Mailbag #17: Failure Edition
/
If you’ve emailed me recently and I’ve been slow to respond, it’s because we’re in the final week of preparation before sending the next book to the printers. Once that settles down, you’ll hear back from me.
Just read your post on testing near misses in a mentalist context. Interesting stuff, but Andy you guys missed a key variable I wish you had tested for: Order. In your descriptions the miss always came after a successful trick. That's misunderstanding the point of a miss. The miss highlights the difficulty of the *future* success. Think of the juggler who drops a ball the first two times and then succeeds on the third.
So what I wish you had tested was whether a miss *before* a given effect impacted positively the reception of a subsequent (or even the same) successful effect. My hypothesis would be in mentalism, yes, but in other magic, no. —JS
It’s definitely something that could be interesting to test—the extent to which a scripted failure might ratchet up the perceived difficulty of an effect—and maybe we’ll do so in the future. But due to the limited nature of the funds and the time the testing requires we tend to not test things we already know the general answer to.
What you’re suggesting is that we test the idea of a scripted failure that gets resolved in some way, but we already know that this works at generating dramatic tension. It works—as you said—in juggling, but it’s also the basis for all storytelling everywhere: in fiction or in real life. If this kid jumped on the stool the first time, that video would have 9 views. So we know that works. The actual extent to which it affects someone’s engagement with a mentalism/magic performance might be interesting to know, but that would fall a little further down our list of things to test.
What we wanted to look at were questions we didn’t know the answer to:
Is a near miss more or less impressive than a direct hit?
And
What types of failures, if any, do spectator’s find intriguing or off-putting?
I had an interesting conversation with a layman friend recently. About near misses too. And the opinion was interesting
They think you should get it 100% right. Because... they KNOW that you’re not a mind reader. And so, you’re PRETENDING. Which means, in their logic, if you’re pretending and you still get it wrong, then you’re shit. You’re not even doing the real thing because it’s impossible.
I gave the example of a tight rope walker who almost falls. And probably pretends to almost fall.. They said well, it’s different. Because they’re REALLY tight rope walkers. And if they make a mistake it’s understandable. But you’re not even a REAL mind reader and if you can’t even get it right 100% when you’re pretending, WTF are you doing? —MB/NT
I don't think your friend's position holds up under scrutiny.
Almost no one is 100% rational, so for most people a near miss will either seem reasonable (if they believe mind reading itself is reasonable), or it will at least raise some questions in their minds in regards to what is or isn't happening.
But let's imagine a robot who IS 100% rational. If that robot saw a mind reader who was a little off, would it think, "This guy is shit”? No, it would realize that in order for the mind reader to be a little off, he must have known EXACTLY what the thought was and then CHOSE to be a little off as an artistic choice.
There is no real-world scenario where someone thinks you're shit if you're a little off unless they actually believe in mind reading and think a REAL mind reader should be perfect.
Just wanted to add a little bit to the discussion about misses in mentalism.
I agree with everything you wrote and it mostly aligns with my experience. Near misses are powerful because they add to the logic disconnect (why would he say Jen if he had just read the paper that says Jane) and add a touch of perceived realism.
The big difference in results between a total miss and a missed connection is very interesting, and I'm not sure I would have guessed that.
However, with regards to a total miss, I do think that there is likely a difference between a testing situation where there are only two tricks, and a longer show (or a social situation where you've already established your 'abilities').
So for instance, if I'm doing my hour long show, and I've built up a rapport with the audience and I have a total miss sometime mid-show (not on purpose), very often I'll notice that the audience will actively try and make it fit as they want me to succeed. I think having already established your abilities and character really changes the way a total miss is perceived. —MP
There’s a couple things that could be going on here.
The first possibility—and the most likely— is that when you perform, you suggest that what you’re doing is based on psychology/body language/picking up on little clues. If that’s your character—or even if it’s part of your character—then I think a “total miss” makes sense in that context. In fact, it probably makes more sense than a “missed connection.” [See last Wednesday’s post if these terms aren’t making sense.]
If, however, you perform strictly as a genuine mind-reader, and you get a total miss, then what you might perceive as your audience “trying to make it fit,” may very well just be your audience feeling second-hand embarrassment. And they are trying to make it fit to ease that feeling.
Our performer during the testing was introduced as a mentalist who was going to do some mind-reading. In that situation, a Total Miss doesn’t make much sense to the audience. If he’s picking up on something, why isn’t that something the thing you’re thinking about, or at least close to it? There isn’t a very cohesive narrative that includes someone who really can read your thoughts, and ends up with something totally wrong.
But, if you’re saying your performance is based on psychology, then a total miss does fit in with that story.
This suggests a way of using failure to push your audience in the direction you want them to go.
If you want them to believe you’re using psychology or some other form of “educated guessing,” then use Near Misses and Total Misses and avoid Missed Connections.
If you want them to believe you’re “reading their mind,” then use Near Misses and Missed Connections and avoid Total Misses.
A big part of getting people to play along with a premise is simply to clear the path for them. Don’t make it so easy for them to deny the premise. If I want someone to entertain the notion that there is some psychic form of communication going on between our minds, then I’d want to avoid a Total Miss as that doesn’t support that story. If they’re thinking of a cat and you say they’re thinking of an airplane, it’s asking a lot of them to buy into a scenario where your minds were actually connected in any way.
But again, this is just my interpretation of the results of the testing as well as the impression I got being in the room and listening to people’s feedback. It’s certainly not intended as gospel, more as food for thought.
Food for thought. Get it? Like mentalism? Thoughts? Get it? Funny stuff, right? Like how thoughts are in your head, you know? But also food for thought. Like the saying.
