So when you go to watch a magician perform, how do you watch him? As a magician - or as a layperson? This could be an important question, as both bring different mindsets to how a performance is decoded. More than one magic theorist has pointed to the difference - Wonder, Ortiz and Weber to name just a few.
In "Scientific American Mind" magazine Volume 18, #1, there is an article called "Jumping to Conclusions" by Deanna Kuhn. It's an article detailing her work in the area of human fallability when it comes to reasoning. Essentially she shows that when evaluating a situation, people cannot help but jump to conclusions based on their own knowledge. Therefore the specifics of the situation are disregarded in favour of what the person might know about those kinds of situations in general, leading to an erroneous conclusion. My own current thesis deals with how old age stereotypes may bias juror's thinking in evaluating the testimony of elders.
In any case, if we apply this to magic we find that... well, that magic theorists are already aware of it. It is one reason (but not the only reason) why an audience of magicians perceive a likely magic trick differently to lay audiences. This was most elegantly discussed in "Designing Miracles" by Darwin Ortiz, a book I highly recommend to all magicians.
Ortiz suggests that magician's will try to understand a magic trick using their technical knowledge where-as lay audiences just try to use commonsense. For magicians, their expertise prevents them from seeing the commonsense explanations that a layperson would leap to. He gives the example of Fred Kaps foiling an audience of magicians with a coin through handkerchief. The magicians couldn't figure it out despite all the technical knowledge they threw at it. The truth of the matter is that, as a joke, Kaps had simply cut a hole in the handkerchief and passed the coin through it, an explanation which would have immediately occurred to a layperson. Magicians on the other hand, wouldn't even consider an explanation so simple.
On "Penn & Teller's Magic and Mystery Tour" DVDs, there's a good example of using a magician's technical knowledge against him. In the Egypt episode, a local magician named Karam demonstrates the cups and balls for Teller. Teller watches Karam perform all the moves suggesting that the balls are no longer distributed one under each cup, but are actually under the centre cup. In fact, they were still one under each cup - Karam had used Teller's knowledge and expectations against him.
Anyway the point of this is not about showing how you can fool magicians. Rather, it is about the neccessity of assessing how a trick is perceived from a lay point of view. You may be a highly knowledgeable magician, but you must still try to cultivate a layperson's viewpoint in order to assess how a trick, whether yours or someone else's, appears to a layperson. Remember, the illusion occurs in the layperson's head, not yours.
Be seeing you, Escherwolf
Thursday 29 March 2007
Tuesday 27 March 2007
Ethics, Magicians, and audience participants
So if I want to do a psychology experiment involving anything that lives, I have to clear it with an ethics panel, and show that I am not in violation of any ethical guidelines (which are laid out in a specific written form). I have to contend with informed consent, minimal use of deception, doing no harm to participants, and a whole heap of other things, all of which is designed to protect participants in research from any infringements on their rights to be treated with respect and dignity. Children and animals are also protected with specific ethical guidelines.
Magicians, on the other hand, grab audience members who are dragged into the spotlight with no idea what to expect. They may be insulted, humiliated, treated as little more than props and in some cases even put at risk. To the casual observer, they seem to have no particular concern for their interactions with audience members who are there to be entertained.
Magic to me is a wondrous thing, and I like for people to share in my joy of it. Hard to do if some people, smiling through gritted teeth in an effort to not be a bad sport, only regard magic as a source of humiliation and pain.
Now I don't want to overgeneralise here. Most professional magicians and experienced amateurs may well not do these things, but some do. In most professions that deal with people there are codes of ethics governing these kinds of interactions. Sometimes I think that it would be valuable to encode ethical standards on such matters in order to protect magicians and all they deal with.
So in dealing with audience participants what might such a code of ethics look like?
3.0 Audience participants
3.1 All participants to be treated with respect and dignity.
Seems simple doesn't it? Yet all too often I see performers treated like an object of fun. Learn names, treat them as you would like to be treated, be aware that being in the spotlight may make them anxious. And be courteous - thank them for their help.
3.2 Participants are not to be humiliated.
There are ways of presenting sucker tricks and gambling scams without making your participants feel like idiots. But think carefully about what kinds of tricks you do. I have seen a teenage girl, highly sensitive about her figure, subjected to the bra trick, along with numerous tasteless jokes. I also am not amused about peformers who yell into the ears of the elderly to make sport of their hearing. Also be very careful at using sexual innuendo - it can work in some contexts, but be aware that it is being taken in the right spirit.
3.3 Participants are not to be put at risk.
There is a video going round the internet that shows two magicians failing disastrously at the old spike under the paper cup trick. You know, the one where you flatten the two paper cups that do not conceal a spike. One of the magicians thought it fun to hold a participants hand under his while doing the spiking - sadly he screwed up, and the participant was spiked. In any trick where something of that nature could conceivably go wrong - Don't put the participant a risk. This also applies to any props that you expect a participant to handle - such as razor blades. Make every consideration to ensure that they will not get hurt.
3.4 Participants are not to be hurt.
A long time ago, way back when Derryn Hinch enjoyed a short run as a Midday Host on Channel Nine, he had as his guest a certain 'Amazing' comedy magician. This magician, messing around with a silver tray, thought it would be humorous to whack Derryn on the back of the head with it. Hard. He got a laugh. Derryn suffered headaches and possible concussion for the rest of the day. Please don't do things like that.
Ok, that's the basic idea. These are just to get the ball rolling As you may have guessed from my numbering system, I have other things to add to this on subjects other than audience participation, but that will have to wait for future posts.
Be seeing you, Escherwolf.
Magicians, on the other hand, grab audience members who are dragged into the spotlight with no idea what to expect. They may be insulted, humiliated, treated as little more than props and in some cases even put at risk. To the casual observer, they seem to have no particular concern for their interactions with audience members who are there to be entertained.
Magic to me is a wondrous thing, and I like for people to share in my joy of it. Hard to do if some people, smiling through gritted teeth in an effort to not be a bad sport, only regard magic as a source of humiliation and pain.
Now I don't want to overgeneralise here. Most professional magicians and experienced amateurs may well not do these things, but some do. In most professions that deal with people there are codes of ethics governing these kinds of interactions. Sometimes I think that it would be valuable to encode ethical standards on such matters in order to protect magicians and all they deal with.
So in dealing with audience participants what might such a code of ethics look like?
3.0 Audience participants
3.1 All participants to be treated with respect and dignity.
Seems simple doesn't it? Yet all too often I see performers treated like an object of fun. Learn names, treat them as you would like to be treated, be aware that being in the spotlight may make them anxious. And be courteous - thank them for their help.
3.2 Participants are not to be humiliated.
There are ways of presenting sucker tricks and gambling scams without making your participants feel like idiots. But think carefully about what kinds of tricks you do. I have seen a teenage girl, highly sensitive about her figure, subjected to the bra trick, along with numerous tasteless jokes. I also am not amused about peformers who yell into the ears of the elderly to make sport of their hearing. Also be very careful at using sexual innuendo - it can work in some contexts, but be aware that it is being taken in the right spirit.
3.3 Participants are not to be put at risk.
There is a video going round the internet that shows two magicians failing disastrously at the old spike under the paper cup trick. You know, the one where you flatten the two paper cups that do not conceal a spike. One of the magicians thought it fun to hold a participants hand under his while doing the spiking - sadly he screwed up, and the participant was spiked. In any trick where something of that nature could conceivably go wrong - Don't put the participant a risk. This also applies to any props that you expect a participant to handle - such as razor blades. Make every consideration to ensure that they will not get hurt.
3.4 Participants are not to be hurt.
A long time ago, way back when Derryn Hinch enjoyed a short run as a Midday Host on Channel Nine, he had as his guest a certain 'Amazing' comedy magician. This magician, messing around with a silver tray, thought it would be humorous to whack Derryn on the back of the head with it. Hard. He got a laugh. Derryn suffered headaches and possible concussion for the rest of the day. Please don't do things like that.
Ok, that's the basic idea. These are just to get the ball rolling As you may have guessed from my numbering system, I have other things to add to this on subjects other than audience participation, but that will have to wait for future posts.
Be seeing you, Escherwolf.
Sunday 25 March 2007
DVDs, Learning and Mirror neurons.
So, I'm a Bibliophile from way back. Books have always stacked up in various rooms around the house.
Currently, there is much discussion on various magic forums about books versus DVDs as ways of learning magic. Usually someone comes in and says that books give better value than DVDs. In many ways, this is true. Yet when it comes to learning something such as sleight of hand, or any other activity that depends on specific actions, I find it easier to learn off DVDs. Why is it so? (as Professor Julius Sumner Miller used to say).
One answer might be because of the activities of Mirror Neurons. What are mirror neurons? I'm going to quote Marco Iacoboni's succinct explanation from his essay in "What is your Dangerous Idea?", a book that I prevously recommended.
Mirror neurons are cells located in the premotor cortex, the part of the brain relevant to the planning, selection, and execution of actions. In the ventral sector of the premotor cortex, ther are cells that fire in relation to specific goal-related motor acts, such as grasping, holding, and bringing to the mouth. Surprisingly, a subset of these cells - what we call mirror neurons - also fire when we observe somebody else perforning the same action. The behaviour of these cells seems to suggest that the observer is looking at his or her own actions reflected in the mirror while watching someone else's actions. My group has shown, in several studies, that human mirror neuron areas are also critical to imitation. There is evidence that the activation of this neural system is fairly automatic, thus suggesting that it may bypass conscious mediation. Moreover, mirror neurons also code the intention associated with the observed actions, even there is not a one-to-one mapping between actions and intentions. (I can grasp a cup because I want to drink, or because I want to put it in the dishwasher.) This suggests that the system can indeed code sequences of action (that is what happens when I grasp the cup), even though only one act in the sequence has been observed.
So , you got all that? You read a description of a sleight in a book, but no matter how well decribed it is, it gives you a conscious, intellectual understanding of the sleight. If, however you see it demonstrated in a DVD (and especially in super-practice sessions), then you get the added advantages of the mirror neurons encoding the actions directly into the premotor cortex. In a word, showing is better than just telling.
Just something to think about. (I still buy lots of books though).
Be seeing you, Escherwolf.
Currently, there is much discussion on various magic forums about books versus DVDs as ways of learning magic. Usually someone comes in and says that books give better value than DVDs. In many ways, this is true. Yet when it comes to learning something such as sleight of hand, or any other activity that depends on specific actions, I find it easier to learn off DVDs. Why is it so? (as Professor Julius Sumner Miller used to say).
One answer might be because of the activities of Mirror Neurons. What are mirror neurons? I'm going to quote Marco Iacoboni's succinct explanation from his essay in "What is your Dangerous Idea?", a book that I prevously recommended.
Mirror neurons are cells located in the premotor cortex, the part of the brain relevant to the planning, selection, and execution of actions. In the ventral sector of the premotor cortex, ther are cells that fire in relation to specific goal-related motor acts, such as grasping, holding, and bringing to the mouth. Surprisingly, a subset of these cells - what we call mirror neurons - also fire when we observe somebody else perforning the same action. The behaviour of these cells seems to suggest that the observer is looking at his or her own actions reflected in the mirror while watching someone else's actions. My group has shown, in several studies, that human mirror neuron areas are also critical to imitation. There is evidence that the activation of this neural system is fairly automatic, thus suggesting that it may bypass conscious mediation. Moreover, mirror neurons also code the intention associated with the observed actions, even there is not a one-to-one mapping between actions and intentions. (I can grasp a cup because I want to drink, or because I want to put it in the dishwasher.) This suggests that the system can indeed code sequences of action (that is what happens when I grasp the cup), even though only one act in the sequence has been observed.
So , you got all that? You read a description of a sleight in a book, but no matter how well decribed it is, it gives you a conscious, intellectual understanding of the sleight. If, however you see it demonstrated in a DVD (and especially in super-practice sessions), then you get the added advantages of the mirror neurons encoding the actions directly into the premotor cortex. In a word, showing is better than just telling.
Just something to think about. (I still buy lots of books though).
Be seeing you, Escherwolf.
Saturday 24 March 2007
What if I started a Blog?
So what if I started a blog? Is there a point? Is there something to say that's worth imposing on other people? I really don't know.
Of late I've been reading a lot of other people's blogs. Some felt like filler. Others like the product of deep thinkers. Still others like like the results of a GIGO process. In all cases, though, it allowed me to glimpse at someone else's thinking, whether right or wrong, tasteful or distasteful. This mental voyeurism is somewhat interesting, particularly for someone like me, who, as a mature age student returned to university to study psychology. So here I am, ready to share my own thoughts to whoever is interested.
So what do I think about? Well, psychology for a start, and the nature of belief, and why people believe the things they do. I'm a skeptic by nature, an atheist, a materialist and by turns cynical and hopeful. I love science, but I'm not a scientist per se - still you'll find that I'm a greater admirer of Darwin and Dawkins than I am of religious dogma, though I try to respect people's right to believe as they will (as long as they extend to me the right not to believe).
My hobbies are eclectic. Apart from reading, watching TV, enjoying movies, spending time with my lady and my dog ( a beautiful Keesie), I also enjoy a number of hobbies that allow me to enter other realities, at least in the illusory sense.
I love magic (as in conjuring and prestigiditation)- I used to perform, but currently I am out of magic officially while I pursue my psychology studies. So - no clubs, no conventions, no gigs. I haven't, however, ever been able to get magic out my system, so I continue to dabble, and buy books and DVDs. I'll have comments to make about that as this blog progresses.
I also indulge in RPGs, another form of world entry (don't say escapism - I have nothing to escape). Currently my preferences there run to the indie scene, with games like "Spirit of the Century" and "Dogs in the Vineyard" being typical preferences. I'll have stuff to say about those things in due course as well.
I have a lot of other interests - they'll come up as time goes on...
All of this is just by way of an introduction, and I hope to focus on all sorts of things as I continue on. Still that will do for now. Before I go, let me just leave you with a book recommendation for this week: "What is Your Dangerous Idea?" edited by John Brockman.
Be seeing you, Escherwolf.
Of late I've been reading a lot of other people's blogs. Some felt like filler. Others like the product of deep thinkers. Still others like like the results of a GIGO process. In all cases, though, it allowed me to glimpse at someone else's thinking, whether right or wrong, tasteful or distasteful. This mental voyeurism is somewhat interesting, particularly for someone like me, who, as a mature age student returned to university to study psychology. So here I am, ready to share my own thoughts to whoever is interested.
So what do I think about? Well, psychology for a start, and the nature of belief, and why people believe the things they do. I'm a skeptic by nature, an atheist, a materialist and by turns cynical and hopeful. I love science, but I'm not a scientist per se - still you'll find that I'm a greater admirer of Darwin and Dawkins than I am of religious dogma, though I try to respect people's right to believe as they will (as long as they extend to me the right not to believe).
My hobbies are eclectic. Apart from reading, watching TV, enjoying movies, spending time with my lady and my dog ( a beautiful Keesie), I also enjoy a number of hobbies that allow me to enter other realities, at least in the illusory sense.
I love magic (as in conjuring and prestigiditation)- I used to perform, but currently I am out of magic officially while I pursue my psychology studies. So - no clubs, no conventions, no gigs. I haven't, however, ever been able to get magic out my system, so I continue to dabble, and buy books and DVDs. I'll have comments to make about that as this blog progresses.
I also indulge in RPGs, another form of world entry (don't say escapism - I have nothing to escape). Currently my preferences there run to the indie scene, with games like "Spirit of the Century" and "Dogs in the Vineyard" being typical preferences. I'll have stuff to say about those things in due course as well.
I have a lot of other interests - they'll come up as time goes on...
All of this is just by way of an introduction, and I hope to focus on all sorts of things as I continue on. Still that will do for now. Before I go, let me just leave you with a book recommendation for this week: "What is Your Dangerous Idea?" edited by John Brockman.
Be seeing you, Escherwolf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)