I'm just curious if anybody knows of any effects that make you look smart,
(eg: magic square)
thanks,
-Alfie
(eg: magic square)
thanks,
-Alfie
Effects that make you look smart
- Thread starter Alfie Whattam
- Start date
It's still the presentation that creates the desired response in the audience, not the trick. You could do Poker Player's Picnic and with the right presentation, make it look like you're incredibly smart.
I understand that, however there are some effects which make you look intelligent just by the premise itself (eg: magic square).
any others?
preferably not with cards.
any others?
preferably not with cards.
I have some misgivings about this, and I'll illustrate why through (what else?) movies. Compare David Cronenberg's remake of The Fly with Uwe Bohl's Alone in the Dark. Compare Jeff Goldblum playing a revolutionary inventor with Tara Reid attempting to portray a scientist. Jeff actually looks, talks and acts like someone who could be a scientific genius. He's obviously a very well-educated and intelligent man in real life. Tara Reid on the other hand can't even pronounce Chile correctly.
Intelligence is not something you can fake. Trust me, I've known enough libertarians to know this is true.
You want to look smart? First, actually be smart. Then actually work your knowledge into the act. Know a little about a lot and most of the work is already done.
Intelligence is not something you can fake. Trust me, I've known enough libertarians to know this is true.
You want to look smart? First, actually be smart. Then actually work your knowledge into the act. Know a little about a lot and most of the work is already done.
I understand what your saying however as magician's it's out job to lie - in one way or another.
And faking intelligence is one way to do this.
Does anybody have any real answers that directly answer my question,
thankyou
Christopher gave you the best answer already. It is in your presentation. There are plenty of tricks out there that allow for this kind of presentation, just be creative. Do you want something that is a hint of knowledge, or a full routine around how smart you are? Also, I am just wondering, why?
try Con cam coincidence, can be found at dananddave.com and Shuffle Lesson in The Art of Astonishment dvds by Paul Harris (you can see Wayne Houchin perform this effect on his youtube channel)
before doing any card tricks, let the audience have a good impression by having some mind reading effects. There are tons out there.
before doing any card tricks, let the audience have a good impression by having some mind reading effects. There are tons out there.
If you knew enough to be able to appear to be smart, you probably wouldn't have to ask this question.
You may not like our answers because we're not spoon feeding you, but Steer and I are giving you the answer that actually answers your question.
It's not the trick, it's how you present it. The way you talk, the words you use, the way you stand and present yourself. What kind of smart are you even going for? Nerdy smart? Suave smart? Sheldon Cooper? Leonard Hofstader? The Doctor? Mad scientist? Nutty Professor?
What are you actually trying to accomplish?
Let me break it down more, and I'll even include some tricks this time.
Book Test. Present it as knowing every book in the entire library. Or maybe present it as the ability to read a book in moments and know the entire thing. Maybe you know the book to a mathematical degree where you can tell by how many pages they've flipped and the positioning of their head which word they are looking at.
PATEO Force. Present it as knowing human psychology so well you know what they'll end up picking. Present it as knowing behavior so well you know how to guide it to choose what you want them to. Present it as just knowing everything so you already knew what they'd choose. Present it as a mathematics thing where there's X percentage they'll take X, Y or Z object.
Russian Roulette, but use Acid instead of a knife/pointy thing. Claim to have created the acid. Use all the previous claims on behavior, psychology or statistics.
Rope Magic. Talk about String Theory but don't sound boring.
As I understand it, you've got a lot of performance time under your belt. You should understand what we're saying here.
You may not like our answers because we're not spoon feeding you, but Steer and I are giving you the answer that actually answers your question.
It's not the trick, it's how you present it. The way you talk, the words you use, the way you stand and present yourself. What kind of smart are you even going for? Nerdy smart? Suave smart? Sheldon Cooper? Leonard Hofstader? The Doctor? Mad scientist? Nutty Professor?
What are you actually trying to accomplish?
Let me break it down more, and I'll even include some tricks this time.
Book Test. Present it as knowing every book in the entire library. Or maybe present it as the ability to read a book in moments and know the entire thing. Maybe you know the book to a mathematical degree where you can tell by how many pages they've flipped and the positioning of their head which word they are looking at.
PATEO Force. Present it as knowing human psychology so well you know what they'll end up picking. Present it as knowing behavior so well you know how to guide it to choose what you want them to. Present it as just knowing everything so you already knew what they'd choose. Present it as a mathematics thing where there's X percentage they'll take X, Y or Z object.
Russian Roulette, but use Acid instead of a knife/pointy thing. Claim to have created the acid. Use all the previous claims on behavior, psychology or statistics.
Rope Magic. Talk about String Theory but don't sound boring.
As I understand it, you've got a lot of performance time under your belt. You should understand what we're saying here.
I think you guys are misunderstanding what he's asking. he's not trying to seem like an intelligent or articulate person. He wants tricks that make it seem like you have some incredible mathematical skill or memory. Brian Brushwood's show scamschool has a few good ones like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5MVEXbBji4 and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al7PllobwR4
He asked what tricks make him look smart. Looking smart basically requires being intelligent and articulate.
No, no you don't understand. Because you're still asking the same question. I just got done telling you that raw intelligence is something that can't be faked. And then you go and tell me that you can fake it.
The best lies are made entirely out of the truth. That requires actual intelligence to pull off. Faking intelligence is something that any remotely socially connected person can sniff out in a heartbeat. It doesn't really matter how much math you fake, or how many ten dollar words you use. If you do not possess the actual knowledge, insight and comprehension necessary to properly articulate yourself, you are going to look like a pompous pseudo-intellectual.
You say that our job is to lie. Technically, our act is lying. Our actual job is to make whoever hired us look good. And if you go up on that stage and try to convince everyone you're some kind of genius by using a magic square, they're going to be asking that person, "Where did you find this clown?"
There are no shortcuts here. If you want to look intelligent, you have to actually be intelligent. No trick is going to substitute for real world knowledge and experience. Look at posts from Christoper, Will Draven, Craig Browning, et al. Do you think they got where they are by faking it? Do you think you could come across half as experienced and articulate as them without having done even a fraction of the work they have? Be honest.
In short, no I'm not going to give a direct answer to your question because the question is bull****. You want the recognition of looking smart without having to do all that tedious studying. You either learn to love learning, or continue trying to fake something you haven't earned. Or maybe... just maybe... you could stop worrying about coming across as smart and just try to be likable.
I don't think our job is to lie, and I agree that "faking intelligence" is not the best idea.
Consider this: you perform an effect to do with a complex mathematical principle. People think you must be smart. Then they ask you at some point a quite simple mathematical question (or other similar question - not to try and see if you really are super smart, but because they genuinely think you'd know the answer). It now becomes apparent you don't know and the only thing you do know about it is the one learned, rehearsed performance you gave earlier.
Performing a trick which gives the impression you know something or a lot about something, when you actually don't, will probably end you in a similar situation. If however you did have knowledge about that subject and used that in your performance, not only will you feel more confident (because you actually know what you're talking about), but it will probably make a lot more sense, be more convincing and be an overall better performance.
Consider this: you perform an effect to do with a complex mathematical principle. People think you must be smart. Then they ask you at some point a quite simple mathematical question (or other similar question - not to try and see if you really are super smart, but because they genuinely think you'd know the answer). It now becomes apparent you don't know and the only thing you do know about it is the one learned, rehearsed performance you gave earlier.
Performing a trick which gives the impression you know something or a lot about something, when you actually don't, will probably end you in a similar situation. If however you did have knowledge about that subject and used that in your performance, not only will you feel more confident (because you actually know what you're talking about), but it will probably make a lot more sense, be more convincing and be an overall better performance.
Last edited by a moderator:
This gave me instant inspiration towards my PATEO force patter and routine. Thanks Christopher.
and for the thread master, I got a trick to make you look smart. It is called Intelligent Speaking.
I'll even reveal it..
the secret to trick is simple.
Read, Learn, Practice.
Done.
Last edited by a moderator:
Harry Lorrayne used to teach memory classes and has written books on memory. One of the things he did as a demonstration of his abilities was give a student a deck to shuffle. He would then very quickly look through the deck at each card. He would then have the student pick a card. By looking through the deck he would see which card was missing and name their card. Anyone on these boards should be able to figure out the method, but the real trick was that Harry was established as a memory expert, so his performance was believable.
This is the problem with most mentalism performances - there is no believability in that the performer doesn't have the knowledge or life experience to make the performance anything other than a trick.
I've seen the magic square performed amazingly bt Lennhart Green and I've seen it performed like a cheap trick by performers that who try to use the trick to make them intelligent. The trick doesn't make the magician, the magician makes the trick.
As Christopher said, there are different types of "smart." From the nutty professor to the geek to the savant. There are also different types of skills that you can demonstrate There are books on how to do mathematical equations in your head amazingly fast. There are memorization demonstrations (see the book "Moonwalking with Einstein" for an insight to the national memory championships).
If I was to do something to demonstrate intelligence, I would mirror my character off of Ella the Harpie fron the Percy Jackson books (although using a this character for an Axtell puppet in my kids show would work better). The question that has to be answered is "how did you become that smart"? Otherwise you are just another kid doing tricks.
This is the problem with most mentalism performances - there is no believability in that the performer doesn't have the knowledge or life experience to make the performance anything other than a trick.
I've seen the magic square performed amazingly bt Lennhart Green and I've seen it performed like a cheap trick by performers that who try to use the trick to make them intelligent. The trick doesn't make the magician, the magician makes the trick.
As Christopher said, there are different types of "smart." From the nutty professor to the geek to the savant. There are also different types of skills that you can demonstrate There are books on how to do mathematical equations in your head amazingly fast. There are memorization demonstrations (see the book "Moonwalking with Einstein" for an insight to the national memory championships).
If I was to do something to demonstrate intelligence, I would mirror my character off of Ella the Harpie fron the Percy Jackson books (although using a this character for an Axtell puppet in my kids show would work better). The question that has to be answered is "how did you become that smart"? Otherwise you are just another kid doing tricks.
That whooshing noise you hear is probably the point going over your head.
Seriously, what kind of smart are you looking to come across as? Or are you one of those types who thinks that all smart people are the same person?
Something you need to keep in mind is that you look very young. You're going to need to have a good chunk of the skill and knowledge to back up a claim like this, because most people aren't going to believe that you've had the time to learn that much math unless you can talk the talk.
So what happens when someone does the bullet catch test one you. You know back in the day some drunk would stand up and shoot the magician? How are you going to handle the engineer or math PhD who ask the question, or even corrects you and shows the maths to prove his point leaving you looking like you can barely count to potato?
Case in point. Someone on a guitar message board I am a member of posted the story about the planet they found that was seven times mass of Earth and so this guy said "well it is going to have seven times the gravity. When it was pointed out that just because something is larger or smaller doesn't mean it had more or less grvity, he kept up that it would have to be that way. Then someone posted...
"To find the gravity of this new planet then we need the size not mass of the planet. Also just because we think of earth gravity as 1g or 9.81 m/s^2, doesn't mean that this is the case all over the planet. The equatorial gravity will be different than polar gravity. It will even change based on the city you are in.
Here comes more math...
Going by what he said, Mars should be .53 of earth since it is 47% smaller than Earth, but it's not. It's about 40% of Earth Gravity. Mars has a mass of 6.42 * 10^23(kg) and a radius of 3393(km). Earth has a mass of 5.98 * 10^24(kg) and a radius of 6378 (km) When you plug in the numbers for Mars into g=-GM/(r^2) we get g=6.67384(80)x10^-11 N(m/kg)^2*6.42 * 10^23(kg)/[3393(km)*3393(km)] where g is now 3.728 m/s^2 (meter per second per second) or 0.38 Earth normal.
Now going back to Uranus vs. Earth and the surface gravity. Yes it is gas giant, but using the g=-GM/(r^2) we come up with 9.01m/s^2 or .9 of Earth normal (if you would like I'll write it out on paper, I will.) Gas giant/ice giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) do not have solid surfaces. The radii of these planets are specified at the point where the pressure in their atmospheres is approximately equal to that at the surface of the Earth. That gives us the r in g=-GM/(r^2)
So we are missing the radii of the planet. It could be more it would be less depending on the size, not mass, of the planet."
It shut the guy down. He no longer could act like he knew what he was talking about. If you are going to act like the smartest person in the room then you have to be able to back it up.
Case in point. Someone on a guitar message board I am a member of posted the story about the planet they found that was seven times mass of Earth and so this guy said "well it is going to have seven times the gravity. When it was pointed out that just because something is larger or smaller doesn't mean it had more or less grvity, he kept up that it would have to be that way. Then someone posted...
"To find the gravity of this new planet then we need the size not mass of the planet. Also just because we think of earth gravity as 1g or 9.81 m/s^2, doesn't mean that this is the case all over the planet. The equatorial gravity will be different than polar gravity. It will even change based on the city you are in.
Here comes more math...
Going by what he said, Mars should be .53 of earth since it is 47% smaller than Earth, but it's not. It's about 40% of Earth Gravity. Mars has a mass of 6.42 * 10^23(kg) and a radius of 3393(km). Earth has a mass of 5.98 * 10^24(kg) and a radius of 6378 (km) When you plug in the numbers for Mars into g=-GM/(r^2) we get g=6.67384(80)x10^-11 N(m/kg)^2*6.42 * 10^23(kg)/[3393(km)*3393(km)] where g is now 3.728 m/s^2 (meter per second per second) or 0.38 Earth normal.
Now going back to Uranus vs. Earth and the surface gravity. Yes it is gas giant, but using the g=-GM/(r^2) we come up with 9.01m/s^2 or .9 of Earth normal (if you would like I'll write it out on paper, I will.) Gas giant/ice giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) do not have solid surfaces. The radii of these planets are specified at the point where the pressure in their atmospheres is approximately equal to that at the surface of the Earth. That gives us the r in g=-GM/(r^2)
So we are missing the radii of the planet. It could be more it would be less depending on the size, not mass, of the planet."
It shut the guy down. He no longer could act like he knew what he was talking about. If you are going to act like the smartest person in the room then you have to be able to back it up.