I’ll ROT-13 my own answers to the questions, but I strongly recommend that you do your best to figure out your own answers to them before decrypting mine. Trying to figure out plausible mechanisms for magic tricks is a way of calibrating your rational thinking skills, in the presence of an adversary (the magician) who is trying to use all your perceptual biases and cognitive shortcuts against you. If you find yourself seriously considering hypotheses like micromuscle reading or subliminal suggestion, then that’s probably because the magician has managed to slip a false assumption past your defences!
Svefg, Qnivq Sebfg. Guvf, V jvyy fnl hc sebag, vf gur bar V’z yrnfg pbasvqrag nobhg. Ohg zl gurbel vf guvf. N pung fubj yvxr Sebfg’f glcvpnyyl unf fbzr xvaq bs cercnengvba orsberunaq: abg n fpevcgrq erurnefny, ohg n pbairefngvba va juvpu gur ubfg naq gur thrfg jbex bhg jung xvaqf bs fhowrpgf gurl ner tbvat gb pbire. Va gur erurnefny, Qreera qbrf fbzr zntvp gevpxf naq va gur pbhefr bs guvf ur fbzrubj sbeprf gur jbeq Zvyna ba Sebfg va fbzr jnl gung Sebfg guvaxf vf enaqbz. (Ubj? N obbx grfg? V qba’g xabj.) Qreera fgnegf gb thrff jung vg vf, ohg gura fnlf, “Ab, V’yy gel naq thrff gung yngre ba gur fubj”. Gura, qhevat gur yvir erpbeqvat, ur tbrf guebhtu n zvaq-ernqvat nggrzcg gung tbrf onqyl (gur pvtne) ohg qhevat gur pbhefr bs guvf ur qebcf uvagf nobhg n cynpr, juvpu Sebfg vavgvnyyl qravrf: “Vg’f n cynpr bs fbzr fbeg” “Ab” “BX, pna lbh tb onpx va lbhe zvaq. V guvax gurer jnf n cynpr.” “Ab, nf fbba nf lbh nfxrq zr V’ir bayl gubhtug bs guvf bar guvat.” Qreera trgf vg jebat, ohg gura ur fnlf, “Gurer jnf n cynpr. V guvax gurer jnf n cynpr, gubhtu, gung jrag guebhtu lbhe urnq. Whfg tb onpx va lbhe zvaq naq whfg sbphf ba n cynpr sbe n frpbaq.” Abj Sebfg nterrf gung gurer jnf n cynpr. Jul vf gung? Vg’f orpnhfr abj gung gur gevpx vf bire naq Qreera snvyrq, Sebfg ernyvmrf gung ur’f orvat cebzcgrq gb guvax onpx gb gur cynpr gung jnf pubfra rneyvre, naq abj Qreera thrffrf vg. Sebfg vf vzcerffrq orpnhfr ur qvqa’g fcbg gur sbepr, ohg jr ner rira zber vzcerffrq orpnhfr jr qba’g xabj nobhg gur erurnefny naq jr guvax Qreera jnf thrffvat pbyq. Sebfg vf gbb zhpu bs n cebsrffvbany gb fcbvy gur rssrpg ol gnyxvat nobhg gur erurnefny (naq Qreera bs pbhefr xabjf guvf).
Frpbaq, gur crg. 1. Qreera cvpxrq n jbzra jub jnf fubegre guna uvz fb gung ur pbhyq rnfvyl oybpx ure ivrj qhevat uvf rkcynangvba. 2. Qreera cvpxrq gur zna orsber tvivat gur rkcynangvba fb gung gur zna jbhyq unir n ybat jnvg bss pnzren. 3. Qreera fgrcf sbejneq gbjneqf gur jbzra, gbhpuvat ure fb nf gb pbzcyrgryl bpphcl ure nggragvbaf. Fur qbrf abg frr jung unccraf gb gur zna. 4. Arvgure qb jr, ohg zl gurbel vf gung Qreera’f “cebqhpre” yrnqf gur zna gb gur fvqr naq fnlf “jr arrq lbh gb ernq guvf eryrnfr sbez, cyrnfr”. Gur zna ybbxf ng gur “eryrnfr sbez” naq vg fnlf, “Jrypbzr, ibyhagrre! Gbtrgure, lbh naq V ner tbvat gb tvir guvf jbzna na nznmvat rkcrevrapr: sbe n zvahgr be gjb fur vf tbvat gb oryvrir gung fur pna ernq lbhe zvaq. Nyy lbh unir gb qb vf nterr jvgu rnpu bs ure thrffrf. Orfg bs yhpx, Qreera”
Guveq, gur pybja. 1. Qreera vf qerffrq nf n pybja orpnhfr vg tvirf uvz na rkphfr gb chg urnil znxr-hc ba naq nebhaq uvf yvcf. 2. Vg’f n perrcl pybja fb gur znxr-hc pna or oynpx. 3. Ur jnirf uvf unaqf nebhaq fb gung gurl bsgra bofgehpg gur pnzren’f ivrj bs uvf zbhgu. 4. Jvgubhg gur fbhaq, vg’f pyrne gung lbh pna’g frr uvf yvcf pyrneyl be bsgra rabhtu gb irevsl gung ur’f fcrnxvat gur jbeqf ba gur fbhaqgenpx. Zl gurbel vf gung gur npghny qvnybthr vf pbzcyrgryl qvssrerag sebz gur fbhaqgenpx, naq qbrf abg unir nalguvat gb qb jvgu zvaq-ernqvat ng nyy. Creuncf Qreera fgnegf, “Rkphfr zr, Zvff, jbhyq lbh yvxr gb urne n wbxr?” naq fur fnlf “Hu-uhu” naq bss gurl tb. Gur zvaq-ernqvat qvnybthr vf gura jevggra naq qhoorq ba nsgrejneqf, gnxvat pner gb zngpu gur yvcf va gur oevrs frpbaqf jura jr pna frr gurz.
If you find yourself seriously considering hypotheses like micromuscle reading or subliminal suggestion, then that’s probably because the magician has managed to slip a false assumption past your defences!
The subliminal suggestion part isn’t that implausible a priori, though. Suppose I first tell you to think of some tool, after which I tell you to think of some color.
Znal crbcyr jvyy svefg nafjre “unzzre”, orpnhfr gung’f n cebgbglcvpny gbby, naq gura nafjre “erq”, orpnhfr obgu jbeqf ner nffbpvngrq jvgu pbzzhavfz naq gur zragvba bs n unzzre cevzrf nffbpvngrq pbaprcgf.
While I’m not sure of how well that will work here, once back in junior high school I had happened to read that and a list of other priming questions from somewhere, and tried them out on my classmates. I didn’t always get the expected answer, but I did get it more often than not.
My favorite was one that only works in Finnish—asking people to say “kuusi” for several times in a row, which is a word that means either the number six, or a spruce tree. Then I would ask them to name a vegetable, and often they would say “carrot”—which happens to have a similar shape as the popular way of drawing cartoon spruce trees.
For the record, I thought of “spade” and then “orange” (perhaps because of an association of spades with the merchant B&Q, whose logo and branded materials are orange, though of course this is post-hoc rationalization on my part).
The reason why I think concentrating on “suggestion” is often an indication that you’ve missed something, is that suggestion is not reliable enough for magicians to use it as the sole mechanism for an effect, especially in settings like live television where the stakes are high. Magicians prefer to use it in combination with another method. Then, if the suggestion works, the effect is spectacular, but if it fails, the other method comes in and saves the effect. For example, Derren asks David Frost to picture something “in the back of your mind” and emphasizes this by tapping the back of his head. He then guesses that the word will “begin with a guttural sound, like a C or a G”. I wondered if this was an attempt at suggestion (via an association from “back of the mind” to “back of the mouth”) that didn’t quite come off, with some other method then saving the effect. (My own word was “apple”, which does start with a guttural sound—a glottal stop—though this would not have helped Derren, because no-one in the audience would know enough phonology to recognize that this was the case.)
But yes, you’re right, I was a bit too strong in my comment above and suggestion does sometimes deserve consideration. If by good luck it works in a trick, then you might not get a hint from the performance as to what the backup method was going to be.
(If you can point me to televised tricks that you think are pure suggestion, then I’d be interested to see them.)
I got an “uploader has not made this video available in your country” message for the first video, but your “explanations” for the other two aren’t valid. The first is just a fancy way of accusing Derren Brown of using a stooge, which is given as not being a valid explanation, and once we entertain this possibility, the question becomes vacuous. It’s like if someone asks you “Here’s a chess position, how do you force checkmate?” and your answer is “I’d point a gun at my opponent’s head and order him to move his queen out of the way”. There’s lateral thinking, and then there’s just refusing to accept basic assumptions that are necessary for there to be a puzzle in the first place. Your explanation for the third video is similarly invalid. You have to assume that the video is an accurate account of the encounter, just as you have to assume, when watching a play, that any character that is declared dead by the another character is, in fact, dead. A puzzle where the “solution” consists of rejecting the assumption that the person telling the puzzle to you is accurately presenting the nature of the puzzle is not a puzzle.
“I have two coins in my pocket. The value of them add up to 35 cents, and neither of them is a quarter. What are they?”
“I don’t know.”
“A dime and a quarter.”
“But you said neither of them is a quarter.”
“Yeah, I lied.”
You say that my explanations “aren’t valid” because I “have to assume” various facts. Why do I have to make these assumptions? Your argument is that these tricks must be fair puzzles. But Derren is not in the business of making fair puzzles, he is in the business of entertaining television audiences. He is under no obligation to play fair, and he is quite willing to use your belief that he plays fair in order to fool you.
My explanations for tricks two and three don’t just explain the effect, but also a number of details of the presentation that would otherwise be mysterious or arbitrary. The technique in trick two (which is well-known among magicians under the name “vafgnag fgbbtr”) explains, among other things, the flat affect of the man whose mind is supposedly being read (why doesn’t he seem as amazed as the woman?) The technique in trick three explains not only why Derren is dressed like a clown, but also the sequence of camera cuts.
I never said that you have to assume various facts. I said that you have to assume various facts ″for there to be a puzzle″. Nor did I say that these tricks must be fair puzzles. I said that ″if″ it is a fair puzzle, ″then″ there are certain assumptions that must be true. This is quite likely not a fair puzzle. If it’s not a fair puzzle, then trying to “figure it out” strikes me as not being a worthwhile endeavor.
And if it’s not a fair puzzle, then pretty much any explanation is unfalsifiable. If we proceed with the assumption that he’s trying to fool us, then we ″shouldn’t expect″ it to make sense. We should ″expect″ there to be mysterious and arbitrary details, and any such details can be presented as support for the explanation, while any details that aren’t mysterious or arbitrary under the proposed explanation can be presented as confirmation as well. For instance, him having the woman touch the face of the man is, under your explanation, arbitrary, and supports your explanation because it shows that he’s introducing elements that have no inherent purpose as misdirection. The woman being shorter than the man, on the other hand, you claim is evidence for your explanation, because it serves a direct purpose in his plan.
If Derren is operating through camera cuts in video three, there is little need for the clown costume. We need four things to dismiss this hypothesis:
Derren makes a specific claim.
We have a clear shot of his mouth, and can lip-read him as saying that.
The woman clearly and explicitly states that the claim is true.
We have a clear shot of her mouth.
Not only do we need these four things, we need them ″all in the same shot″. It’s hardly difficult to arrange the editing such that there is no shot with all four, even without a clown costume. And that’s about a satisfying explanation as if I had seen a magician on TV get in one box, then instantly appear in a box across the room, and the explanation is that the magician actually climbed out of the first box, walked over to the second box, and got in it, and then edited the video so we wouldn’t see him walking from one box to the other. If I see a boat blow up in a movie, I might idly wonder “I wonder how they did that? Maybe they had a miniature. Maybe it was CGI. Maybe they actually bought a boat and blew it up.” But that would simply be an issue of movie trivia. It wouldn’t be a “puzzle”. And if someone were filming miniatures being blown up and presenting it as a “magic trick”, I’d consider that pretty lame. There’s a difference between an illusion and a hoax. It doesn’t take any skill to pull off a hoax, only chutzpah.
It’s an example of Derren Brown’s brilliant use of misdirection. Here you’re misdirected as to the whole nature of the trick, and if you start your analysis by asking yourself, “how does he manage to read the woman’s mind?” then you’ve already swallowed the false assumption. You have to take a step back and start from the question, “how does he manage to convince me, the viewer, that he read the woman’s mind?”
I’ll ROT-13 my own answers to the questions, but I strongly recommend that you do your best to figure out your own answers to them before decrypting mine. Trying to figure out plausible mechanisms for magic tricks is a way of calibrating your rational thinking skills, in the presence of an adversary (the magician) who is trying to use all your perceptual biases and cognitive shortcuts against you. If you find yourself seriously considering hypotheses like micromuscle reading or subliminal suggestion, then that’s probably because the magician has managed to slip a false assumption past your defences!
Svefg, Qnivq Sebfg. Guvf, V jvyy fnl hc sebag, vf gur bar V’z yrnfg pbasvqrag nobhg. Ohg zl gurbel vf guvf. N pung fubj yvxr Sebfg’f glcvpnyyl unf fbzr xvaq bs cercnengvba orsberunaq: abg n fpevcgrq erurnefny, ohg n pbairefngvba va juvpu gur ubfg naq gur thrfg jbex bhg jung xvaqf bs fhowrpgf gurl ner tbvat gb pbire. Va gur erurnefny, Qreera qbrf fbzr zntvp gevpxf naq va gur pbhefr bs guvf ur fbzrubj sbeprf gur jbeq Zvyna ba Sebfg va fbzr jnl gung Sebfg guvaxf vf enaqbz. (Ubj? N obbx grfg? V qba’g xabj.) Qreera fgnegf gb thrff jung vg vf, ohg gura fnlf, “Ab, V’yy gel naq thrff gung yngre ba gur fubj”. Gura, qhevat gur yvir erpbeqvat, ur tbrf guebhtu n zvaq-ernqvat nggrzcg gung tbrf onqyl (gur pvtne) ohg qhevat gur pbhefr bs guvf ur qebcf uvagf nobhg n cynpr, juvpu Sebfg vavgvnyyl qravrf: “Vg’f n cynpr bs fbzr fbeg” “Ab” “BX, pna lbh tb onpx va lbhe zvaq. V guvax gurer jnf n cynpr.” “Ab, nf fbba nf lbh nfxrq zr V’ir bayl gubhtug bs guvf bar guvat.” Qreera trgf vg jebat, ohg gura ur fnlf, “Gurer jnf n cynpr. V guvax gurer jnf n cynpr, gubhtu, gung jrag guebhtu lbhe urnq. Whfg tb onpx va lbhe zvaq naq whfg sbphf ba n cynpr sbe n frpbaq.” Abj Sebfg nterrf gung gurer jnf n cynpr. Jul vf gung? Vg’f orpnhfr abj gung gur gevpx vf bire naq Qreera snvyrq, Sebfg ernyvmrf gung ur’f orvat cebzcgrq gb guvax onpx gb gur cynpr gung jnf pubfra rneyvre, naq abj Qreera thrffrf vg. Sebfg vf vzcerffrq orpnhfr ur qvqa’g fcbg gur sbepr, ohg jr ner rira zber vzcerffrq orpnhfr jr qba’g xabj nobhg gur erurnefny naq jr guvax Qreera jnf thrffvat pbyq. Sebfg vf gbb zhpu bs n cebsrffvbany gb fcbvy gur rssrpg ol gnyxvat nobhg gur erurnefny (naq Qreera bs pbhefr xabjf guvf).
Frpbaq, gur crg. 1. Qreera cvpxrq n jbzra jub jnf fubegre guna uvz fb gung ur pbhyq rnfvyl oybpx ure ivrj qhevat uvf rkcynangvba. 2. Qreera cvpxrq gur zna orsber tvivat gur rkcynangvba fb gung gur zna jbhyq unir n ybat jnvg bss pnzren. 3. Qreera fgrcf sbejneq gbjneqf gur jbzra, gbhpuvat ure fb nf gb pbzcyrgryl bpphcl ure nggragvbaf. Fur qbrf abg frr jung unccraf gb gur zna. 4. Arvgure qb jr, ohg zl gurbel vf gung Qreera’f “cebqhpre” yrnqf gur zna gb gur fvqr naq fnlf “jr arrq lbh gb ernq guvf eryrnfr sbez, cyrnfr”. Gur zna ybbxf ng gur “eryrnfr sbez” naq vg fnlf, “Jrypbzr, ibyhagrre! Gbtrgure, lbh naq V ner tbvat gb tvir guvf jbzna na nznmvat rkcrevrapr: sbe n zvahgr be gjb fur vf tbvat gb oryvrir gung fur pna ernq lbhe zvaq. Nyy lbh unir gb qb vf nterr jvgu rnpu bs ure thrffrf. Orfg bs yhpx, Qreera”
Guveq, gur pybja. 1. Qreera vf qerffrq nf n pybja orpnhfr vg tvirf uvz na rkphfr gb chg urnil znxr-hc ba naq nebhaq uvf yvcf. 2. Vg’f n perrcl pybja fb gur znxr-hc pna or oynpx. 3. Ur jnirf uvf unaqf nebhaq fb gung gurl bsgra bofgehpg gur pnzren’f ivrj bs uvf zbhgu. 4. Jvgubhg gur fbhaq, vg’f pyrne gung lbh pna’g frr uvf yvcf pyrneyl be bsgra rabhtu gb irevsl gung ur’f fcrnxvat gur jbeqf ba gur fbhaqgenpx. Zl gurbel vf gung gur npghny qvnybthr vf pbzcyrgryl qvssrerag sebz gur fbhaqgenpx, naq qbrf abg unir nalguvat gb qb jvgu zvaq-ernqvat ng nyy. Creuncf Qreera fgnegf, “Rkphfr zr, Zvff, jbhyq lbh yvxr gb urne n wbxr?” naq fur fnlf “Hu-uhu” naq bss gurl tb. Gur zvaq-ernqvat qvnybthr vf gura jevggra naq qhoorq ba nsgrejneqf, gnxvat pner gb zngpu gur yvcf va gur oevrs frpbaqf jura jr pna frr gurz.
The subliminal suggestion part isn’t that implausible a priori, though. Suppose I first tell you to think of some tool, after which I tell you to think of some color.
Znal crbcyr jvyy svefg nafjre “unzzre”, orpnhfr gung’f n cebgbglcvpny gbby, naq gura nafjre “erq”, orpnhfr obgu jbeqf ner nffbpvngrq jvgu pbzzhavfz naq gur zragvba bs n unzzre cevzrf nffbpvngrq pbaprcgf.
While I’m not sure of how well that will work here, once back in junior high school I had happened to read that and a list of other priming questions from somewhere, and tried them out on my classmates. I didn’t always get the expected answer, but I did get it more often than not.
My favorite was one that only works in Finnish—asking people to say “kuusi” for several times in a row, which is a word that means either the number six, or a spruce tree. Then I would ask them to name a vegetable, and often they would say “carrot”—which happens to have a similar shape as the popular way of drawing cartoon spruce trees.
For the record, I thought of “spade” and then “orange” (perhaps because of an association of spades with the merchant B&Q, whose logo and branded materials are orange, though of course this is post-hoc rationalization on my part).
The reason why I think concentrating on “suggestion” is often an indication that you’ve missed something, is that suggestion is not reliable enough for magicians to use it as the sole mechanism for an effect, especially in settings like live television where the stakes are high. Magicians prefer to use it in combination with another method. Then, if the suggestion works, the effect is spectacular, but if it fails, the other method comes in and saves the effect. For example, Derren asks David Frost to picture something “in the back of your mind” and emphasizes this by tapping the back of his head. He then guesses that the word will “begin with a guttural sound, like a C or a G”. I wondered if this was an attempt at suggestion (via an association from “back of the mind” to “back of the mouth”) that didn’t quite come off, with some other method then saving the effect. (My own word was “apple”, which does start with a guttural sound—a glottal stop—though this would not have helped Derren, because no-one in the audience would know enough phonology to recognize that this was the case.)
But yes, you’re right, I was a bit too strong in my comment above and suggestion does sometimes deserve consideration. If by good luck it works in a trick, then you might not get a hint from the performance as to what the backup method was going to be.
(If you can point me to televised tricks that you think are pure suggestion, then I’d be interested to see them.)
I got an “uploader has not made this video available in your country” message for the first video, but your “explanations” for the other two aren’t valid. The first is just a fancy way of accusing Derren Brown of using a stooge, which is given as not being a valid explanation, and once we entertain this possibility, the question becomes vacuous. It’s like if someone asks you “Here’s a chess position, how do you force checkmate?” and your answer is “I’d point a gun at my opponent’s head and order him to move his queen out of the way”. There’s lateral thinking, and then there’s just refusing to accept basic assumptions that are necessary for there to be a puzzle in the first place. Your explanation for the third video is similarly invalid. You have to assume that the video is an accurate account of the encounter, just as you have to assume, when watching a play, that any character that is declared dead by the another character is, in fact, dead. A puzzle where the “solution” consists of rejecting the assumption that the person telling the puzzle to you is accurately presenting the nature of the puzzle is not a puzzle.
“I have two coins in my pocket. The value of them add up to 35 cents, and neither of them is a quarter. What are they?” “I don’t know.” “A dime and a quarter.” “But you said neither of them is a quarter.” “Yeah, I lied.”
You say that my explanations “aren’t valid” because I “have to assume” various facts. Why do I have to make these assumptions? Your argument is that these tricks must be fair puzzles. But Derren is not in the business of making fair puzzles, he is in the business of entertaining television audiences. He is under no obligation to play fair, and he is quite willing to use your belief that he plays fair in order to fool you.
My explanations for tricks two and three don’t just explain the effect, but also a number of details of the presentation that would otherwise be mysterious or arbitrary. The technique in trick two (which is well-known among magicians under the name “vafgnag fgbbtr”) explains, among other things, the flat affect of the man whose mind is supposedly being read (why doesn’t he seem as amazed as the woman?) The technique in trick three explains not only why Derren is dressed like a clown, but also the sequence of camera cuts.
I never said that you have to assume various facts. I said that you have to assume various facts ″for there to be a puzzle″. Nor did I say that these tricks must be fair puzzles. I said that ″if″ it is a fair puzzle, ″then″ there are certain assumptions that must be true. This is quite likely not a fair puzzle. If it’s not a fair puzzle, then trying to “figure it out” strikes me as not being a worthwhile endeavor.
And if it’s not a fair puzzle, then pretty much any explanation is unfalsifiable. If we proceed with the assumption that he’s trying to fool us, then we ″shouldn’t expect″ it to make sense. We should ″expect″ there to be mysterious and arbitrary details, and any such details can be presented as support for the explanation, while any details that aren’t mysterious or arbitrary under the proposed explanation can be presented as confirmation as well. For instance, him having the woman touch the face of the man is, under your explanation, arbitrary, and supports your explanation because it shows that he’s introducing elements that have no inherent purpose as misdirection. The woman being shorter than the man, on the other hand, you claim is evidence for your explanation, because it serves a direct purpose in his plan.
If Derren is operating through camera cuts in video three, there is little need for the clown costume. We need four things to dismiss this hypothesis:
Derren makes a specific claim.
We have a clear shot of his mouth, and can lip-read him as saying that.
The woman clearly and explicitly states that the claim is true.
We have a clear shot of her mouth.
Not only do we need these four things, we need them ″all in the same shot″. It’s hardly difficult to arrange the editing such that there is no shot with all four, even without a clown costume. And that’s about a satisfying explanation as if I had seen a magician on TV get in one box, then instantly appear in a box across the room, and the explanation is that the magician actually climbed out of the first box, walked over to the second box, and got in it, and then edited the video so we wouldn’t see him walking from one box to the other. If I see a boat blow up in a movie, I might idly wonder “I wonder how they did that? Maybe they had a miniature. Maybe it was CGI. Maybe they actually bought a boat and blew it up.” But that would simply be an issue of movie trivia. It wouldn’t be a “puzzle”. And if someone were filming miniatures being blown up and presenting it as a “magic trick”, I’d consider that pretty lame. There’s a difference between an illusion and a hoax. It doesn’t take any skill to pull off a hoax, only chutzpah.
I watched #3 again and I’m pretty convinced you’re right. It is strange, seeing it totally differently once I have a theory to match.
It’s an example of Derren Brown’s brilliant use of misdirection. Here you’re misdirected as to the whole nature of the trick, and if you start your analysis by asking yourself, “how does he manage to read the woman’s mind?” then you’ve already swallowed the false assumption. You have to take a step back and start from the question, “how does he manage to convince me, the viewer, that he read the woman’s mind?”