Biggest Takeaway Follow-Up Part 1
/Last Friday’s post on my biggest takeaway from the focus group testing got a lot of feedback. I’ll be sharing one email today and a few shorter ones on Thursday.
About "My biggest testing takeaway", I understand and feel the same way about the importance of clarifying the conditions of a trick.
But a long time ago I started to avoid some clarification statements. I feel there are phrases that raise doubt instead of clarifying. I think that if people conclude, by themselves, that something (like shuffling) is being done, suspicion over that thing is less likely to arise than if the magician directly tells them about the action.
For instance, if at some point you ask how many people shuffled the deck, or if you call attention to something related to the act of shuffling, that may be enough for people to remember that the cards were mixed. And compared to literally saying that you are shuffling the cards, I feel people are less likely to question the validity of your shuffle. —RD
Yes, I think that’s what the conventional wisdom would say—that you’d rather have the spectator come to the conclusions by themselves rather than the magician telling them what things to make note of.
I’m not saying that’s necessarily wrong. But there are two important points to consider that run counter to the conventional wisdom.
The first is this: You can’t always tell what the spectator is going to conclude.
By explicitly stating the conditions, and getting them to agree to them—even if they seem obvious—you are trapping them into a “reality” that is more difficult for them to escape later. It’s very easy for people to talk themselves into or out of something they only saw. If you’re looking for your car keys and they’re not on the coffee table, but when you look back a second time they’re there, you don’t say, “Oh my god, my keys magically appeared on the coffee table!” You just think you had a brain fart and missed them the first time. If conditions are established just in the spectator’s head, they can convince themselves (when they look back on the trick) that they weren’t paying close enough attention or they mis-read something that happened. But if the conditions are established verbally by the magician and/or the spectator, it becomes harder to deny what they thought they saw.
The second point I want to make is this: Going out of your way to establish the conditions is what you would do in any situation when you’re showing people something special or unusual. That’s the normal thing to do.
Imagine you were at a county fair, and there’s a booth set up where a guy is demonstrating his Miracle Carpet Cleaner. Which is more convincing:
He takes out a stained piece of carpet, sprays his cleaner on it, and wipes it clean.
or
He takes out a piece of carpet and hands it to the people gathered around him. “When you see how clean this will get, you’ll think it wasn’t a real stain. You’ll think it was something that would wash out easily. But take a look. That’s really caked in there, would you agree? Spray this water on it and give it a scrub. Nothing happens. That stain is really set in there, yes? But watch what happens when I use my Miracle Carpet Cleaner.”
I think the latter would be considerably more convincing, whether you go in trusting the salesman or not. If you think the guy selling the stuff is a con-man, then the first demonstration would be totally unconvincing. The second demonstration would at least require you to question how the carpet actually got clean if this cleaner isn't legit. And if you do trust the salesman, you would believe him in either scenario, but the second demonstration would give you more information and clarify the strength of the cleaner.
Before someone writes me an email saying, “Oh, so when I turn over a double I’m supposed to say, ‘I’m just turning over one single card.’ Or when I have someone write down a word I’m supposed to say, “Take note that this is an ordinary business card. Examine it fully. And note that there’s nothing special about the pencil.” No. I’m not saying “justify everything” or “clarify every possible condition.” And I’m not saying you draw attention to things that won’t withstand the scrutiny.
I’m just saying to put yourself in the position of the spectator at the end of the trick. What elements would you be questioning? That the deck was really blue at the start? That the box was really empty? That there was really nothing in your hand? If they’re going to be left with those questions, then those are the things you can’t over clarify.
Of course, there is an art to this. Going back to the original email, I would never say, “I’m giving these cards a real shuffle.” That would sound suspicious. I’m not just going to tell people something. I’m going to have them confirm something.
The best way I’ve found to do this is to time-travel with them to some point after the trick has finished. “When this is over, you’re going to wonder if the cards were really shuffled.” “When you drive home, you’re going to tell yourself this must not have been an ordinary piece of rope. Maybe it pulled apart or something.” “Tonight, when you’re in bed, you’re going to think I made you take a particular card..”
Then you have them confirm that this thought is not the case:
“So can you confirm for me the cards are really getting mixed?”
“So I want you to give this rope a close look. Is there anything special about it? Take your time.”
“So just confirm that this card is the one you wanted. If you want a different one, go ahead and touch any other card you see here.”
Now, this isn’t just patter. When you say, “Later on you’re going to think XYZ.” It’s because you know that later on most people will think XYZ. That’s the purpose of putting it out there beforehand.
Of course, If there’s an idea that’s not going to occur to them, you don’t need to introduce that idea into the conversation, solely to debunk it.
You might say, “Of course you want the audience to be convinced of the conditions of an effect, but you should convince them in a clever way. Don’t just come right out and say it.”
But that goes back to the second point in bold above. If I’m trying to demonstrate or show you something fantastical. And I want to immerse you in the world where this thing is happening. Which feels more realistic? Would I cleverly imply the conditions? Or would I just state them straight out? In real life you don’t hint at conditions when they’re important. You make them as clear as possible.
Of course, I’m just speaking generally. You can find plenty of examples where you would want to be less direct when clarifying the conditions of an effect. But I would consider those to be exceptions.
“Don’t run when you’re not being chased.” Sure. That’s fine logic. But solidifying the conditions isn’t “running when you’re not being chased.” It’s being smart enough to know what the spectator is going to question at the end, and proactively getting in front of it. Which, in my experience, is mandatory if you’re hoping to create undeniably strong magic.