Stumble. Pause. Answer.
/In my post on March 2nd, I wrote about justifying selections. Specifically in the case of a mentalism trick where having someone select something might not make much sense. Think of a standard “pick a card and I’ll tell you what card you’re thinking of” trick. What’s the purpose of the selection? If you’re reading their mind, why not just have them think of a card in the first place?
If a spectator were to question that, my response, as I wrote in that post, would be along these lines:
Them: “Why do I have to choose a playing card? Why can’t I just think of one?”
Me: “Hmm… okay. I think I see what you’re getting at. I suppose what it comes down to is the difference between asking myself, ‘What card is she thinking of?’ vs, ‘What card would someone like her be likely to think of?’ When you actually pick a card at random, I can just focus on the thought itself. But if I asked you to imagine a card, then it becomes less of a process of thought transmission and more of an exercise in personality assessment or a guessing game based on statistics. That’s not really the sort of thing I do.”
Pete McCabe wrote in to say,
Your answer is excellent, but when you explain why it works, I think you may have left out a key part. It’s in the first sentence:
“Hmm… okay. I think I see what you’re getting at.”
I think it’s valuable that when asked, you respond as if the question hadn’t occurred to you before. This is a bit subtle, and it’s exactly the kind of “acting” that many magicians are terrible at. But if you have a pat answer to this, it makes it seem like a pre-planned performance/trick, as opposed to something happening organically in the moment. Plus, if you’re ready for that question, maybe it’s part of the secret.
Not a huge point, maybe, but useful, I thought.
It’s a good point, and one that I didn’t stress enough in the original post. It’s actually a good way to handle many of the questions you’re asked by a spectator, not just the one I was addressing.
For the amateur, I think it’s good to anticipate the questions and challenges a spectator might come up with, but when they do come up, it’s best for your attitude to suggest, “Oh, I hadn’t really thought of that before.”
There is something that feels very right (very real, very truthful) when you seem to not have an explanation, followed relatively quickly by an answer that makes some sort of logical sense.
If you answer too quickly, that feels like you were planning to have to cover for this issue.
If you don’t answer at all, or only come back with an answer later on, it suggests that you had to create an answer.
Imagine you’re a detective interrogating a murder.
“Where were you last Friday eveni—”
“I WAS AT MY DAUGHTER’S DANCE RECITAL AND THEN I GOT A MEAL AT BURGER KING AT 9:36 PM! I HAVE MY CREDIT CARD RECEIPT RIGHT HERE.”
You would think, “That’s someone who knew he had to cover for something, and planned and rehearsed his answer. There’s something sketchy about that."
Now imagine this interaction.
“Where were you last Friday evening?
“I have no idea.”
Then six weeks later the guy says, “I was at my daughter’s dance recital and then I went to Burger King. Here is a receipt to prove it.”
You might think, “Well, that makes sense, but the guy had six weeks to fabricate this alibi. If it’s true, why did it take so long?”
Finally imagine this exchange.
“Where were you last Friday evening?”
“Friday? Hmm… honestly I’m not sure. Usually I’m home on Friday nights. But I can’t say for certain. Oh wait… Last Friday was my daughter’s dance recital. I was there until… I guess 9 or so, and then we got something to eat at Burger King. The receipt might be in my car still.”
That’s likely going to have the ring of truth.
And that’s how I try to answer a lot of questions in magic because I feel like that’s how people answer questions in real life when they’re answering truthfully. And I want the interaction to have the illusion of truth, even when the spectator knows better.
The technique is simply: Stumble. Pause. Then answer.
Stumble - Say, “Hmm…,” or, “Huh, I don’t know,” or, “That’s a good question.”
Pause - Just a second or two. Not enough time that it feels like you’re concocting an answer, but enough time that it feels like the answer is dawning on you.
Answer - Slowly ramp up into your prepared answer.
Here’s why I think this works well…
If I ask you a question and you have an answer that seems sound and makes sense, then it is likely because of one of these two reasons:
You’ve given this some thought and planned to answer this question.
You’re just stating something true. And truth should seem sound and make sense.
Now, by stumbling when the question first comes up, you’re taking #1 off the table. So when you do have a sound answer it’s going to feel like #2. Meaning it will have the flow of someone expressing something true, even if what’s being stated is preposterous.