Tuesday, June 16, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Two related articles

by Daniel Finkelstein - The Times Online

Thanks to Oliver for the links.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6028030.ece

Thoughts for the week: the magic of Paul Daniels

Am I dumb, or just a sucker for magic? Science has come up with an explanation

You're going to like this. Not a lot. But you'll like it. A couple of weeks or so back I went to see Paul Daniels play the Radlett Centre. There was a sort of Seaside Special first half with hoofing and songs from Joseph that I could have done without. But once Daniels came on, things changed for the better. Magic. I can't get enough of it.

It helps that I'm pretty gullible. I found it mildly irritating that Daniels's wife, Debbie McGee, kept wandering across the stage, acting dumb. It was only in the car on my way home that it dawned on me that her appearances were contrived as a distraction so that Daniels could do the sleight of hand or whatever. How stupid am I? Well, actually, I prefer to say that Daniels and McGee had found a way to exploit cognitive weaknesses that were a result of my neurological design. And a new Nature Reviews Neuroscience paper allows me to use the description without blushing. Much.

Two neurologists (Stephen Macknik and Susana Martinez-Conde, of the Barrows Neurological Institute) have collaborated on an academic paper with a group of magicians (Mac King, James Randi, Apollo Robbins, John Thompson and Teller, one half of Penn and Teller). In fact, the document they have produced is more like a manifesto.
...
Continue reading
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6028030.ece
__________________________________________________________
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6485447.ece

Thoughts for the week: Obama and the conspiracy theorists

Facts are the best way to combat crazy ideas? Don’t you believe it
On the day that Barack Obama was elected President, I asked readers of my Comment Central blog to let me know, in a few words, their greatest hope for him. I received thousands of replies. And most of them were touching, optimistic and only a little naive.

There were two types of reply that left me perplexed. The first were the hundreds of people who wrote to say that they hoped that the new President would be shot. You can’t read that over and over again without being perplexed about human nature. A second type expressed the hope that Obama would produce his birth certificate. This surprised me, because until then I had been unaware of the mad conspiracy theory that Obama was not eligible to be President, having been born in Kenya rather than America.

I thought it would be a good idea to seek out and post on Comment Central documentary evidence that Obama had indeed been born in the US. I needn’t have wasted my time. Judging by the replies, the evidence made not the slightest difference. I was forced to conclude that the bonkers idea that Obama was not legally allowed to be President was adopted merely to reduce the cognitive dissonance of those who believed that such a thing — an African-American becoming chief executive — could not happen.

The same sort of issue — the persistence of misperceptions in the face of evidence — has also been intriguing Brendan Nyhan, of Duke University, North Carolina, and Jason Reifler, of Georgia State University. And they have published two fascinating papers providing the results of experiments that they conducted into whether it is possible to correct such errors of fact.
...
Continue reading
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6485447.ece

Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 49 of 49 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #388128 by bamafreethinker on June 16, 2009 at 9:44 am

The moon-landing conspiracy theorists comes to mind here as well...

This subject has always fascinated me, partly because my grandmother never believed that the moon-landing was real.

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

2. Comment #388136 by Kingasaurus on June 16, 2009 at 10:03 am

"This subject has always fascinated me, partly because my grandmother never believed that the moon-landing was real."

This seems to be a somewhat common story from people who have relatives who were elderly in 1969 having a hard time believing the moon landing actually happened.

I wonder if it is related to the fact that the lifetime of those people paralleled the most enormous technological growth period in the history of the human species.

There was only a 66-year gap between the first heavier-than-air motorized flying machine and the moon landing.

It must have been somewhat difficult for certain people, who remembered the automobile being a completely alien oddity when they were children, to wrap their minds around the fact that we actually went to the moon within their lifetimes.

I think that's a likely piece of the puzzle.

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

3. Comment #388141 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2009 at 10:13 am

I have a hard time believing in the moon landings too. I've seen Apollo 11 in the Air & Space Museum in DC. It's an insane piece of junk. I wouldn't trust it to get me as far as the shops.

Those who were prepared to get into it and strap themselves in while a huge quantity of explosive material was ignited under them were true pioneers, like Lindbergh (whose plane didn't have a front windscreen - if he needed to see, he had to pop his head out of the window). Those days are gone, sadly. Neither space budgets nor Health & Safety would allow it. Though if you scour a news site, you will doubtless find someone trying to be the first person to unicycle backwards across France, or some other similarly pointless feat.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

4. Comment #388142 by mbannonb on June 16, 2009 at 10:15 am

"First, correcting a misperception doesn’t really work when the original misperception fits snugly with the subject’s ideology. Second, and worse still, attempting to correct errors often produces a backlash, with the error becoming more firmly believed."

I'd love to know what the solution is to opening the minds of people like that.

Actually, I'm sure I do it as well. (Think with emotions, feels right, et cetera). I'll keep a look out for it and see what comes up.

Other Comments by mbannonb

5. Comment #388151 by Cartomancer on June 16, 2009 at 10:48 am

I refuse to believe the findings of these studies...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

6. Comment #388152 by bamafreethinker on June 16, 2009 at 11:01 am

Comment #388136 by Kingasaurus

I firmly agree. In school I was given the basics of Newtonian physics and could easily conceptualize how a vessel could escape the earth’s gravity. My granny probably never finished high school with nothing more than the three R’s. There was just too much information for her to grind with the limited tools she was given.

Evolution also has these same barriers (it’s somewhat counterintuitive) yet modern schools equip our kids with the tools to understand it. Unfortunately, many parents (and even TEACHERS) directly oppose the teaching and even plant conspiracy seeds in their children’s minds to counteract and even make evolution harder to accept.

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

7. Comment #388153 by bendigeidfran on June 16, 2009 at 11:05 am

I was told that if I shrunk myself to the size of an atom, a rock would look like the milky way. Well it doesn't.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

8. Comment #388156 by bamafreethinker on June 16, 2009 at 11:10 am

Comment #388153 by bendigeidfran

It would seem to me that it would resemble a freakin' huge rock...

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

9. Comment #388157 by severalspeciesof on June 16, 2009 at 11:11 am

It's bogus I tell ya, it's bogus...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

10. Comment #388159 by severalspeciesof on June 16, 2009 at 11:32 am

And this part was/is really depressing...

But there is a wonderful little twist to the data. The academics found, however, that “The President is a Christian” worked in only one condition — if a non-white person was present in the room and the survey respondent was trying to please him.

I feel like Marvin now...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

11. Comment #388160 by TigerDunc on June 16, 2009 at 11:35 am

With regards to the Obama/birth certificate question, this is all just huff and puff from the right wing. He did produce his birth certificate, as is required by anyone running for president. It is a part of the process, along with various medical checks and phsycological profiles.
I looked for the relevant links, but was swamped by a tidal wave of bilge when I typed "Obama birth certificate" into Google.

Other Comments by TigerDunc

12. Comment #388161 by bendigeidfran on June 16, 2009 at 11:39 am

Comment #388156 by bamafreethinker

I can see through it but it's all over the place.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

13. Comment #388162 by bamafreethinker on June 16, 2009 at 11:48 am

bendigeidfran ...

I can see through it but it's all over the place.

Sounds like religion...

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

14. Comment #388166 by Sciros on June 16, 2009 at 12:06 pm

He did produce his birth certificate, as is required by anyone running for president.

Certain Chinese gymnasts also produced their birth certificate for the Olympics, as did Jianlian Yi when he joined the NBA. Just sayin'.

A kind of weird angle to try and attack Obama from, though.

Other Comments by Sciros

15. Comment #388191 by bamafreethinker on June 16, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Let's see proof that he's a Christian...

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

16. Comment #388193 by stephensmith on June 16, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Actually, I'm pretty sure that no one is *required* (as by law) to produce their birth certificate or to undergo medical/psychological checks as part of running for President. There might be public pressure to do so in some circumstances, and if there are questions about eligibility or health it might be in the campaign's best interest to have the candidate to do, but there is no legal requirement that I know of.

Other Comments by stephensmith

17. Comment #388199 by PERSON on June 16, 2009 at 1:35 pm

17. Comment #388193 by stephensmith
The idea is that he's not a US citizen, and thus not permitted to be President by law. Also, he's a secret Muslim. And his middle name is really Hoosayyn. The shocking facts may be found here: http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/04/03/boll/

(wait for the link to appear at the top right to get past the ad)

And some views from Israel.

UPDATE: context for these vids

Other Comments by PERSON

18. Comment #388203 by huzonfurst on June 16, 2009 at 2:11 pm

I've always found it interesting that the people who scoff at the moon landings are also the ones who believe we're constantly being visited by aliens.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

19. Comment #388210 by jpgj on June 16, 2009 at 3:04 pm

Taliban don't believe in moon landings either!
It contradicts " God separated the waters above and the waters below" and as all rural Afgans know, the earth floats on the waters below while a cristal dome keeps the waters above from flooding everything. Good Sumerian science. No news in their valleys since.

Other Comments by jpgj

20. Comment #388230 by RightWingAtheist on June 16, 2009 at 5:02 pm

You can't ever get too much of Buzz Aldrin punching some jackass in the face:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

21. Comment #388244 by Daniella on June 16, 2009 at 6:17 pm

Derren Brown's book 'Tricks of the Mind' is great read for anyone interested in magic/hypnosis etc and how our minds process these things.

Other Comments by Daniella

22. Comment #388253 by pipsy on June 16, 2009 at 6:47 pm

Where is this moon that people claim we landed on? Is it the one made from Roquefort or Camembert? Is it cheesely explained in wheymans terms?

Other Comments by pipsy

23. Comment #388261 by pipsy on June 16, 2009 at 7:10 pm

I declare WAR on 3Rs! Writing Arithmetic and Reading
WWW is an abbreviation only when written.
It takes three times longer to say than World Wide Web which in itself takes four times longer to type.

Other Comments by pipsy

24. Comment #388305 by huzonfurst on June 16, 2009 at 11:04 pm

Wow, thanks for that video of Aldrin doing what should be done to every jackass in the world, RWA. I heard the story but hadn't seen it until now - it made my day!

Other Comments by huzonfurst

25. Comment #388307 by windweaver on June 16, 2009 at 11:19 pm

Reading these articles reminded me of a great lecture on openmindedness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI&feature=channel_page#

Other Comments by windweaver

26. Comment #388309 by Rodger T on June 16, 2009 at 11:51 pm

Buzz is da bomb L O L.

I hate fickin` magicians ,`cept of course Penn and Teller they are the antimagician.

Other Comments by Rodger T

27. Comment #388317 by Layla Nasreddin on June 17, 2009 at 12:49 am

I don't know if it's a good idea to bring this up (would this count as "poisoning the well"?), but back in October 2007 Daniel Finkelstein wrote a couple of posts about how disturbed he was over Dawkins's remarks (here and here) about how atheists should aspire to gain even a small fraction of the political power of "the Jewish lobby". (N.B., it seems that it was the use of the term "Jewish lobby" itself that was considered so offensive, not the comparison.)

Back to the subject at hand. Wait...perhaps that's actually an example of the phenomenon mentioned...

Anyway, I'm sure practically everyone can think of at least one instance where you simply refused to accept a particular fact that went against everything you believed to be true, or was extremely counterintuitive, and how you tried to dismiss or discredit it, but in the end...well, either you accept it or you don't. Alternately, how about quickly accepting a fact that confirmed your suspicions/prejudices/hopes, only to look like a complete fool when it was disproved?

Religions are good at "defusing" unpleasant facts (disasters, the existence of evil, historical and literary evidence suggesting that the religion's historical beliefs or founding myths are in fact false) by providing all sorts of psychological mechanisms by which their effect is minimized or negated -- "it's God's inscrutable will", "doubts about the religion are prompted by the devil", etc. At the same time, they also frequently provide false "facts" or "anti-facts" that serve to confirm belief. Not only are they false, which is bad enough, they positively get in the way of finding out real facts. An example might be the creationist accusation "there are no transitional fossils!"

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

28. Comment #388329 by fretmeister on June 17, 2009 at 1:53 am

During the week I am a lawyer (boo hiss) - but on the weekends I am a magician and childrens entertainer.

I find this sort of research very interesting - partly because the effectiveness of a magic trick is also based on age.

Kids seem to see through tricks that adults believe. I'm wondering if it is because the kids have not had their minds "molded" at that point.

IMHO the turning point seems to be about 8 years old when the type of trick needs to change.

Still - it is great fun!

Other Comments by fretmeister

29. Comment #388423 by debaser71 on June 17, 2009 at 6:12 am

Maybe I'm just rambling but these studies never come up with 100% of anything. It's SOME people do suchandsuch. Or SOME people fall for soandso. etc. But the implication in a lot of these articles is EVERYONE is like this. Why can't there really be solid, logical, reasnable, and thoughtful thinkers out there? That not everyone is riddled with blind spots in their thinking abilities. I'd like a study done on smart people who are fully capable of not being duped by the experiments in these studies.

Other Comments by debaser71

30. Comment #388433 by bamafreethinker on June 17, 2009 at 6:50 am

Comment #388261 by pipsy

Technically... if you pronounce “WWW” correctly, i.e. “double-U-double-U-double-U” it takes longer to say than saying “World-Wide-Web”. Nine syllables as opposed to three. Of course most of us (especially around where I live) just say “dubya-dubya-dubya” :)

Oh... and... many bible "experts" have determined that "WWW" is equal to "666" and that the internet is therefore the tool of Satan.

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

31. Comment #388446 by Sheol99 on June 17, 2009 at 7:21 am

Mind science is the new frontier.

This is one of the reason why religionists always stuck on a peculiar (and mostly false) point of view, albeit one of the honest ones.

A lot of superstituous belief also works the same, they provide a direct, short term benefits to many direct day-to-day activities (at least in years past). And those belief also gives you a 'semblance of rational explanation' because of these mind tricks.

A lot of religionists think that their interpretation of things (e.g. the origin of kinds / species) are the 'rational' explanation, because they genuinely see them that way.

Of course, another big part is the laziness of thinking things through, which by the way, is also an evolutionary benefit. Things that do not really matter to you do not warrant a large efforts.

A combination of all of these complex issues produce the craziness of zealot minds.

I am looking forward for a time (not too long in the future I hope) that mind sciences give us the explanations of these knots.

It requires the knowledges as shown in this studies. How mind perceives things, how mind tricks itself for the evolutionary benefits...

Other Comments by Sheol99

32. Comment #388459 by reason-first on June 17, 2009 at 7:50 am

@stephensmith

here might be public pressure to do so in some circumstances, and if there are questions about eligibility or health it might be in the campaign's best interest to have the candidate to do, but there is no legal requirement that I know of.

You must be right and not Tiger Dunc. How else would G. W. have been able to run for office? He would never have passed a psychological check. Anyhow, it would not have been in the candidate's interest.

Other Comments by reason-first

33. Comment #388521 by bamafreethinker on June 17, 2009 at 9:49 am

32. Comment #388446 by Sheol99

You make some excellent points. This ability to provide a quick/easy answer to perplexing questions could be helpful from a reproductive perspective. Let’s say caveman Ugga is about ready to “know” a young female and quire possibly plant his seed in her fertile garden, when an apple falls from the tree above them and gives him a good whack in the head. Now he could dismount the pretty young thing, retreat to his cave, and try to discover the secret to falling objects, but instead he concludes that the apple is a direct encouragement from the fertility god – so he proceeds with task at hand with more zeal than before.

Humans are curious creatures. How quickly and easily we are willing to settle our curiosities (cognitive dissonances) separates the thinkers, inventors, and scientists from the superstitious. I do think it boils down to intellectual laziness (not necessarily physical laziness, mind you).

Thank goodness that science eventually leads to the technology that benefits everyone (even the lazy ones) or we’d be in trouble. This is also why the lazy ones often resist science that they see as having no immediate pay-offs – especially if it happens (even by accident) to expose their beliefs as bogus.

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

34. Comment #388553 by Lucas on June 17, 2009 at 11:31 am

RightWingAtheist - Wow, that was awesome. Go Mr. Aldrin. Anyone who gets in someone's face and calls them a coward and a liar should expect a broken nose.

HOWEVER, I will paint a giant target on my back and ask these two things: If we landed on the moon, why haven't we been back? AND Where is the footage? I mean the actual footage, not the stuff shot off the monitor of the real footage. How could NASA loose the original footage of the only time man has walked on another planetoid? I mean, I could say that a few years ago some monkeys flew out of my butt, but I don't have the original footage, just some very grainy bad quality stuff taped off a monitor, and I haven't ever done it since then. Would you believe me?

Feel free to completely ignore my nest stirring and stay on topic.

Other Comments by Lucas

35. Comment #388554 by Mr DArcy on June 17, 2009 at 11:32 am

From the first article:

James Randi has offered the sum to “any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions”. He has the money in a bank. It's just sitting there. What are you waiting for?

Randi, an escapologist, has taken up Harry Houdini's mantle as the scourge of those who claim special powers. He first laid down the challenge in 1964 (though only for $1,000 - the amount has increased because other donors became enthusiastic and chipped in). Since then there have been more than 1,000 applications, but not a single person has succeeded in demonstrating their power sufficiently for it to be worth proceeding with a formal test. Perhaps you will do better, though.

Hmmn? 1964 eh? Now that's some 45 years or so, and not one one of the world's great preachers has been able to win the prize! And yet it's the YECs and other religios who yell about scientists' being unable to create life in the lab! (Read the article next to this thread for progress in that field). An omnipotent creator of the universe would surely have revealed some "proof" to one of her Earthly representatives by now? I mean people can live and die within 45 years, and immortal souls are at stake! Surely God doesn't care that little....? Or just maybe, "God" is simply wishful thinking, far more likely, probable even!

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

36. Comment #388562 by Stonyground on June 17, 2009 at 12:10 pm

I was very interested in the first article as I actually used a simple magic trick to teach critical thinking to my daughter. The trick involves an upturned glass placed beside a £1 coin on an A4 piece of coloured paper. A cardboard tube is placed over the glass and then the glass and tube are placed over the coin. The tube is then removed leaving the glass behind and the coin has disappeared. The tube is then lowered over the glass and the tube and glass are lifted to the side and the coin has re-appeared. Even as a five year old she could perform the trick well enough to leave all four of her grandparents baffled. The secret is that there is a disc of coloured paper glued over the mouth of the glass that covers the coin while itself remaining invisible.

On the subject of believing things because you want them to be true, I think that we are all naturally inclined to do this and so it is necessary to recognise that fact before you can train yourself not to. Even then it is easy to slip back into wishful thinking the second that you drop your guard, so you need to be aware of that as well.

Other Comments by Stonyground

37. Comment #388571 by TIKI AL on June 17, 2009 at 12:29 pm

This black helicopter stuff is amusing.

However I do believe it was young Dick Cheney on the grassy knoll.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

38. Comment #388592 by Lucas on June 17, 2009 at 1:30 pm

TIKI AL - Nah. Apparently it was The Comedian.

Other Comments by Lucas

39. Comment #388622 by macdhai on June 17, 2009 at 2:30 pm

@ Lucas

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

Phil Plait will explain it to you, point you to someone who can!

Other Comments by macdhai

40. Comment #388624 by macdhai on June 17, 2009 at 2:31 pm

'or' point you to...darn it!

Other Comments by macdhai

41. Comment #388684 by TigerDunc on June 17, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Sorry - was trying to find references to my earlier post about evaluations at al, but can't, there is too much crap to trawl through and I have a life. (Not MY life you understand, just A life. Brad Pitt has my life).

I second the recommendation for "Trick of the mind" by Derren Brown though. It is a cracking read.

Other Comments by TigerDunc

42. Comment #388690 by Sheol99 on June 17, 2009 at 7:40 pm

34. Comment #388521 by bamafreethinker

... but instead he concludes that the apple is a direct encouragement from the fertility god – so he proceeds with task at hand with more zeal than before.

Exactly, by doing so, actually he increases his fitness by not bothering with philosophies or other non-routine waste of energy!

Humans are curious creatures. How quickly and easily we are willing to settle our curiosities (cognitive dissonances) separates the thinkers, inventors, and scientists from the superstitious.

Human fitness (in all sense, including evolutionary sense as well) does not necessarily helped by being a serious thinker - as compared to being an ignorant redneck.

Thank goodness that science eventually leads to the technology that benefits everyone (even the lazy ones) or we’d be in trouble.

To be realistic, we lived in a peculiar times - compared to millenias humanity has lived - in the past the benefits of technology to common folk are very low. Only in recent centuries (or specifically recent decades) technology (and understanding science) is of any actual importance to the man in the street.

Of course science and technology benefit overall humanity / communities. The citizens of Constantinople are benefited from the greek-fire technology that enable their fort to be almost invincible for centuries. The same was as we all benefited from electricity. But ordinary citizens generally do not see these benefits in a personal way, since they can leave things taken for granted.

We know that evolution work on the lower units - be it genes - or individual. Like the proverbial caveman you mentioned, individual Dick and Jane has been mostly has no direct consequences in either believe or not any thing (including science). That comes to your next point.

This is also why the lazy ones often resist science that they see as having no immediate pay-offs – especially if it happens (even by accident) to expose their beliefs as bogus.

Bogus or no bogus, there is no direct consequences, actually if you're lazy (or busy, to put it in different perspective) - it is better for you to resist things that do not have immediate personal payoff, while you have to expend some energy (to understand them at least) on it.

I am not saying all of these to defend the religionist position, I just want all of us to study human beings in their proper context. Most of humanity are not scientist! And most of the times, understanding science is not prerequisite for success in breeding (maybe similar to obedience school in dogs? It is good if you lived urban, but for most of dogs? I am sorry if this bad analogy offend some .. :P )

The other fact is, human life condition changed so much in the last 4-5 centuries, and the trend is clear - with the accelerations in the last decades. Science and technology will be our agent of change, even if we did not care about it, we should (or we'll be better of if we do).

It is becoming more and more beneficial to become less ignorant. But we need to keep reminding ourself human beings were/are not like that most of the time. When we study human, at least give them the same treatments as we study dogs, chimps and ants .. look at them as they really are rather as it "should" (funny, this sound like what 'they' say!)

It is clear that in the future we cannot live (or reproduce!) if we do not embrace technology and science, not yet so, and definitely very different scene in the past.

This line of reasoning also convince me that the future of traditional religions is a dead end. As mentioned by saint-dawkins, Jesus is latter-day zeus. To survive, religions need to change, one important point is to include a nod to technology in their tenets.

Hmm.. raelians? scientology? at least they give a damn to psychiatry, psychology (& ufology) .. while maintaining the profitable and popular view that human beings are gullible and stupid ...hmm

(longish post, must be the coffee ..)

Other Comments by Sheol99

43. Comment #388728 by weemanafghan on June 18, 2009 at 2:20 am

What if one were to unicycle backwards across France in order to raise funds for Richard Dawkins.net. Would that be pointless.Whats wrong with unicycling or is it France?

Other Comments by weemanafghan

44. Comment #388793 by Johnny O on June 18, 2009 at 6:03 am

In, 'Tricks of the Mind', Derren Brown gives a brilliant description of what goes through the mind of someone watching a 'magic' trick. He explains brilliantly how half the illusion is done after the event in the person's retelling of what they 'saw' happen...

Other Comments by Johnny O

45. Comment #388805 by alan baylis on June 18, 2009 at 6:46 am

45. Comment #388793 by Johnny O

In, 'Tricks of the Mind', Derren Brown gives a brilliant description of what goes through the mind of someone watching a 'magic' trick. He explains brilliantly how half the illusion is done after the event in the person's retelling of what they 'saw' happen...

Yes, that book is an interesting treatise on practical psychology. As the article implies, all these highly successful magicians are experts in practical psychology, or human nature if you prefer.

Other Comments by alan baylis

46. Comment #388812 by debaser71 on June 18, 2009 at 7:09 am

Just going back to my first post on this topic. Derren Brown can't fool everyone. If you watch some of his TV clips on youtube you'll see when he 'fails'. I'll point to the clip where he tries to buy a hotdog from a street vendor in NYC with fake (blank sheets of paper) money. And when he's doing the 'trains of thought' where he's on the subway trying to get people to forget where they are going. ... "...stop. Thinking about it now..."

Other Comments by debaser71

47. Comment #388889 by Lucas on June 18, 2009 at 10:41 am

macdhai - Thanks for the link. The moon rocks pretty much settle it.

Other Comments by Lucas

48. Comment #389270 by Jack Rawlinson on June 19, 2009 at 9:19 am