My Life as a Mentalist(zocalopublicsquare.org)
zocalopublicsquare.org
My Life as a Mentalist
https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2022/04/07/where-i-go-my-life-as-a-mentalist/chronicles/where-i-go/
118 comments
Spidey is also worth watching: https://m.youtube.com/user/SpideyHypnosis
He us not as famous as Derren Brown but he reveals lots of party tricks. And stage tricks are often just simple tricks with more presentation effort.
He us not as famous as Derren Brown but he reveals lots of party tricks. And stage tricks are often just simple tricks with more presentation effort.
But Spideys tricks tend to boil down to sleight of hand - something the author claims that mentalism is not, and alludes that it is a way of reading peoples thoughts.
Derren Brown is such an incredible rabbit hole to fall down, the passion he has for the craft of illusions and mentalism really shine through.
Recently he's shifted towards an honesty that I really appreciate, about where he's coming from and his own abilities. It feels so much more genuine, which makes it connect so well.
Recently he's shifted towards an honesty that I really appreciate, about where he's coming from and his own abilities. It feels so much more genuine, which makes it connect so well.
Derren Brown is not a mentalist as far as I understand the term.
If anything he's a strong skeptic against it.
If anything he's a strong skeptic against it.
Mentalism is just the genre of illusion. I think you're think if psychics, who use mentalism and Derren Brown very much is not a fan of.
If you're relying on likelihoods, what do you do on a stage show when it fails? Do you leave yourself backup possibilities? Just throw your hands up and try again?
Derren Brown shows have the benefit where he can try his tricks on 100 people and just show you the successes.
Derren Brown shows have the benefit where he can try his tricks on 100 people and just show you the successes.
Depending on the situation I could lie about it succeeding, go forward as if it didn't matter, use a back up technique, take the miss and admit i am not perfect or do it on the full audience all at once to make sure it mostly works (you will observe some of the above if you go see Derren's stage show several times).
One core technique in magic is called “multiple outs”.
The audience doesn’t know the plot of the trick, so the actual reveal can be different depending on how things go.
The audience doesn’t know the plot of the trick, so the actual reveal can be different depending on how things go.
Like in this trick, Derren appears to know Fry's card is the king of diamonds, but he doesn't. It's just quite probable[0], and if he was wrong you wouldn't even notice he was guessing, the way it's worked into the trick. If he's right, it also doesn't seem like a guess, but like he somehow knew for certain. The initial deck has only 6 different cards, and Derren has 6 different card-cigarettes hidden on his person. By then he's been told what the card is, so he can't fail that part.
https://youtu.be/QI5-NDiY7IM?t=66
[0] I think Derren half-forces a red diamond picture card, by the way he asks Fry to BURN the card into his mind, but not 3 of hearts, i.e. not a number or heart. He probably can force the choice of a King of Diamonds a lot of the time. A lot of his skill lies in increasing probabilities any way he knows how, until the apparently impossible occurs.
https://youtu.be/QI5-NDiY7IM?t=66
[0] I think Derren half-forces a red diamond picture card, by the way he asks Fry to BURN the card into his mind, but not 3 of hearts, i.e. not a number or heart. He probably can force the choice of a King of Diamonds a lot of the time. A lot of his skill lies in increasing probabilities any way he knows how, until the apparently impossible occurs.
Browne's live shows (usually in a packed auditorium or theatre with an audience of hundreds or thousands) are amazing. Sure, his TV stuff can be edited, but the live show has to work, and it does.
Most of Derren Brown's live shows are amazing but I was really disappointed with his How to Win the Lottery show.
I believe he’s admitted that he is disappointed with that show and the ‘tricks’ involved. He’s at his best when he’s just using suggestion and psychological stagecraft rather than camera tricks
> I am a consulting mentalist..
You got me curious, what does a consulting mentalist do? Also, what is your book? Unless you want to keep yourself anonymous here on HN..
You got me curious, what does a consulting mentalist do? Also, what is your book? Unless you want to keep yourself anonymous here on HN..
Apparently he's not the thought sending type of mentalist.
> what does a consulting mentalist do?
At a guess, they consult to stage performers rather than performing on stage themselves.
At a guess, they consult to stage performers rather than performing on stage themselves.
Pretty much yes. Usually people contact me because they want to do a particular demonstration on stage and i find a way to do it given their skillet, constraints and theme. But it can also be building a full show around a theme or helping someone track older references on a subject they are researching.
> If you want to be entertained by a world class mentalist, I highly recommend watching some Derren Brown shorts on YouTube (as someone else suggested).
I've been to see him live (in Bristol, UK). He did the 'usual' (for him) amazing mentalist stuff, then did a physical turn. He got some audience members to break some glass bottles on the stage, hyperventilated in a bag (to slow his pulse), then lay with his cheek on the shards and got someone to press his head down with their foot. Afterwards he stood and plucked bits of glass from his (not bleeding) face.
He followed it up with a brief explanation of how he'd done one if his routines that night using suggestion, including photos of billboards/posters outside that guided attendees down certain thought paths before the show started. It was a revelation.
Incidentally he also published "Tricks of the Mind" which has a fair amount of detail about how he does some of it.
I've been to see him live (in Bristol, UK). He did the 'usual' (for him) amazing mentalist stuff, then did a physical turn. He got some audience members to break some glass bottles on the stage, hyperventilated in a bag (to slow his pulse), then lay with his cheek on the shards and got someone to press his head down with their foot. Afterwards he stood and plucked bits of glass from his (not bleeding) face.
He followed it up with a brief explanation of how he'd done one if his routines that night using suggestion, including photos of billboards/posters outside that guided attendees down certain thought paths before the show started. It was a revelation.
Incidentally he also published "Tricks of the Mind" which has a fair amount of detail about how he does some of it.
> He followed it up with a brief explanation of how he'd done one if his routines that night using suggestion, including photos of billboards/posters outside that guided attendees down certain thought paths before the show started. It was a revelation.
This is all for show. That's not how any of these tricks are done. Brown is famous for giving fake explanations for his effects.
This is all for show. That's not how any of these tricks are done. Brown is famous for giving fake explanations for his effects.
I've been wanting to get into hypnosis for a while but I typically find all the classes are aimed (and priced) for a wannabe hypnotherapist. I'm interested in the stage hypnosis side of mentalism. Do you have any tips for what I should be looking for?
Should I start with your "how to be a mentalist" book?
Should I start with your "how to be a mentalist" book?
In the magic and stage mentalism worlds, this one is a bit of a classic:
Trance-Formations: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Structure of Hypnosis - 1981. When I was doing magic, I found quite a bit of it to be useful in helping structure routines, patter, or improve non-mentalist effects.
https://www.amazon.com/Trance-Formations-Neuro-Linguistic-Pr...
https://www.amazon.com/Trance-Formations-Neuro-Linguistic-Pr...
Thank you. I look forward to reading it.
I would recommend "The Trilby Connection" by Antony Jacquin (coupled with his book "reality is plastic") to start in hypnosis as entertainement. It is fairly well explained and focuses on close-up meaning that you can start practicing it now without needing a stage. Once you are confortable with that, you can start researching stage hypnosis.
Hypnosis for pure mentalism is different (when you are not explicitely telling people that you are using hypnosis). This is where you might want to complement your mastery of the basics with some NLP books such as the one given by an other commenter (or Steven Heller's "Monsters and Magical Sticks"). Note that a lot of NLP is not evidence based but you are fine if you keep with the founder's work on hypnosis.
(fun fact, I got started in hypnosis with some hypnotherapy books)
Hypnosis for pure mentalism is different (when you are not explicitely telling people that you are using hypnosis). This is where you might want to complement your mastery of the basics with some NLP books such as the one given by an other commenter (or Steven Heller's "Monsters and Magical Sticks"). Note that a lot of NLP is not evidence based but you are fine if you keep with the founder's work on hypnosis.
(fun fact, I got started in hypnosis with some hypnotherapy books)
Thanks. I'm really looking forward reading the book, as well as having an excuse to break out the DVD player again. (As a sidenote, one of the unexpected nice parts of COVID lockdowns being over is the ability to have alone time to watch videos of special interest on something other than a personal device as other people leave the house.)
It's interesting to hear that NLP isn't evidence based. That's a blast from the past. I had a friend in college who was very into NLP, and I could never tell if it was realistic or not. It sounded BS-y, but also plausible as anything else with with hypnosis. We played around with whatever source he had dug up, but I could easily believe our lack of results was because of the source or our (at the time) very distracted lives. I can see how some of the same techniques for hypnosis may work without being obvious to the subject.
Did you ever do any hypnotherapy or was that just the source of knowledge you had?
It's interesting to hear that NLP isn't evidence based. That's a blast from the past. I had a friend in college who was very into NLP, and I could never tell if it was realistic or not. It sounded BS-y, but also plausible as anything else with with hypnosis. We played around with whatever source he had dug up, but I could easily believe our lack of results was because of the source or our (at the time) very distracted lives. I can see how some of the same techniques for hypnosis may work without being obvious to the subject.
Did you ever do any hypnotherapy or was that just the source of knowledge you had?
I'm curious, why do this for entertainment rather than therapy?
I know about and practiced some NLP and hypnosis, but mostly to get over some personal problems. (Bandler himself cured me of depression.) Once that was done, I kinda lost interest. But there's a nagging doubt, shouldn't I be trying to help people with this? Or at least try to spread the word?
It seems to me that the self-referential use and development of the mind is more of an Information Revolution than the transistor/logic based technological revolution, eh?
I know about and practiced some NLP and hypnosis, but mostly to get over some personal problems. (Bandler himself cured me of depression.) Once that was done, I kinda lost interest. But there's a nagging doubt, shouldn't I be trying to help people with this? Or at least try to spread the word?
It seems to me that the self-referential use and development of the mind is more of an Information Revolution than the transistor/logic based technological revolution, eh?
> I'm curious, why do this for entertainment rather than therapy?
That's a good question.
I love the entertainment aspect of mentalism, I do it because it is entertaining and intriguing. As I believe that therapy has no place into an entertainment context, I do not mix it with mentalism. Some people disagree and will mix and match but I believe that the risk for harming the person by triggering something bad is too high in this context (therapy should not be done in public for entertainment, when you have time constraints and should focus on the audience's experience, I believe it should be done at the subject's rhythm and in a safe space).
However, I have taken the time to study both counseling and the therapeutic aspect of hypnosis, I have used them privately as one-off quick fix to small things and I often think that, in another life, I might have pursued this path further.
So I guess that the answer is: because I am primarily an entertainer, not a therapist.
That's a good question.
I love the entertainment aspect of mentalism, I do it because it is entertaining and intriguing. As I believe that therapy has no place into an entertainment context, I do not mix it with mentalism. Some people disagree and will mix and match but I believe that the risk for harming the person by triggering something bad is too high in this context (therapy should not be done in public for entertainment, when you have time constraints and should focus on the audience's experience, I believe it should be done at the subject's rhythm and in a safe space).
However, I have taken the time to study both counseling and the therapeutic aspect of hypnosis, I have used them privately as one-off quick fix to small things and I often think that, in another life, I might have pursued this path further.
So I guess that the answer is: because I am primarily an entertainer, not a therapist.
I respect that a lot. Thanks for replying. :)
Where can one find out more about your book? I'm a casual fan of mentalism and a book about it by a computer scientist sounds interesting.
My book is written in French and covers the technique most dear to the Bob mentioned in the article (not giving more specific details here), if you read French don't hesitate to email me and I will send you a link. My computer scientist background can be mostly seen from the research elements of the book (I have references and tips going back two hundreds years in the past) and the fact that I got my editor to let me typeset it in Latex.
The next ones will be in English (and Latex if my English editors agree with it...) and might get out within two years, keep you eyes open for a Nestor.
The next ones will be in English (and Latex if my English editors agree with it...) and might get out within two years, keep you eyes open for a Nestor.
Side note: the word "mentalist" is widely-used London (maybe South-East London) slang for nutter/weirdo/unhinged person; the kind of person who is unpredictably or disproportionately angry, violent or prone to high-risk social behaviour that is best avoided. Usually a man: "bloke's a mentalist!"
It is basically never a compliment (whereas "mental" occasionally has a positive/fun connotation now).
It makes reading about Americans talking about "mentalists", including some of the comments on this page, very funny indeed.
It is basically never a compliment (whereas "mental" occasionally has a positive/fun connotation now).
It makes reading about Americans talking about "mentalists", including some of the comments on this page, very funny indeed.
To note that this is because people needed a word to describe someone who's "utterly mental" but didn't like "crazy" or "insane" (which are both considered not-PC these days, among other things), so they reached for the closest they'd heard - mentalist, made famous by the TV series - even though it was not the correct word.
But yeah, it is now in common usage. A bit like their/they're/there and "should of", it hurts my pedantic sensibilities, but in the end, people will speak how they want to speak and if enough of them agree, the language just changes.
But yeah, it is now in common usage. A bit like their/they're/there and "should of", it hurts my pedantic sensibilities, but in the end, people will speak how they want to speak and if enough of them agree, the language just changes.
No it's not, and I've used it long before that show was around. So much so that the title of that show was just as amusing as this title of this thread.
Whenever I see the word "mentalist" all I can think of is Alan Partridge fleeing from Jed Maxwell.
I especially enjoyed the trailers for tv show "The Mentalist" in this light.
I'm not as sure about the violence aspect of it, but certainly the rest rings true. Imagine the scene, you're driving in London and someone pulls out in front of you and does a series of weird manoeuvres, holding up the whole street for what feels like several hours. An appropriate exclamation could be "What the f*ck are you doing you utter mentalist?"
I'm not as sure about the violence aspect of it, but certainly the rest rings true. Imagine the scene, you're driving in London and someone pulls out in front of you and does a series of weird manoeuvres, holding up the whole street for what feels like several hours. An appropriate exclamation could be "What the f*ck are you doing you utter mentalist?"
The Mentalist is such a guilty pleasure for me. The Sherlock/Watson combo is done to death in crime procedurals but as far as contemporary twists on the formula go, I found it a bit more memorable than, say, Elementary or Castle.
In my former South-West London circles, "mentalist" rarely had the negative connotation you describe. More frequently it was used to refer to someone's (contextually) outrageous/daft/extreme behaviour.
"You ran 15km before breakfast? You bloody mentalist" "You carried on drinking even after I left? Mentalist"
and so on.
"You ran 15km before breakfast? You bloody mentalist" "You carried on drinking even after I left? Mentalist"
and so on.
> "You ran 15km before breakfast? You bloody mentalist" "You carried on drinking even after I left? Mentalist"
Well some of this I include under high-risk social behaviour I suppose.
But it's a good observation. I can't think of a time recently I've heard it used positively.
Well some of this I include under high-risk social behaviour I suppose.
But it's a good observation. I can't think of a time recently I've heard it used positively.
[deleted]
I used to walk around with a queen of hearts in my pocket and, as a party trick, ask a female friend or acquaintance to "name a card, any card, just not ace of spades, everybody picks an ace for some reason". If I got it right, I'd produce the card, otherwise I'd blurt out some "character reading" bs based on what card they picked as an "out".
I learned the trick from a Derren Brown book in which he describes a much more elaborate version. You would be amazed how well it worked. It's just one of those things: A number between 1 and 5? 3. 1 and 10? 7. 1 and 20? 17. And the famous "red hammer" trick. Humans are lousy PRGs.
Of course I could hide several cards in several pockets to increase my chances but that would be "cheating".
I learned the trick from a Derren Brown book in which he describes a much more elaborate version. You would be amazed how well it worked. It's just one of those things: A number between 1 and 5? 3. 1 and 10? 7. 1 and 20? 17. And the famous "red hammer" trick. Humans are lousy PRGs.
Of course I could hide several cards in several pockets to increase my chances but that would be "cheating".
It works so well that my boss came back from lunch once and described excitedly how some guy had stopped him and run a routine to get him to pick a number and a colour, and as he described the prompts the colour blue and number 7 popped into my head. And they were the right ones.
"Of course I could hide several cards in several pockets to increase my chances but that would be "cheating"."
All "magic" is cheating.
Why not increase your chances and increase the odds of your audience enjoying themselves?
As long as you don't claim to have real magic powers and make it clear that it's "just a trick", I don't see a problem with this.
All "magic" is cheating.
Why not increase your chances and increase the odds of your audience enjoying themselves?
As long as you don't claim to have real magic powers and make it clear that it's "just a trick", I don't see a problem with this.
I just tried the number game on my wife and she got, 3, 7 and 16. I would call that a success. Especially as I had to repeat the last one which gave her more thinking time.
I wonder if Alice In Wonderland along with Disney helped make the queen of hearts a memorable card face enabling people who are not as familiar with cards to recall the character.
Like most mentalist that “explain” their trade, the author doesn’t explain anything.
In fact the article doesn’t say anything at all.
Pen and teller use every opportunity to pan mentalists and the mentalism-explained videos on YouTube I’ve seen all boils down to sleight of hand.
If you read the comments first, don’t bother with the article.
In fact the article doesn’t say anything at all.
Pen and teller use every opportunity to pan mentalists and the mentalism-explained videos on YouTube I’ve seen all boils down to sleight of hand.
If you read the comments first, don’t bother with the article.
I agree, I love Penn and Teller and their style of magic. It _feels_ very science-y to me. Like they explain a trick but still blow your mind at the end of it. They show you they are masters of their craft, and most of the time (not always) they aren't trying to deceive you.
Mentalism on the other hand is the exact opposite. The only point is to impress you with pseudoscience, as far as I can tell.
Mentalism on the other hand is the exact opposite. The only point is to impress you with pseudoscience, as far as I can tell.
And I believe their disdain for mentalism comes from James Randi.
Here's an hour long presentation that James Randi gave at McGill University:
James Randi - Investigating Pseudoscientific and Paranormal Claims https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqlvqHBVCg
Here's an hour long presentation that James Randi gave at McGill University:
James Randi - Investigating Pseudoscientific and Paranormal Claims https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqlvqHBVCg
If you are taking this article at face value then you are missing the point.
This is 100% a marketing piece. It is a standard part of modern Mentalism to pretend to explain how it works by psychology, powers of suggestion, and deep study of human nature. This is misdirection. Mentalism is an illusion, like any other magic show.
Source: Like the author I also have a stack of books on Mentalism.
This is 100% a marketing piece. It is a standard part of modern Mentalism to pretend to explain how it works by psychology, powers of suggestion, and deep study of human nature. This is misdirection. Mentalism is an illusion, like any other magic show.
Source: Like the author I also have a stack of books on Mentalism.
Which is why it's a shitty article to have upvoted to the front page, and everybody is right to complain about it.
But you are absolutely right, this article is about misrepresenting mentalism and promoting the author.
But you are absolutely right, this article is about misrepresenting mentalism and promoting the author.
Question you probably intended to induce:
What "real" books on the subject do you recommend?
What "real" books on the subject do you recommend?
None of his claims would pass an Amazing Randi challenge.
There's another psychological trick here: we are effectively being told we must believe something happened and wasn't trickery because he tells us so. So his wife "wasn't a confederate of the mentalist". Ok, right. Where's the proof this even happened at all? Because some guy calling himself a mentalist says so in an internet article?
There's another psychological trick here: we are effectively being told we must believe something happened and wasn't trickery because he tells us so. So his wife "wasn't a confederate of the mentalist". Ok, right. Where's the proof this even happened at all? Because some guy calling himself a mentalist says so in an internet article?
> None of his claims would pass an Amazing Randi challenge.
"So, yes, what I do is real" means that his act really is mental (intuition, suggestibility, etc), as opposed to non-mental (confederates, well-placed mirrors, trick pens, etc). He wasn't claiming to have psychic powers.
> Where's the proof this even happened at all?
Guessing names is a very common stage trick; here's Derren Brown getting the name of someone's pet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1IV_kkh1Xs
"So, yes, what I do is real" means that his act really is mental (intuition, suggestibility, etc), as opposed to non-mental (confederates, well-placed mirrors, trick pens, etc). He wasn't claiming to have psychic powers.
> Where's the proof this even happened at all?
Guessing names is a very common stage trick; here's Derren Brown getting the name of someone's pet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1IV_kkh1Xs
> "Guessing names is a very common stage trick; here's Derren Brown getting the name of someone's pet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1IV_kkh1Xs"
Oh, but it IS an act of non-mental tricks (confederates, research, etc). From the comments on the link you provided, and do note this person is appreciative of the showmanship of it all:
> "Notice how the letter F was clearly not random and he specifically chose that girl from the audience. What also wasn't random was that he asked specifically if she had any pets. He did research on one of his audience members beforehand and decided upon this girl and mind-reading a pet name - because she had her pet name on one of her social medias. What makes this even better is that they probably would have chosen a social media account she hadn't used in ages or a post from years ago to maximise disbelief. It wasn't mind-reading or looking intently at her face for plosive sounds or anything. It was just audience research and epic showmanship and story-telling."
Now, I like a good trick and I enjoy magic acts. But this has nothing to do with intuition or suggestibility or mind-reading of any kind.
Oh, but it IS an act of non-mental tricks (confederates, research, etc). From the comments on the link you provided, and do note this person is appreciative of the showmanship of it all:
> "Notice how the letter F was clearly not random and he specifically chose that girl from the audience. What also wasn't random was that he asked specifically if she had any pets. He did research on one of his audience members beforehand and decided upon this girl and mind-reading a pet name - because she had her pet name on one of her social medias. What makes this even better is that they probably would have chosen a social media account she hadn't used in ages or a post from years ago to maximise disbelief. It wasn't mind-reading or looking intently at her face for plosive sounds or anything. It was just audience research and epic showmanship and story-telling."
Now, I like a good trick and I enjoy magic acts. But this has nothing to do with intuition or suggestibility or mind-reading of any kind.
I admire your confidence; I don't claim to know how any of his tricks are done. But certainly he has done some that unambiguously rely on hypnosis and/or psychological manipulation and some that unambiguously don't.
edit: But since you're explaining things, I would like to know how the trick he does with Matt Lucas is done!
edit: But since you're explaining things, I would like to know how the trick he does with Matt Lucas is done!
I'm not explaining things, I quoted the explanation from a fan in the video you linked to!
Then I admire their confidence (and wonder how they think he did it before social media).
edit: For example, here's Derren Brown reading the name of a woman's first crush in his stage show in 2005: https://youtu.be/idtbswz_mXw?t=1247
edit: For example, here's Derren Brown reading the name of a woman's first crush in his stage show in 2005: https://youtu.be/idtbswz_mXw?t=1247
Surely, Derren Brown's team talked to the lady, asked her a few questions like her name, her age, her dogs names etc, and fed that information to Derren. It's very easy with a few pieces of information like that to completely narrow it down to one person. You can see in the video, he asks for all the Fs to stand up, and he selects one person.
I'm sure there's more to mentalism, like reading body language but it feels like 90% magic (lots of prep work + hard work + presenting / misleading) and 10% improvisation.
I'm sure there's more to mentalism, like reading body language but it feels like 90% magic (lots of prep work + hard work + presenting / misleading) and 10% improvisation.
A mentalist can also remember the name of everyone in a theatre, using memory techniques. Theatre tickets are sold out months in advance. TV shows too. Names and addresses are given.
Many people have open Facebook profiles. People love talking about their pets, and about their upcoming visit to see a famous performer. I imagine a team might compile the list that a mentalist has to remember. Seat numbers can also be memorised, etc etc...
Many people have open Facebook profiles. People love talking about their pets, and about their upcoming visit to see a famous performer. I imagine a team might compile the list that a mentalist has to remember. Seat numbers can also be memorised, etc etc...
> mentalist can also remember the name of everyone in a theatre, using memory techniques.
It doesn't need to be _everyone_ in the theatre, or even most of them. He asked for "someone on the balcony" and then picked someone in the front row thereof.
It doesn't need to be _everyone_ in the theatre, or even most of them. He asked for "someone on the balcony" and then picked someone in the front row thereof.
Not always.
One part of Derren Brown's act involves getting people to say things that aren't true at all -- playing with suggestibility in groups and cohesiveness.
Like, he'll do a quickfire guessing thing, going through audience members, guessing, "did I guess right?" thing, ramping up the speed, and he knows for sure people will say yes when they want to say no.
He's maniacally clever.
One part of Derren Brown's act involves getting people to say things that aren't true at all -- playing with suggestibility in groups and cohesiveness.
Like, he'll do a quickfire guessing thing, going through audience members, guessing, "did I guess right?" thing, ramping up the speed, and he knows for sure people will say yes when they want to say no.
He's maniacally clever.
> He wasn't claiming to have psychic powers.
He's not?
> I perfected another where I asked a person to think of a loved one, and then I guessed their loved one’s name
I don't see how you do this one sans psychic powers unless you're at least somewhat familiar with the person and their loved ones. Guessing common names would work every once in a while, but nowhere close to the majority of the time.
Now perhaps if you research the person ahead of time, maybe frame your question in a way that they're more likely to think of a particular type of person (e.g. mention age or old times so that they're more likely to think of grandparents as opposed to younger relatives), I could see that working, but that's not what he said. "Hey stranger, think of a loved one" -> "I know their name" is impossible without telepathy.
Similarly:
> Having someone merely think of a drawing, then taking a pad and duplicating their vision perfectly?
No, you can't do this without psychic powers unless you're adding a lot more context around the type of drawing before they do it. "Hey stranger, do a drawing of something, anything" isn't gonna work. Even if you assume there's a handful of common objects that people are likely to draw -- a house, a car, a dog, a flower -- you're still gonna be wrong more often than right.
He's not?
> I perfected another where I asked a person to think of a loved one, and then I guessed their loved one’s name
I don't see how you do this one sans psychic powers unless you're at least somewhat familiar with the person and their loved ones. Guessing common names would work every once in a while, but nowhere close to the majority of the time.
Now perhaps if you research the person ahead of time, maybe frame your question in a way that they're more likely to think of a particular type of person (e.g. mention age or old times so that they're more likely to think of grandparents as opposed to younger relatives), I could see that working, but that's not what he said. "Hey stranger, think of a loved one" -> "I know their name" is impossible without telepathy.
Similarly:
> Having someone merely think of a drawing, then taking a pad and duplicating their vision perfectly?
No, you can't do this without psychic powers unless you're adding a lot more context around the type of drawing before they do it. "Hey stranger, do a drawing of something, anything" isn't gonna work. Even if you assume there's a handful of common objects that people are likely to draw -- a house, a car, a dog, a flower -- you're still gonna be wrong more often than right.
> ..is impossible without telepathy.
It's supposed to look like it can't be done without telepathy - that's the whole point of the trick! And yet, it is done, successfully, on stages large and small, by people who are definitely not telepaths.
It's supposed to look like it can't be done without telepathy - that's the whole point of the trick! And yet, it is done, successfully, on stages large and small, by people who are definitely not telepaths.
I'd be willing to change my mind if a person was able to demonstrate this ability while just walking around a randomly chosen part of a big city, going up to strangers and just straightaway asking them to think of a loved one's name, with the recording stuff and people-choosing being done by a known skeptic.
Having it done in a stage environment controlled by the performer in question obviously offers the ability to do research on audience members beforehand, or even have plants in the audience.
Having it done in a stage environment controlled by the performer in question obviously offers the ability to do research on audience members beforehand, or even have plants in the audience.
Change your mind about what? The performers aren't trying to convince you they have psychic powers, they're trying to convince you to buy a ticket to their show.
Anyway, think this through. Derren Brown claims not to use stooges, and has been doing tricks like these on stage (per his wiki page) for 19 tours each averaging 50-100 nights. If he's using stooges, he's going through an awful lot of them, isn't he? Including his TV work, there must be thousands of people in the UK that could go on TV and blow the lid on the whole thing. I ask you, which is the more impressive feat of mentalism: keeping all of those people quiet, or guessing that an audience member drew a picture of a cat?
Anyway, think this through. Derren Brown claims not to use stooges, and has been doing tricks like these on stage (per his wiki page) for 19 tours each averaging 50-100 nights. If he's using stooges, he's going through an awful lot of them, isn't he? Including his TV work, there must be thousands of people in the UK that could go on TV and blow the lid on the whole thing. I ask you, which is the more impressive feat of mentalism: keeping all of those people quiet, or guessing that an audience member drew a picture of a cat?
An NDA isn't a particularly impressive feat.
With his "The push" show he either uses stooges or uses "mentalism" to turn people into murderers and risks giving the victims severe trauma and PTSD.
If the show is real the abuse carried out by Derren far surpasses the abuse of other cancelled shows like Jeremy Kyle. This is why I think its most likely the killers in this show are actors. If he's willing and able to use actors in this show its likely he has used them in others too.
With his "The push" show he either uses stooges or uses "mentalism" to turn people into murderers and risks giving the victims severe trauma and PTSD.
If the show is real the abuse carried out by Derren far surpasses the abuse of other cancelled shows like Jeremy Kyle. This is why I think its most likely the killers in this show are actors. If he's willing and able to use actors in this show its likely he has used them in others too.
> An NDA isn't a particularly impressive feat.
I think you're underestimating how bad people are at keeping salacious secrets about celebrities.
Remember when Bear Grylls had to apologize for the "stranded on a desert island" show, after people on Reddit claimed to have worked on his production staff and revealed that he spent the night in a hotel and had help collecting the material for the shelter he built? If Derren has been using stooges throughout his career, it beggars belief that the same thing hasn't happened to him.
> If the show is real the abuse carried out by Derren far surpasses the abuse of other cancelled shows like Jeremy Kyle.
Yes, he has been roundly criticized for many of his hypnosis stunts, e.g. [0]. Are you now suggesting that those people are all stooges too? Do all stage hypnotist acts rely on actors?
0: https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/derren-brown-slammed-over...
I think you're underestimating how bad people are at keeping salacious secrets about celebrities.
Remember when Bear Grylls had to apologize for the "stranded on a desert island" show, after people on Reddit claimed to have worked on his production staff and revealed that he spent the night in a hotel and had help collecting the material for the shelter he built? If Derren has been using stooges throughout his career, it beggars belief that the same thing hasn't happened to him.
> If the show is real the abuse carried out by Derren far surpasses the abuse of other cancelled shows like Jeremy Kyle.
Yes, he has been roundly criticized for many of his hypnosis stunts, e.g. [0]. Are you now suggesting that those people are all stooges too? Do all stage hypnotist acts rely on actors?
0: https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/derren-brown-slammed-over...
About whether they can do this:
> I perfected another where I asked a person to think of a loved one, and then I guessed their loved one’s name
> I perfected another where I asked a person to think of a loved one, and then I guessed their loved one’s name
That's pretty much the opening of every medium's act, right? Have you ever seen one? It would save a lot of explanation, and I'm sure you'd see through it pretty easily.
But there's no way to reliably cold read a name, so it has to be done via trickery (basically, already know the answer).
...or it can be done unreliably. Again, I can only suggest leaving the realm of theory and going out and seeing someone do it.
I'm not saying the "trick" cannot be done. Magicians employ tricks and misdirection in their acts, to great effect.
I've watched magic acts and been awed by them. I'm not a heckler.
I'm just saying, 100% magic acts are misdirection, trickery, confederates, and dexterity. It's "psychology" in the sense they know how to misdirect. The same with mentalism. This doesn't detract from it; if it's fun entertainment, and the mentalist doesn't claim to have actual extraordinary powers of perception (or supernatural powers), then everything is fair and ok to me!
But unnatural "perception" powers, mental powers, etc? Nope. Mentalism is a trick, not some exercise of wondrous mental powers. The latter claim wouldn't pass an Amazing Randi challenge.
I've watched magic acts and been awed by them. I'm not a heckler.
I'm just saying, 100% magic acts are misdirection, trickery, confederates, and dexterity. It's "psychology" in the sense they know how to misdirect. The same with mentalism. This doesn't detract from it; if it's fun entertainment, and the mentalist doesn't claim to have actual extraordinary powers of perception (or supernatural powers), then everything is fair and ok to me!
But unnatural "perception" powers, mental powers, etc? Nope. Mentalism is a trick, not some exercise of wondrous mental powers. The latter claim wouldn't pass an Amazing Randi challenge.
> The latter claim wouldn't pass an Amazing Randi challenge.
Randi's challenge was for people making claims of genuine supernatural powers, i.e. the mentally ill. I don't see how it's relevant here.
> 100% magic acts are misdirection, trickery, confederates, and dexterity.
I assure you that cold reading has been done for hundreds of years (without foreknowledge, which would be called "hot reading"), and can only suggest reading up on it. Wikipedia has a good overview.
Randi's challenge was for people making claims of genuine supernatural powers, i.e. the mentally ill. I don't see how it's relevant here.
> 100% magic acts are misdirection, trickery, confederates, and dexterity.
I assure you that cold reading has been done for hundreds of years (without foreknowledge, which would be called "hot reading"), and can only suggest reading up on it. Wikipedia has a good overview.
[deleted]
Obviously they don't have psychic powers. They are always "cheating" in some way. There are many different ways to do these kinds of tricks.
[deleted]
100% of mentalism acts use normal magic techniques
They just pretend to use "intuition" or "suggestibility" (not sure why, but it seems to make it more appealing), but those are not real methods...
They just pretend to use "intuition" or "suggestibility" (not sure why, but it seems to make it more appealing), but those are not real methods...
A response I gave elsewhere in this thread with a presentation that Randi gave: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31027409
I really like a lot of magic, but mentalism isn't very interesting magic to me because it always boils down to the same thing:
1. They get passed information via some surreptitious source (hidden mic, signals, ode, etc.) 2. They make some kind of swap using sleight of hand 3. They got lucky/had multiple outs/the person was in on it
And the presentation beyond that is really boring, like: "pick a card", then "oh I know what it is". Once you've seen it once it's always the same. Obviously everyone knows you can't actually read minds or predict the future, so it's just a matter of what type of cheating occurs.
1. They get passed information via some surreptitious source (hidden mic, signals, ode, etc.) 2. They make some kind of swap using sleight of hand 3. They got lucky/had multiple outs/the person was in on it
And the presentation beyond that is really boring, like: "pick a card", then "oh I know what it is". Once you've seen it once it's always the same. Obviously everyone knows you can't actually read minds or predict the future, so it's just a matter of what type of cheating occurs.
>Can I bend cutlery and coins? Sure, but I heed Cassidy’s advice, and I don’t. If I step onstage and bend a fork with my brain, it makes everything too unbelievable.
No, you cannot bend metal with your brain.
That would actually be worthy of our attention instead of this drivel.
No, you cannot bend metal with your brain.
That would actually be worthy of our attention instead of this drivel.
This article reads like an elaborate dodge to me, something a mentalist might do. A dodge I might use if I actually did believe in the supernatural and mind reading, but knew people would scoff at me and demand proof. Instead I'd say I use nothing but intuition and fancy things like neurolinguistics programming and focus on the times I got lucky to point to my success.
> I perfected another where I asked a person to think of a loved one, and then I guessed their loved one’s name
No amount of intuition or NLP will enable you to correctly guess the name, so he's indicating that he really believes he can read minds.
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/12/05/extraordinary/
> I perfected another where I asked a person to think of a loved one, and then I guessed their loved one’s name
No amount of intuition or NLP will enable you to correctly guess the name, so he's indicating that he really believes he can read minds.
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/12/05/extraordinary/
Actually it works pretty good on the kind of person who might believe in NLP themselves.
It's hard to take it seriously if you consider it vs a rationalist of course. But what footing does someone who has no idea and doesn't care what any of this 'veracity' stuff is and gets amazed by crap like the shamwow guy selling them garbage on TV or horrible war crime denialist government propaganda? A big part of NLP is just boosting your own confidence that you've got this person on the hook and taking it from there, after that none of this veracity stuff matters because now we're just in the realm of manipulation of belief space, something which is demonstrably way easier than convincing people to take up enough stuff like understanding of math and probability to know otherwise.
This kind of person is the rule rather than the exception and that's why this shit works. It's a large part of the reason why everything is horrible these days. Talking down on people captivated by this stuff for years has only entrenched their beliefs harder. Us rationalists should maybe realize that we're doing it wrong if there's to be any hope for a rational future.
This guy is definitely hand waving like mad though you're right about that for sure
It's hard to take it seriously if you consider it vs a rationalist of course. But what footing does someone who has no idea and doesn't care what any of this 'veracity' stuff is and gets amazed by crap like the shamwow guy selling them garbage on TV or horrible war crime denialist government propaganda? A big part of NLP is just boosting your own confidence that you've got this person on the hook and taking it from there, after that none of this veracity stuff matters because now we're just in the realm of manipulation of belief space, something which is demonstrably way easier than convincing people to take up enough stuff like understanding of math and probability to know otherwise.
This kind of person is the rule rather than the exception and that's why this shit works. It's a large part of the reason why everything is horrible these days. Talking down on people captivated by this stuff for years has only entrenched their beliefs harder. Us rationalists should maybe realize that we're doing it wrong if there's to be any hope for a rational future.
This guy is definitely hand waving like mad though you're right about that for sure
I don't think you're giving people enough credit. Sure, there's the very low end of the bell curve, but they're a smaller group than the middle group where most of the effort is applied. I believe that most people are in on the joke and playing along because they're bored and want entertainment. These kind of manipulators are mocked endlessly on comedy shows. Infomericals are a joke, but they work anyway.
Everyone's in on the slap chop joke until the thing breaks on literally the second slap
It's possible to assess the person (say, an eighty year old lady from the United Kingdom) and then use the name "Albert" as a statistically-likely significant name.
This doesn't need to be THE name that was thought of - a good mentalist can convince the subject that "Albert" is actually the "loved one" they were thinking of, even if it wasn't the first name to be considered. People are inclined to be agreeable, especially in an unfamiliar setting with a large number of strangers staring at them and even more so if the person is alone and elderly.
This doesn't need to be THE name that was thought of - a good mentalist can convince the subject that "Albert" is actually the "loved one" they were thinking of, even if it wasn't the first name to be considered. People are inclined to be agreeable, especially in an unfamiliar setting with a large number of strangers staring at them and even more so if the person is alone and elderly.
But wouldn't it be fairly obvious to the audience that this kind of manipulation is happening and thus find it less interesting?
Technically projecting a thought is a different ability than reading people's minds. The trick could be supernatural but still not involve reading minds. Aka send a few messages of common names, look for cues (such as "I got it") then say the most recent name that was projected.
I thought the same thing. No twitch or shrug of a tell would indicate a random name.
The guy is a comedy writer. I think the article is a joke to get people like me thinking about it. He got me to respond, so it worked. I took the bait from the mentalist and was controlled by him. Funny.
How did this non-tech, not even particularly good, informative, or interesting article end up in hn frontpage?
If you want to know how the feather trick works, here's the explanation
Step 1: Ask for 2 people to stand apart blindfolded
Step 2: While explaining the set up to the crowd, surreptitiously brush Person A's arm with a feather
Step 3: Walk over to Person B and brush their arm with a feather as well
Step 4: Ask Person A if they felt anything strange. Person A recalls being brushed with a feather.
Since Person A is blindfolded, they don't know what, and more importantly - when, Person B was brushed as well so it all seems rather impressive
Step 1: Ask for 2 people to stand apart blindfolded
Step 2: While explaining the set up to the crowd, surreptitiously brush Person A's arm with a feather
Step 3: Walk over to Person B and brush their arm with a feather as well
Step 4: Ask Person A if they felt anything strange. Person A recalls being brushed with a feather.
Since Person A is blindfolded, they don't know what, and more importantly - when, Person B was brushed as well so it all seems rather impressive
This article has absolutely no substance!
That said: anyone have any resources of substance on how to become a mentalist ;) ?
That said: anyone have any resources of substance on how to become a mentalist ;) ?
This page has a few links: https://www.startlearningmagic.com/mentalism-resources
Banachek is much more interesting than Darren Brown imho. Psychological Subtleties Vol. 1 by Banachek https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003B0WWSO/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_DP...
Surprisingly little actual information in here, so if anyone is wanting more, I'll just point out that a ton of of UK mentalist Derren Brown's work is available on youtube. A short bit (with an explanation that may or may not be true) is here: https://youtu.be/rr05Dchmlww?t=907
I love Derren Brown but this is not anything close to his best work. The video starts with a staring competition. Outdoors. On a sunny day. Where Derren is facing away from the sun and the opponent is facing into it.
Some of his other shows are more entertaining - for example he has one where he plays 14 chess grandmasters simultaneously and beats five, draws with four and loses to five. After the masters are duly impressed, he makes it clear that all he did was play the first master’s move against the second, the second against the third, and so on. It’s an ibvious trick but he does it so well, no one seems to notice at the time.
Or he has another where he goes horse racing and convinces the cashier at a bookies to give him money for a losing ticket. The person involved is so clearly confused and shocked that they gave money away (and is clearly not an actor) that the whole piece is pretty compelling - I just don’t believe anyone is both good enough to act like that on cue and at the same time has never appeared in any other work I’ve seen before or since.
Some of his other shows are more entertaining - for example he has one where he plays 14 chess grandmasters simultaneously and beats five, draws with four and loses to five. After the masters are duly impressed, he makes it clear that all he did was play the first master’s move against the second, the second against the third, and so on. It’s an ibvious trick but he does it so well, no one seems to notice at the time.
Or he has another where he goes horse racing and convinces the cashier at a bookies to give him money for a losing ticket. The person involved is so clearly confused and shocked that they gave money away (and is clearly not an actor) that the whole piece is pretty compelling - I just don’t believe anyone is both good enough to act like that on cue and at the same time has never appeared in any other work I’ve seen before or since.
I suspect there was some editing involved with the chess example to make it seem more impressive, since it should be obvious to a competent player that this is what you are doing (because of the delay in which you make moves by having to check another board first). Additionally simultaneous exhibitions almost always have you playing the same color on every board, so it would be immediately suspicious.
> After the masters are duly impressed, he makes it clear that all he did was play the first master’s move against the second, the second against the third, and so on. It’s an ibvious trick but he does it so well, no one seems to notice at the time.
That strategy doesn't work.
That strategy doesn't work.
Whoops, I've updated the link to point to the bit I meant to link to, thanks.
Based on this captain dissolution video, it seems like some of Darren Brown's tricks are VFX. I wouldn't trust the claims of being all psychology. https://youtu.be/DODGRfzdfNU
He does all sorts of stuff - card magic, big stage props, coins, mentalism, memory tricks, hypnosis, walking on broken glass, you name it - and as with any magic act, part of the fun is figuring out which is what. I did think the lottery thing was not a very good trick though, and the following special where he said he would reveal the trick was (I think) widely considered a disaster in his otherwise fairly successful career.
He does a lot of good stuff but that one was dumb. That one taints his series which was otherwise decent. It's a "prediction" that's so obviously wildly impossible it has to be a simple cheat and there's no other explanation. Immediately it was broadcast people speculated the visual effect method Captain D suggests and also other ways it could have been done using physical effects.
0% of mentalism is psychology...
I ended up reading a few articles on the site and they all seem to be of a similar bent: some ostensible comedian telling an unfunny story about their work 15 years ago.
Once in front of my colleagues put a piece of paper with some writing closed,
I asked one of them to pick a number between 1-4 (they were drawn in a another piece of paper) he picked 3, then I asked to another write the first veggie name that comes to their mind, he picked Carrot.
I open the piece of paper that I put at the beginning, the writing was 3 and Carrot.
They were amazed, one of them got scared of the situation,
The thing is that I wrote the numbers 1 and 2 smaller than the number 3 and the number 4 was in very bad handwrite, and the most common Veggie that people think first it's carrot
I asked one of them to pick a number between 1-4 (they were drawn in a another piece of paper) he picked 3, then I asked to another write the first veggie name that comes to their mind, he picked Carrot.
I open the piece of paper that I put at the beginning, the writing was 3 and Carrot.
They were amazed, one of them got scared of the situation,
The thing is that I wrote the numbers 1 and 2 smaller than the number 3 and the number 4 was in very bad handwrite, and the most common Veggie that people think first it's carrot
Magic for Humans with Justin Willman on Netflix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_for_Humans) has some fun demos + explanations of this if anyone's interested.
What feels like a "random choice" when someone makes it is probably just the first thing they think of. So if you can make sure they're primed to think of what you want right away you can "predict" their choice. The real skill comes in being able to prime them without making it obvious that that's what you're doing.
What feels like a "random choice" when someone makes it is probably just the first thing they think of. So if you can make sure they're primed to think of what you want right away you can "predict" their choice. The real skill comes in being able to prime them without making it obvious that that's what you're doing.
The opening to the film “now you see me” did the forced-choice-of-card gag well.
Um, there was an entire CBS series on it? Starring Simon Baker?
It teased a little supernaturalism, but the vast majority was him explaining the cons, tricks, and psychological tricks.
The article is an excellent example. It trades in generalities that sound like specifics.
The envelope with "all the picks made by the audience"... did it get shown? Did the answers actually get stated in a way they solved both options? Was there an opportunity to switch the envelopes?
It teased a little supernaturalism, but the vast majority was him explaining the cons, tricks, and psychological tricks.
The article is an excellent example. It trades in generalities that sound like specifics.
The envelope with "all the picks made by the audience"... did it get shown? Did the answers actually get stated in a way they solved both options? Was there an opportunity to switch the envelopes?
The plot of the TV show was very interesting. Unfortunately the acting of some characters was subpar and there was too many seasons.
>and psychokinesis (which consists of effects like metal bending). Can I bend cutlery and coins? Sure, but I heed Cassidy’s advice, and I don’t. If I step onstage and bend a fork with my brain, it makes everything too unbelievable. “You can pick up on thoughts and you can bend spoons?” an audience member might say, the seeds of suspicion creeping in.
So why does he not heed the advice for the article itself?
I think this is the core sentence of the article:
>My wife volunteered in a couple more demonstrations, and I knew she wasn’t in league with the mentalist. (Or, perhaps she was, which would explain our eventual divorce.)
He still doesn't know and he has spent all his life to find out.
>I probably acquired close to a thousand books on mentalism, and several hundred videos.
So why does he not heed the advice for the article itself?
I think this is the core sentence of the article:
>My wife volunteered in a couple more demonstrations, and I knew she wasn’t in league with the mentalist. (Or, perhaps she was, which would explain our eventual divorce.)
He still doesn't know and he has spent all his life to find out.
>I probably acquired close to a thousand books on mentalism, and several hundred videos.
Let my spoiler the performance with the feather. The mentalist of course touched his girlfriend, probably with a thin transparent string between his fingers or hands or maybe just by blowing a bit of air at her. With her eyes closed she could not tell what was going on in the room when she felt the touch, but she felt the touch at some point before or after the other woman was touched with the feather. If you would ask her to immediately say something when she felt a touch, then it would become obvious that she is not feeling the touch when the other woman is touched.
> I probably acquired close to a thousand books on mentalism
I'm surprised/skeptical that so many books on this subject exist.
I'm surprised/skeptical that so many books on this subject exist.
In the UK, mentalist is most commonly a slang term for someone who is “mental” or crazy. I would call Derren Brown a psychic
I wouldn’t, because he’s not actually telepathic, nor has such a thing ever been proven to exist. It’s mind guessing / leading rather than reading.
[deleted]
Mentalism is a large part of the plot of Nightmare Alley. Personally, I enjoyed the 1947 film a lot more than the recent 2021 film. Both are based on the 1946 novel.
Related subject, if you haven't watched Nightmare Alley, I recommend it.
Mentalism is an ensemble of techniques (including mnemotechnic, hypnosis, magic tricks, a knowledge of statistically likely phenomenons and, indeed, a trained intuition) used to produce incredible phenomenons (usually psychic phenomenons or an impressive mastery of the human mind) in an entertainment setting.
One point that is worth stressing is that it is neither all real (magic tricks are great to make things look better / add some punch and anyone telling you they don't use them is either lying or very ignorant) nor all fake (anyone telling you otherwise is, similarly, likely ignorant or a magician who did some telepathy-themed tricks and think that it is all there is to it, the human mind is an amazing toy).
If you want to be entertained by a world class mentalist, I highly recommend watching some Derren Brown shorts on YouTube (as someone else suggested).