Rock Paper Scissors mentalism eBook

Rock, Paper, Scissors is a modern mentalism classic.

This eBook contains all you need to know to learn how to perform this amazing feat of mentalism.

Play to win - beat your opponent every time!

Play to lose – lose every single time!

Match them - whatever your opponent chooses, you choose the same!

All done REAL TIME like a regular game of Rock, Paper, Scissors!

• No stooges
• No dual reality
• No set up
• No pre-show work
• Easy to learn

If you’ve ever seen a performance of Rock, Paper, Scissors as a mentalism effect then you know what a crowd-pleaser it is. Bring on the first guy, beat him. Bring on the second guy, beat him to. Ask the crowd if they want you to win or lose, if they want you to lose, then play again and lose. You can even turn your back on your opponent or play two people at once!

Suggested for serious mentalists only.

Rock, Paper, Scissors – £15.00

The link above takes you my store front at Lulu. Here you will see all my mentalism products. Rock, Paper, Scissors is second from the top.

John Elbert Wilkie inventor of the infamous Indian rope trick

What the Indian rope trick teaches us about mentalism

The Indian rope trick is taught in sociology and psychology classes – not how to do it but how the hoax/myth spread across the globe. Possibly the most fascinating thing about the Indian rope trick (from now on IRT) is the number of people who claim to have witnessed it, even though it has never been performed. Social scientists are interested in studying the IRT for a number of reasons, usually concentrating on things like memory and eyewitness testimony, the development of myths and legends, and cultural stereotyping, etc. etc.

Variations on the IRT abound throughout ancient and not so ancient literature with chains, sashes, canes, and so on, sometimes replacing the rope. And animals, mythical characters and others sometimes replacing the little boy. Sometimes only the boy climbs the rope and sometimes he’s followed up by the magician or juggler. Indian magicians used to be known as ‘jugglers’ rather than conjurors or magicians. Depending on the story, the boy either disappears when he gets to the top never to appear again and other times he is followed up the rope and hacked to death – only to be put back together later for the amusement of the audience.

Although the IRT has never actually been performed three similar effects have been. One is a balancing act in which a small boy climbs up a long bamboo pole attached to the belt of an older man. The boy then balances precariously on top of the pole before, presumably, returning back to earth. The second is the basket trick, in which a young boy climbs inside a basket which is then hacked at several times with a sword by a magician. The boy then reappears from somewhere else in one piece and without injury. The final effect is the familar snake-charming scenario in which a snake rises out of a basket, enchanted by a musical instrument played by the magician.

Looking at these three effects, it’s not hard to guess how the story emerged, of a young boy climbing up a magical rope and disappearing only to reappear somewhere else (and in some versions getting hacked apart by the magician before being put back together). Various stories of similar effects get merged together until one final version emerges as the Indian rope trick.

In reality, this explains in part, how the story emerged.

The originator of the IRT was a American called John Elbert Wilkie. Wilkie (1860-1934) worked as a journalist before being appointed head of the Federal Secret Service in 1898. While still a journalist and working for the Chicago Tribune, he wrote a short piece describing what has become known as the Indian rope trick. This piece, published anonymously, was later claimed (by the Tribune) as a piece of ‘entertainment’ and just a ‘theory’. In fact many people took it seriously and witnesses of the trick Wilkie made up starting coming forward. A British publication, The People’s Friend, wrote to the Tribune inquiring after the IRT and recieved the following reply from Wilkie:

I am led to believe that the little story attracted more attention than I dreamed it could, and that many accepted it as perfectly true. I am sorry that anyone should have been deluded.

And there you have it, what we all know of today as the Indian rope trick was made up by an American journalist in the 19th Century. What is interesting are all the eyewitness accounts, claiming to have seen performed a trick that had only occured in a newpaper writer’s mind. And the trouble people went to in order to work out how the IRT was done.

There are a number of explanations for the eyewitnesses. The group is made up of people pretending to have seen something they hadn’t in order to get fame and attention, and people who saw something similar a long time ago (see above) and now falsely believe what they saw was the IRT.

The explanations of how the IRT is done (from people who believed it was performed) come in three forms:

• Mass hypnosis. The audience are hypnotised by the magician to believe they see the rope rise up and the little boy climb it only to disappear.
• Magic tricks. The magician uses standard magic tricks to fool the audience into believing something magical has occured whereas in reality they are seeing gimmicked ropes and not seeing hidden wires, etc.
• Geniune magic. The Indian magicians are using genuine powers of genuinely existing magic.

Why the Indian rope trick is interesting for mentalists

The IRT has all the qualities of a great mentalism effect (although in form it is a stage magic effect). Firstly, it is a good story. The idea of a magically rising rope and a little boy climbing it only to disappear, is a good one that captures people’s imaginations. Mentalist effects should always revolve around a good story that the audience wants to believe is true.

Secondly, there is a big difference between what people actually see and what actually occurs. In the case of the IRT we have something that is never seen yet everyone can say what (they think) occurred. In mentalism people will say things like, “he had completely free choice of…” when in fact the spectator had a totally limited choice of… For example, the mentalist asks a spectator to think of a flower, any flower, it’s completely up to them. Later on he says “now you had a completely free choice, you could think of anything, etc.” Think of the patio (spelling intended) and you’ll see that what will be remembered as a free choice of many items was in fact completely forced.

Thirdly, when people try to work out how an effect is achieved they tend to work up rather than work down. By that I mean, they tend to credit the mentalist with doing more, in a cleverer way, than he has in reality. For example, when trying to figure out the IRT, people talk of mass hypnosis (very impressive) or extremely cunning and devious mechanics (very impressive) or genuine magic (genuinely impressive) rather than concluding that the IRT must never have actually happened (not so impressive). And so we have talk of famous mentalists such as Derren Brown using hypnosis, NLP and other impressive sounding psychological techniques to perform effects achieved using more mundane magical sleights.

My presentation of the Al Koran Medallion effect

Al Koran’s Medallion effect

Al Koran’s Medallion effect is my all time favourite feat of mental magic. Not only is it a tried and tested crowd-pleaser, it is mentalism at its most elegant. A date is selected at random by starting with the number 1 and then three numbers chosen at random by randomly selected members of the audience. The mentalist then takes a small box out of his pocket and hands it to a volunteer brought on stage. She opens it and removes a medallion which is discovered inside. The mentalist then asks her to remove the medallion, turn it over and read the date engraved on the back. It is the date just selected randomly by the audience!

Al Koran’s own explanation of the Medallion effect is printed in a collection entitled Al Koran’s Professional Presentations (edited by Hugh Miller).

Al Koran was born Edward Doe in England, 1914. He worked as a hairdresser before winning the prestigious London Society of Magicians’ Gold Medal in 1945 and turning professional.  Working as a magician/mentalist, Al Koran’s contemporaries included Chan Canasta and David Berglas. Koran achieved success in the US as well as the UK,  appearing on the Ed Sullivan show (see video). He died, of cancer, in 1972.

Al Koran’s three most important contributions to magic and mentalism were his:

• Koran deck
• Ring Flight (also known as Flying Ring and Ring Flite)
• Medallion Effect

My presentation of Koran’s medallion

I’m not saying this is anything especially novel, its just how I  approach this great effect. I don’t change much to Koran’s original presentation. His handling is  bold, in Professional Presentations he comments “This procedure may strike you as ‘cheeky’  but, it is perfectly safe and does not cause any suspicion.” Personally, I do it slightly differently. Obviously, I can’t discuss it here without exposing the effect so I’ll just say that I make the move before bringing out the box.

To begin the effect, I talk about how the prices of antiques and collectibles are decided by the people who happen to be there on the day of auction. And as a consequence pricing antiques is always difficult. I go on to say that I have a rare object with me that I’d like to price – that I don’t know the price but that it could be anything from £100 to a £1000.

I then ask a volunteer on stage to assist me.

The audience is asked to shout out some possible prices on this rare – but so far unseen – item. To get the ball rolling, I randomly select a audience-member and ask them to guess a price: “how much do you reckon it’s worth? £125, £263, £792?” (This is to encourage the audience to choose mixed numbers rather than just £200, £500, etc.)

I note down the price called out and tell the volunteer on stage that he will have the final choice of which price is finally choosen. We have four or five more numbers called out by different people and then I ask the volunteer if he thinks he has enough to choose from. If he says yes, I read back the numbers selected and ask him to choose one.

Putting the slip of paper in my top pocket, I ask the audience if they want to see the object they’ve just been pricing blind. Reaching into my side jacket pocket, I bring out a small box and hand it over to the volunteer instructing him not to open it.

Addressing the audience, I tell them that I bought this item that afternoon in a local antiques shop.  I describe it a little, giving the history etc. and ask the volunteer to open the lid of the box and take a look inside. I ask the volunteer to remind me of the price we just agreed on (say it was £562) and then to take the object out of the box, turn it over and read the price sticker on the base/back,  it says £562.

Due to the success of the TV show Pawn Stars, as well as a whole host of antiques, collectibles, etc. shows audiences find this approach very easy to identify with and relate to.

What can this family teach us about magic and mentalism?

This family are demonstrating one of the most fundamental things you’ll ever need to know about magic and mentalism. They are a special group of people indeed, that much stands out. But what is their contribution? Answers on a postcard please!

Hypnotism on the International Stage, the biggest Hypnosis show in history

Cardinal Mindszenty and the Cold War hypnotism show (trials)

This is another extract from my soon-to-be-released Mind Control: Brainwashing, hypnosis and psychological mentalism. What you have here is 25% of a case study of Cardinal Mindszenty.

November 1948, head of the Catholic Church in Hungary and leading Cardinal in Europe Josef Mindszenty is in trouble. His secretary Dr. Andras Zakar has been snatched, bundled into the back of an anonymous car by three anonymous men. Mindszenty is an important man, a possible successor to the current Pope. Five weeks pass before Dr. Zakar reappears. The former doctor of theology has undergone a remarkable change in personally. The quiet, studious man, is wide-eyed with excitement, giggling uncontrollably as he runs madly from room to room. He is accompanied by official looking men, they are looking for something. Zakar leads them to a spot in the basement and begins digging up the ground like a man possessed. Eventually he finds what he is looking for – a metal box containing Mindszenty’s personal documents. The previously loyal Dr. Zakar has just betrayed his friend and seemingly enjoyed doing so. The following evening, on his way to mass, Cardinal Mindszenty is arrested spelling the end of Catholicism in Soviet occupied Hungary.

Five weeks later, Mindszenty appeared in court and like his friend he was acting very strangely indeed. Standing in the dock he swayed from side to side, blinking rapidly and slurring his words. His voice was flat, monotone and he appeared to be repeating lines that had previously prepared. If how he spoke was strange it was nothing compared to what he said. He admitted to stealing the Hungarian crown jewels as part of a plot to make Otto von Hapsburg emperor of Eastern Europe. Not only this but he was also involved in orchestrating a Third World War in order to assume power in Hungary. To those that knew him these admissions were not only startling but obviously complete nonsense! This being so, why on earth was he making these confessions?

It wasn’t just Mindszenty’s friends that were concerned. The British and American’s were getting worried. They also knew the confessions were false but unlike the Cardinal’s friends who were worried that he’d been tortured, they were worried that he hadn’t. Standing in the dock just weeks after arrest the man did not look like someone who’d been physically mistreated. It seemed clear that rather than working on Mindszenty’s body, the Soviets had been to work on his mind. But how?

Mindszenty was not a man plucked randomly from the streets, he was a Cardinal, head of the Catholic Church in Hungary and potential Pope. The firmness of belief, his commitment to Catholicism, would not be easy to break. No-one in the West was naive enough to believe that such a man could not be broken eventually but not in five weeks and not without a mark on him. In essence the Cardinal’s testimony meant the end of Catholicism in Hungary and it took the Soviets just over a month to persuade the head of the Catholic Church to talk.

A CIA document from the time named two men as key players in getting Mindszenty to talk, Professor Orsós and Dr Ferenc Völgyessy, the latter being known as ‘the best hypnotist in Hungary’. The report claimed that ‘It is a reasonable certainty… that confessors in high-level trials of political or propaganda significance in Russian-dominated areas are prepared by hypnosis’. A month later this ‘certainty’ appeared more than reasonable: ‘It can be said with certainty that the Russians and several Russian-dominated countries are utilizing… hypnosis in special and important circumstances’. Was it possible that through hypnosis a man’s mind could be so completely changed that he would betray everything he formally believed? One hypothesis was that the Soviets had developed a technique, using hypnosis, to split the personality of a subject so that the second personality could happily betray the first. If this were true then the West was in trouble.

If such a technique were possible then the applications would be awe-inspiring. Not only could captured soldiers, spies, etc. be compelled to give up everything they knew but anyone who knew how could create the perfect spy, the perfect assassin. And the Soviets, the enemy, appeared to know how. The Western mind boggled. John Smith could be plucked from the streets and have, without even knowing it, a second personality hypnotically created. John Smith A could learn Western secrets that John Smith B reveals to the Russians without the former being any the wiser. More sinisterly, John Smith B could kill a man without John Smith A ever knowing why. Such a weapon could mean a Soviet victory in the Cold War.

In 1950, a year after Mindszenty’s trial, the CIA began project BLUEBIRD to secretly research brainwashing and other mind control techniques.

But was any of this likely? On top of the strange way Mindszenty acted during his trial, and the strange things he said, his writing appeared to change. Documents, confessions, signed by the Cardinal during his interrogation appeared to be written by two people. Could this indicate the presence of a split personality? As we will see in a latter case study, split personalities brought ‘out’ through hypnosis speak with different voices than their ‘host’. Could it be that they have different handwriting too? Graphologists claim that a person’s handwriting reveals their personality. If this is true, then one should expect two different personalities to have two different handwriting styles.

There is an alternative explanation, one not involving hypnotism or mind control. The clue is in the handwriting samples.

[the remaining 3/4 of this case study are found in Mind Control: Brainwashing, hypnosis and psychological mentalism]

My problem with the billet knife

Why I don’t use a billet knife

Mentalism relies entirely on the performer’s persona. If the mentalist can not project the correct image then his, or her, effects are going to come off like poor magic tricks. This is fairly uncontroversial, I know. The trouble I have with the billet knife, is that it looks so out of place on stage. Who uses a letter opener?

Imagine if you were staying at a friend’s house and in the morning when you came downstairs you saw him opening his mail with a letter opener? Would you be surprised, probably (it depends on the friend). The more important question is would your friend be surprised if they saw you using a letter opener?

We all know that in any effect, the bit where the work is done, is the bit you don’t want your audience wondering why you’re doing whatever it is your doing. Even if they simply think it’s weird that you are using a letter opener – you don’t want them thinking “why is he using that?” If you’ve gone to the trouble of making everything look ordinary, that is, regular paper, regular pens, regular envelopes – then why not open the envelopes in the regular way?

A second issue, for all mentalists, is that there is always a need not to look like like an arrogant tw*t. You’re on stage, showing off your amazing abilities that the no-one else in the audience has but wishes they did have – if you come across as arrogant, pompous, a tw*t, etc. then you won’t generate a rapport with your audience. Using a letter opener to open an envelope is a bit foppish to say the least.

Psychological Mentalism, can NLP help create mentalist effects?

This is an extract from MIND CONTROL: Brainwashing, hypnosis and psychological mentalism

Is post is an extract taken from my book Mind Control: Brainwashing, hypnosis and psychological mentalism. I’ve spent the past three years writing this book and it covers everything you need to know about all forms of psychological mentalism including hypnosis. Please note I said ‘everything you need to know’ and not everything there is to know (before the pedants start commentating).

What you have here is a small section taken from a whole chapter on Neurolinguistic programming (NLP). If you’d like to know more about the book, you can email me at s.lea[at]mental-magic[dot]com.

Can NLP help magicians and mentalists? It can, in the same way that it will help anyone organize their ideas, clearly define goals, explore new ideas and so on. But is there anything specific to NLP that will be of use to the mentalist? The answer is that if anything, a mentalist or magician can help an NLP practitioner rather than the other way around. Let’s have a look at two ideas in NLP that are often touted as of use to the psychological mentalist.

In NLP an anchor is the association of a signal with a response. Examples of this include smelling particular scents and recalling a memory or wearing particular clothes, such as a sharp suit, and feeling confident. Sub-modalities refer to the distinction between aspects of sensory awareness. For example, when we visualize something we make a mental picture that  is large or small, bright or dull, still or moving and so on. When we imagine sounds they can be loud or quiet, sharp or muffled and so on. These descriptions are figurative but, as a tool, NLP practitioners take them literally to see the sub-modality distinctions their clients are making. The theory behind anchoring is based on the behavourist experiments carried out by the Russian psychologist Pavlov. These are now so well known that it is hardly worth going into great detail. Basically, he noticed that dogs salivated when they knew their dinner was on its way. If he rang a bell before he served up food, the dogs would eventually associate the sound of the bell with food. After a while, he discovered that the dogs would salivate merely at the sound of a ringing bell. NLP practitioners believe, without research evidence to support their claims, that people can be taught to associate simple actions with emotional ideas. For example, if you always tap a person on the shoulder whenever you make a positive comment, they will come to associate the tapping of their shoulder with feeling good about themselves. Bandler defined anchoring as ‘the pairing of a stimuli [sic] with a highly predictable set of responses’. Could magicians use anchoring in their magic? Could for example, a magician always perform a simple action such as tapping a shoulder whenever his spectator thought of the nine of clubs so that by tapping the shoulder alone the spectator would think of that card? Such things have occurred by accident during ESP tests. That is, subjects manage to pick up subconscious clues about particular ESP cards through the subtle movements made by the tester when he himself sees that card. However, this subconscious ability takes many hours of testing, days of testing, to pick up. A magician has only a few minutes per effect and is using a deck of fifty-two different cards rather than just five different ESP cards. A question must also be addressed to answer why a magician would want to bother with anchoring when he has literally hundreds of sleights and forces at his disposal. For the spectator, the effect is always the same, she randomly chose or thought of a card and the magician managed to tell her what is was. She will never know, if the magician is any good, how on earth he knew her card. If he really did manage to put the idea of the nine of clubs in her mind simply by tapping her shoulder, then for all intents and purposes he performed a feat of real magic – which is probably why some magicians are drawn towards NLP for their art. But more on this later.

Sub-modalities are concerned with the language of ideas. What follows is a list of such language drawn up by Bandler and McDonald (1998):

VISUAL

Things were blown out of proportion.

My job seems overwhelming.

Life is so drab.

I need some distance from it.

He’s had a colourful past.

That throws a little more light on it.

It all seems so hazy.

I don’t know, it just flashed on me.

When you said that I just saw red.

That brightens up my day.

Well, when you frame it that way, yes.

She has a sunny disposition.

That hits too close to home for comfort.

I need to bring things more into perspective.

It just appears flat and meaningless.

I’m glad we see eye to eye.

Everything keeps spinning around and I can’t focus on one thing.

It’s too vague to even consider.

It’s off in left field somewhere.

The image is etched in my memory.

I just can’t see myself being able to do that.

He’s got me up on a pedestal.

She cut him down to size.

I’m moving in the right direction.

I can’t face it.

It’s not a black and white world.

This is top priority.

Let’s look at the big picture.

AUDITORY

The right decision was screaming at me.

She gives me too much static.

It’s just a whisper.

If I nag myself long enough, I’ll do it.

There is too much discord in our relationship.

I hate that whining part of myself.

Got you, loud and clear.

We need to orchestrate our vacation.

It came to a screeching halt.

I keep telling myself, ‘You can’t do anything right’.

It’s too off-beat.

KINESTHETIC

It’s got a slimy feel to it.

He’s hot.

She’s a cold fish.

Whenever I hear that, my stomach knots up.

The pressure is off.

The whole thing weighed on my mind.

I’m off centre, like everything is out of kilter.

I’m trying to balance one against the other.

Yeah, I feel up to it.

Could mentalists and magicians use these ideas to help script their performances? That is, will the NLP concept of sub-modalities make magicians more efficient in their use of language. Possibly, but the chances are – for competent magicians – that they have been aware of their use of language from the first effect they ever learned. How many times do pick up a deck of cards and say ‘I have in my hand a perfectly ordinary deck of cards…’ the answer is probably never, right? All magician’s know that referring to a deck as a perfectly ordinary deck instantly conjures up the idea (pun intended) of an extraordinary deck and makes spectators suspicious that the cards have be gimmicked in some way. The words and language we use as magicians, and especially as mentalists, are an essential part of the stage craft of magic. Take the PATEO force, for this force to successfully fool an audience into believing that a spectator had a genuinely free choice, the language and mannerisms of the performer must distract the viewer from the mechanical reality. Mentalists in particular use the ambiguity of language to great effect to produce great effects. For example, showing someone a card and asking them to concentrate on that card is totally different to asking someone to simply think of a card. However, when you later say to that person, in front of an audience, “I asked you earlier to think of a card – do you remember it?” It appears to the rest of the room that you asked this person to imagine a card rather than simply look at one you were holding. This alone is not all that amazing. However, all that is needed to make the effect amazing is the skillful use of words and phrasing, to conjure up further ideas in people’s minds. For example, if instead of merely showing a spectator a card to think of and remember, you preformed a simple card force – you could later say “I asked you earlier to think of a card – do you remember it? And can you confirm that you had a completely free choice, you could have chosen any card?” To the audience, a card merely thought of by a spectator, can now appear anywhere you like to amazing effect. You could, for example, slip the card (you forced ) into another spectator’s pocket – so to the audience, a card merely thought of by one spectator magically appears in the pocket of a second spectator. This spectator, observes a slightly different effect but it is still impressive. This is a simple dual reality effect. Note that it was only the words and phrasing used to create specific ideas that made a simple pick a card magic trick a truly magical effect.

NLP can not really help a magician or mentalist because it involves little more than what magicians, and especially mentalists, have already been doing for over a hundred years and more. If, as a magician or mentalist, you are attempting to create new effects or write a new show and find yourself stuck – you can’t do much harm thinking of the basic NLP idea – if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got. If what you are doing is not working, do something else. If want to go out a buy a book on NLP to help you with your magic or mentalism you can by all means. You may as well pick up a book on sucking eggs for your grandmother while you’re at it.

Mental Magic Mentalism blog first post – all mentalists are liars!

Mentalism is about telling lies and getting away with it

Welcome to the Mental Magic mentalism blog. Here you will find my mentalism musings on a number of possibly unrelated issues. This first post is designed to give you a feel of what is to come.

For me, mentalism is all about telling lies and getting away with it for fun and profit. Some people don’t like the negative connotations and so avoid using words like lies, lying and liars. But what is mentalism other than a series of untruths presented as the truth?

Unlike magicians, mentalists have a rather uneasy relationship with the truth.

In the present age, where people no longer believe in real magic, the magician doesn’t have to convince the audience that he has real magical powers. No, it is enough to amaze them. If a magician shuffles a deck of cards, asks a spectator to take one and then – without looking at the card – is able to tell them what that card is, it’s amazing. There is no deception but rather concealment. That is, the method is concealed and the result is, or should be, amazing.

If a mentalist approaches his (or her) act in the same way, the results are not quite so amazing. What he has done in fact is a smaller version of the above. In order to create wonder and amazement, a mentalist needs to do more. He needs to get the audience believing in magic again. And to do this, he’s going to have to lie.

Magic has been modernized of course. And it is done in rather the same way as some people do when they explain away miracles in the Bible.  Consider the passage: “That evening many demon-possessed people were brought to Jesus. He cast out the evil spirits with a simple command, and he healed all the sick.” [Matt 8:13]. Some modern commentators argue that the ‘evil spirits’ were not actual beings but metaphors for mental illness. When someone ‘battles his demons’ he doesn’t literally fight other living creatures but his own mental problems. What was previously considered magical is now treated as psychological. This, of course, doesn’t actually explain away the miracle. Jesus isn’t reported as curing someone’s mental illness (if that was what it was) over a few years of intensive psychotherapy but instantly, which is a miracle!

What’s the point in all this? (You may well ask)

Simply that the magical has been replaced with the psychological.

Nothing less amazing occurs but the words used to describe what has happened have changed. Consider the difference between claiming to peform some fantastical feat using psychic ability and claiming to use intuition. The claim is no less bold but more believable in the case of the latter. What is boils down to is that we are all more comfortable describing things magical in psychological or scientific terms. But make no mistake, when a mentalist claims to be using psychology to achieve his effects he’s actually talking about magic (and he’s lying).

Magicians amaze audiences with skills that they have.

Mentalists amaze audiences with skills they claim to have.

Here’s an example from my own repertoire: I’m handed a number of handwriting samples, each written by different people. Simply by feeling the muscles in the hand and wrist of my spectator I can tell which piece of writing was written by her. How? Because over time people’s muscles develop to adapt to their style of writing. Someone who presses heavily on the page will develop different muscles to someone who writes lightly. People use muscles differently to write flourishing loops than they do block capitals. Someone whose writing slants to the left will use their muscles quite unlike someone whose writing slants to the right, and so on. Is this true, is this even possible? No, of course not. But I’m telling them that it is and demonstrating my ability to do it.

People are not prepared to leave a magic show believing that superhuman abilities are possible. But they will for mentalism. Not that they consider the mentalist to be superhuman, rather they think he has an incredible ability. However, were these incredible abilities to exist whoever possessed them would be superhuman!

Deep down people want to believe in magical powers. Mentalism gives people a taste of it. But in order to do so he has to lie. The lies are not immoral but they are still lies. We all know there are many different types of lie: a white lie, to save somebodies feelings, a lie of ommission (deliberately creating a false version of events by leaving out crucial information), and a bare-faced downright lie. The lies used in mentalism are a type of jocose lie (the elaborate lies used in storytelling) and not considered lies at all by some people. If you want to be a good mentalist, though, you should consider them lies.

Magic is all about method and effect

Mentalism is all about lie and convincer

The purpose of this post is not about the rights and wrongs about telling lies. Or what kind of lies are involved in mentalism but in doing mentalism correctly. If you always think about your mentalism effects in terms of lies and convincers you won’t go far wrong. If you concentrate on method and effect you run the risk on putting on a rather damp magic show.