I find that most intelligent spectators are more interested in the psychological techniques than the sleight-of-hand. Most would rather feel that they had only seen the card change because they expected to see it change than because I was adept at exchanging it under supposedly impossible conditions. So whilst I have no desire to present my effects as mere psychological chicanery, I will allow the possibility that a lot of subliminal suggestion is afoot. People find that fascinating, as do I. Now, later I offer to take the spectators a little deeper into the art and we embark upon a few mindreading and 'psychic' effects. Here I let them feel that I am using a heightened sensitivity to body language and a whole set of hypnotic skills to make the effects work. I don't spell it out unless someone takes me to one side and talks to me about it, but I base my own silent script and the belief I take on board about how I'm getting the information into or from another mind on the notion that these suggestion-based techniques really work that reliably.Now that you've read Mr. Brown's thoughts on apparently using 'hypnotic' techniques while not spelling them out loud, so that people could look at his performance, notice them and be led to believe in enormous skill on his part, watch the Derren Brown video again...
This classic presentational ploy that Banachek calls 'psychological direction' allows for the illusion of enormous skill, as long as you let the participants figure out for themselves that you are employing such methods. I believe I earn their respect by denouncing 'psychic power' as woolly guff and I challenge those lobotomised flower-fairies who believe in such nonsense, appealing to their intelligence and belief in themselves as sceptical creatures.
« Older Laurie Anderson live in concert - 1984; Sharkey's... | The Unofficial Guide to the DM... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Dasein at 8:37 PM on May 11, 2008 [2 favorites]