they only think they know how it's done? Is someone fooled if they catch one bit, but don't know how any of the rest is done? Is someone fooled if they know there must be a method, but are entertained enough it's never occurred to them to worry about it? The problem is that you're trying to use numbers to define, for yourself, something that is inherently subjective.
Christopher
Witch Doctor Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4 Boffo eBook: https://tinyurl.com/387sxkcd |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Not to mention ALL the problems inherent in not knowing which show they have seen, how you perceived their experience and when it was that they had this experience. It is an absolutely pointless endeavor to go about like this.
But don't worry. He is getting "data" so he is happy.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Chris, I don't agree with your analysis at all.
The first survey question is, "After seeing a magic trick, whether on TV or in person, are you interested in knowing how it was done?". You'll notice the ordinary phraseology and, as you incorrectly quoted, the past tense - which goes against your first point that I have somehow only now directed them to a method they weren't thinking about. Additionally, the idea that adults don't know that there is some method behind magic tricks is laughable. And, more importantly, in the face to face interactions I had with people when asking this survey question it was very clear that they weren't being encouraged 'only now' to think that tricks had methods but rather they volunteered additional information regarding their habits of mind when watching magic. Thus your contention that they only 'ever thought about even the possibility of a method until you asked them if they wanted to know how it's done.' has to be false. In order to test the hypothesis: 'Most people are interested in how magic tricks are done', this survey question was just fine. If you can think of a better one then please I'd like to hear it. And, even more, I'd be interested in seeing your survey results using your own question wording. Two surveys are clearly better than one, and some meta-analysis can be done with them. We could even co-jointly work on a third at a later time developing the wording in conjunction with some sociologists I know. That would be a constructive way forward if you insist that my initial wording is so deeply flawed. The second question was, 'Do you ever try to find out how a magic trick was done, by using the Internet or something?'. I fail to see how, if I want to know how often or what percentage of people looked up magic methods, this is irrelevant. It is clearly relevant if I want to know how likely it is that someone in my audience has, or will have, attempted to find out how a trick is done! Besides that bizzare claim of irrelevance, I agree that if there was a large number of magicians responding then it would affect the results. However at present I'm very confident that hardly any magicians have responded. The vast majority of respondents are lay people (I directly did most of the surveying to date), and even after posting it here and elsewhere online (which at most had produced only two dozens extra responses) you'll notice that I gave instructions that it was to be distributed to lay people. The magicians who I've spoken to about this survey have clearly understood those instructions and followed them accordingly. Even if a handful of hobbyist magi responded I wouldn't consider that any form of contamination since a tiny percentage of audiences would indeed be magi anyway, thus it would be a more accurate reflection of our true spectator make-up. Additionally, asking about whether or not people actively seek information on methods is a good way to expand upon the first question - it allows us to consider the seriousness with which someone 'wants to know how a trick was done.' Thus I cannot agree with your accusation that this is irrelevant or flawed. But, again, I'm happy for you to do a survey of your own with your own preffered wording and for us to analyse the two sets of results and then work on a third survey jointly. The third question was, 'Which is more 'magical' for you, watching a trick that fools you, or a trick where you know how its done?' And your point was the semantic one regarding the term 'magical'. Well, I agree that the term (which, you'll note, I put in scare-quotes to highlight its awkwardness) is open to multiple definitions, but I think the general public isn't stupid, and therefore in the context of a survey about magic tricks is fairly competent in understanding what the term 'magical' means - even if there would be variation in the exact definitions they would give. The word has enough shared semantic content to be meaningful, and I haven't had any person question the wording or ask for further definition - it seems this is only a problem for magicians over-thinking lexical nuances and isn't a 'real-world' problem. But, again, I'm open to seeing the results of your survey so we can contrsuctively create more useful information for the magic society. Your final point is something we've disagreed about before. I think it eminently sensible and proper to gather empirical data on such an issue as, 'how many people try to find out magic methods online or elsewhere?' Although the experience of magic is, I agree, subjective, the numbers regarding how many people seek info, or how many people report an interest in how magic is done, is objective. It is no more meaningless to try and quantify how many people ina audience might be interested in knowing how a trick which fools them is done than it is meaningless for branding executives to survey which packaging is preferred by the public - beauty is subjective, the branding surveys provide objective data. I'm not sure what about this survey offends or scares or upsets you, but I'm more than willing to work with you on constructing a third improved survey after this one and your own have run their course and the results been analysed and presented to the community. I hope the search for knowledge is a noble pursuit in and of itself regardless of any hiccups along the way, and I'm optimistic that even less than perfect studies can still yield some interesting and illuminating findings for people to consider. |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Danny, before I set up this up, I asked for your input into it, asked what questions you had used in your own surveys, and asked you to share the survey and research data you alreay had. You declined. It seems unfair to criticise afterwards when you had a chance to provide constructive input beforehand.
|
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
I think I'd like the input of other voices on this.
Are people here interested in the results of this survey, flawed as it may be? Should I continue with it? If not, then no worries - I have personally found it very useful already as I explained in the OP But if people think I've messed it up, or aren't interested in the results, then I'll halt it now and save myself some further effort. |
|||||||||
WitchDocChris Inner circle York, PA 2614 Posts |
Offends, scares, or upsets me? You're absurd. It's completely irrelevant to me.
I actively gather feedback - both directly from audience members, and covertly. I also have long conversations with people who have seen my show and who's opinion I trust. I know I'm meeting my goals. I know what people are experiencing from my shows, and I keep getting hired to do more. As I said before, nothing you derive from these flawed surveys will change my art. Perhaps it will inspire you to start creating some, though?
Christopher
Witch Doctor Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4 Boffo eBook: https://tinyurl.com/387sxkcd |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Oh, ok, if it's completely irrelevant I'm guessing you aren't going to do your own or help me with a third?
And why so hostile? |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
What exactly entities you to my companies work product? What entitles you to see ANYTHING we produce? You don't listen, you just look to validate your own opinion and giving you ANY information is just never going to happen.
You are as Chris said absurd. I laugh when people say things like "we can agree to disagree". How silly. Galileo and the Pope could agree to disagree if they wanted. It didn't make one any less wrong. Try actually performing. It is a great way to get feedback.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
When you say, 'performing' - do you mean as a full-time pro? I asked you to clarify this in the last thread and you failed to respond. .???
Again, I'll wait to hear other voices on this - I think I get Danny and Chris' point of view clear enough, lol Are people here interested in the results of this survey, flawed as it may be? Should I continue with it? If not, then no worries - I have personally found it very useful already as I explained in the OP. But if people think I've messed it up, or aren't interested in the results, then I'll halt it now and save myself some further effort. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
How did you design your survey?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
I didn't. Just thought of some questions off the top of my head that went straight to the heart of what I wanted to know, ie are people generally interested in how magic tricks are done; do they look for methods online or elsewhere; do they find being fooled more magical than not being fooled.
As I said in the OP, this is hardly a rigorous study . But I've found the study a useful learning experience and have been a little surprised by the results so far, and am happy to have more of a handle on my typical audiences, and am thinking about how to adjust my magic accordingly. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
The ironic part is if you just stop talking and just listen no survey would be necessary. Your problem is you think you know.
Again like every great chef must eventually cook at least one edible meal, you need to actually perform to get to the heat of this. You never will by surveys and thinking you know. You will constantly end up looking and never finding.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Danny:
Sorry, I listen (even when my interlocutors are very rude), but I simply disagree, because my own experiences are quite different. Because the disagreement existed I sought to double check whether my opinion was valid with some simple data. It seems simple enough: I think X, someone else thinks Y, I run a simple test to see who is right. Very clear, IMHO - and nothing worth anyone getting worked up over! I really don't see why simply having a different opinion creates so much personal animosity! Regarding the constant performing thing you harp on about, I'm really curious as to what you mean. Obviously I perform in the sense of doing tricks etc for people, and this experience and feedback is exactly the cause of my opinion to begin with (!), but since you clearly know this, I can only think that you mean to keep pointing out that I'm not a professional. But I really can't see why that matters, and I've asked you repeatedly to clarify what you mean by constantly saying I don't perform. At this point I just think that this is your rather odd idea of a put-down - that somehow if someone doesn't perform as a professional magician then that's a cause for mockery. I really don't know how to respond to such a weird and infantile insult, lol I also find it odd that you think that if I listened to you then empirical studies are moot. That's some ego, lol . Yes, all research is pointless - just listen to the great Danny Doyle. I can see why your Facebook tag line is, 'Danny Doyle, He's Great - Shut Up!' . I mean what kind of egoist has to have that as their own moniker! https://www.facebook.com/DANNYDOYLEHESGREATSHUTUP/ And you say I'm the arrogant one! . |
|||||||||
WitchDocChris Inner circle York, PA 2614 Posts |
Quote:
On May 30, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote: The fact that you're even asking me that only proves how little you've actually been processing what I've been saying. I don't need or want your data. I have no need or want to convince you or anyone else of anything. I have expressed my opinions and experience, thoroughly, and I'm done. I don't come to the Café for validation. I come here to kill time, see what people are talking about, and share my experiences if I think they may help someone. You have said yourself that you do "tricks". You have also said, in another thread, that you are not very good at sleight of hand. These things, combined with your other posts, tell me that you are approaching the performance of magic as a trickster. You are looking to fool people, and your entire model of magic seems to be centered around the secret. This is why you can't understand what we're trying to tell you. I do not mean you have to perform professionally to understand this. When it comes to being a professional, the ability to sell the show is far more important than how magical or not the show is. The show doesn't even have to be all that good, really; the performer just has to be able to convince people it is worth paying for. That's just a (sad) truth about show business. I do think you need to perform regularly, and you have to do so with the specific intention of creating a magical experience with that performance. You need regular performances so that you can keep your chops up, and you have to have the specific intention so that you can figure out what needs to be tweaked and honed to create the desired result. Good luck. I hope one day you figure out what your version of art is (because everyone's version is personal) and are able to create something magical.
Christopher
Witch Doctor Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4 Boffo eBook: https://tinyurl.com/387sxkcd |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
This does show your "research" skills are just abysmal.
The "he's great shut up" is part of a HYPNOSIS SHOW. See the way it works is every time I say my name someone jumps up and shouts "HE'S GREAT" and then when the next person hears that they jump up and shout "HEY SHUT UP". IT IS THE SHOW! Now here is how this works, simply because you don't bother to figure it out and think you have something clever on me. I say my name, they shout and this goes on and on. For about 5 minutes as the finale of a hypnosis show as post hypnotic suggestions. Want to know what the effect of this actually is? After 20 years of not seeing me people REMEMBER MY NAME! So when people see my show and go to find me at the end the wrap up of how to follow me on Facebook is simply to tell them Danny Doyle, He's great shut up and guess what? IT IS EASY TO FIND. See IF YOU ACTUALLY PERFORMED you would understand these things. But since you do nothing but pontificate and bloviate about this stuff you don't know. YOU THINK YOU KNOW and believe me you are WAY out of your depth. In other words you are the arrogant one yes. So go ahead. Try to do more opposition research and think you "got me" in some way. Go on. We all know the next step in the process. It is always the same. It somehow NEVER involves learning. https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserRevi......ula.html https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserRevi......rta.html See when they mention it has been many years they mean they remember my name. Go figure. See I am not on a form at the resort. I am part of the "included entertainment", yet they REMEMBER my name. I wonder why that is? See it is good business to get people to remember you, not what you do. But you don't need to worry about that. Like I said you are WAY out of your depth here. And before you say it, here is a review from last week. https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserRevi......ula.html 5th or 6th one down. Yep they remember my name. They go spend ten grand on an all inclusive luxury vacation, they mention my name. Go figure. Wonder why they remember it? Not about ego, not about anything but business. I wonder what "impression" they were left with? No never mind your little 3 question survey is the way to get to it. And nobody is worked up over anything. Please stop that silly ploy. There is a vast difference in "doing tricks" and performing.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Witch doc:
I don't consider myself as adopting any particular role, 'trickster' or whatever, when I perform - I just do magic tricks because people enjoy them and I enjoy sharing what I think is fun and cool. We all just have fun. It's nothing particularly artistic, but I can't honestly say it's all about the secret either. Often I enjoy just doing bar betchas or gag tricks too. So I don't think you've read me very well here, tbh. I also don't see how any of what you posted has anything to do with what you chose to argue with me about? Our sole disagreement was about whether or not people consider being fooled a key part of magic, and whether or not people generally wanted to know how magic tricks that fooled them were done. Other than that I have no disagreement with you, other than the rather arrogant tone you've chosen to adopt with me. Yes, I agree I need to perform more. I probably perform for a few hundred people a year and I could do with making that a few thousand. Fortunately, I have the opportunity to do that and I just need the motivation. Oh, and I enjoyed your podcast with gingerosity too . Though I'm suprised you reckon anyone can master Chicago Opener in 30 seconds from YouTube. |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Danny:
Man you're defensive! Did you not read the obvious sarcasm and light-hearted joshing in my post about your catch phrase. The woman doth protest too much, methinks The first hit when I put your name into google was actually this one where people on genii wondered who you were and then linked to your financial scandals: http://forums.geniimagazine.com/viewtopic.php?t=46830 Now that we've put aside your ego for the moment, can you answer my repeated question about what you mean when you keep telling me to perform? Are you dismissing the opinion of anyone who isn't a full time pro, or is this just a clutching at straws insult you felt fit to throw my way? Or do you actually believe that unless someone performs for money they are somehow inferior to you? And doyou think that listening to your opinion is better than data? I really do think you're acting from a highly defensive and egoistical mindset, and it's a little worrying tbh. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Survey you might want to help with (19 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < |