Psychological 'Magic'

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by David Brooke, Feb 24, 2017.

  1. Does anyone know any routines that are based mostly on psychology? I'm not entirely sure of what you would call it, so I don't really know any search terms to use.

    I sometimes like the risk factor, and genuine thrill of getting a psychological trick right.

    By this, I mean things like that trick where you make someone think of a triangle in a rectangle, or a circle in a triangle.
     
  2. yes i know some routines that are based mostly on psychology.
     
  3. Is there any chance you could share the names of them?
     
  4. You can't go wrong with Banachek's 'Psychological Subtleties' series of books. They're basically all psychological methods for mentalism.

    Rev
     
    ProAma, Josh Burch and David Brooke like this.
  5. Psychological Subtleties has kind of been misinterpreted I think. It's meant to be, as the title suggests, ways to enhance psychologically based performances, ie: subtleties. A lot of people took some of his things meant to be just subtle additions to routines and treated them as routines themselves. They are great books, though, and I do recommend them.

    This is actually a tricky thing to answer. You might as well be asking, "Does anyone know any routines that use a double lift?" except it's even broader than that, since psychology plays into most routines. You seem to be looking for routines that work by psychological forces, though. There's a bunch out there as it is a fairly popular thing lately. Madison has a few in his book Psych (Which I think you need to get Anthology now, I'm not sure if it's for sale anywhere, but that book is worth it). Derren teaches a couple in Pure Effect (I think, or Absolute Magic), and then Peter Turner has a whole ebook on them I believe, one of his monthly series, and look for Fraser Parker and Ross Taylor's work as well.
     
    ProAma and David Brooke like this.
  6. By psychological effects, do you mean psychological in the method, or the presentation (meaning the pretending to read body language, cues, etc..)?
     
  7. Yeah, psychological forces is what I meant. I just saw Turner's book on a website for £22. Is it worth that much? Sync by Fraser Parker sounds pretty alluring, but it also sounds too good to be true...
    Thanks. I'll look more into their work.
     
  8. Things like psychological forces.
     
  9. I've not read a lot of Fraser Parker material, but what I have read is solid. I don't tend to like propless name guesses, because I find them to be too process intensive, personally, so I haven't really invested in his work on that area. Which means I have no personal opinion on Sync. I do have Ouija, and it's very interesting, and Sync seems to be along the same lines but a different approach.

    I haven't read Turner's psych forces booklet, because I don't generally use psych forces (no need, really, in my style), but I have read several other of Turner's work and he's very good at what he does. Quite possibly he is in a league of his own when it comes to modern mentalism and we'll be parsing his works for decades to come. I would be willing to say that anything he puts out is probably worth the price tag, as long as you're willing to put the work into making it work for you.

    Here's the thing about psychological forces - they're not magic spells. That's where a lot of people get caught up - they think they can just repeat what's in the script and it'll always produce the desired effect. That's just not true. First, you have to adjust the wording and the timing to suit your performance style and character. Then you have to work on that until you can do it naturally. At top skill, a psych force probably has up to a 90% success rate, if I were to guess. Meaning it will never be a bullet proof method. You're always taking a chance. A good performer can roll with the misses and turn them into a great effect anyway.

    Something Peter Turner likes to point out in many of his products is that it's not about "forcing" one option - it's about invisibly reducing the other options and then guiding them to the final desired location.
     
    David Brooke likes this.
  10. Fraser Parker's Name Guesses are not psychological anyway. They are mechanical. If you want psychological methods, gef Peter Turner's Freeform Mentalism. He has, on FM:

    A couple of really good psy forces, nad even teaches you how to make your own.

    An effect called 'Lie to Me' which teaches basically how to read body language to tell if someone is lying or telling the truth.

    He also teaches a really difficult concept called lipping. With this technique, you billetlessly guess anything a spectator is thinking, but it is very difficult.

    *End of Note

    Cog by Ben Seward is a way to psychologically divine a thought of playing card.



    That is it for me
     
    David Brooke likes this.
  11. Here is my question, does it matter if the effect uses psychological methods as long as the audience thinks it uses psychlogical methods?
     
    DominusDolorum and David Brooke like this.
  12. Actually Psychological methods. I think there's something cool for yourself when you take the risk, and get it right. (Although like I said, I only know the basic shapes inside a shape one.)
     
  13. My point was that the audience won't know the difference.
     
  14. What he's saying is that he wants the method to be exciting for him as well as impressing the audience.
     
    David Brooke likes this.
  15. That is precisely what I mean.
     
  16. Magic should make you happy just like you want to make your audience happy RealityOne. If you don't perform things you are happy with and that impress you then there is no point to being in magic.
     
  17. I do agree that performances should make the performer happy as well. However, that has to be balanced - a performer has to be careful not to make the show about themselves. If your main motivation is entertain yourself with your magic, then why should the audience even be there?
     
  18. Perhaps you'd be interested in effects based on suggestion.
    Luke Jermay's early stuff had loads of it!
     
  19. If you're going to go down that route please put the work into understanding how and why it works. So many people try to do suggestion work and it's just bad.
     
  20. I think you are starting to miss what I am saying. I'm not going to use them in proper performances. I will use them more like a party trick for friends. Don't get me wrong, there is something amazing about perfectly pulling off a sleight, but there is also something fascinating about pulling off something psychological. I'm not sure if I'm explaining it too well though.
     

Share This Page

Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results