One Lie Better Than Another?

In our field of Magic, Mentalism, and Psychic Entertainment, the performers who choose to tell their audiences that they are achieving their feats through spirits, ghosts, psychic abilities, paranormal phenomena, etc, are oftentimes hunted down, attacked and criticized by their peers for doing so, being called frauds, and hailed "unethical".

On the other hand, those performers who choose to say they are achieving their feats through body language, psychology, NLP, etc, are left alone to make their living in peace, hailed as "good" and "ethical".

Is one performance approach better than another? Or is a performance approach just a performance approach regardless of whether you say you are achieving your feats through the paranormal, psychology, alien contact, or little whispering green elves?

I've had debates about this over time, isn't a guy like Derren Brown (just an example nothing against him) lying as much as someone who claims to be pstchic?

He is still claiming to have powers that he does not.

Derren (and again nothing against him, I'm a big fan) has made this side of our art acceptable, I guess it's an easy out for a lot of people. If he uses body launguage etc then they can belive that, it doesn't challenge anything in their wolrd view.

Funny that a lot of people have said that he is psychic but he won't admit it, we see things the way we want to see them anyway. Alot of us will know this from performing.

I think it isn't really relevant as long as you stick with your premise and you audience's expectations.

I personally use the psychological approach simply because a lot has been written about lying so you can take this into your presentation and teach your audience something new.
Another advantage for using a psychological ploy is that people have heard about it and accept this for true unlike spirits, mediums etc which is not generally accepted as much as psychology.

Plus you can make some great jokes with a psychological ploy. For example: "For the next experiment I need 5 good liars so... are their any politicians in the room?.... No?! Typical there's only one thing they can do and even then they run away from their duty. So then the next best thing do we have 5 lawyers?! No....

Or: So I want you in a moment to try and lie as a pathological liar. So imagine that you come home late from work and your partner is standing there and asks you: "Were the hell have you been", keep that image in your mind so don't say: "Honey, Sugar Blossom, Baby, Pumpkin! I didn't have sex with that, blond haired, blue eyed, luscious, hot, steamy sexy --generally better looking than you-- intern, really baby believe me!" because than you're not a pathological liar, though in that situation you would be SCREWED! Trust me!... Let's say it's experience from my side? *When you bring this very theatrical with a grin on your face people see the humor. You can even do real mind reading now and say: "I know that some of you were thinking about Clinton right! right?! Now who's the mind reader here hey ".

I wouldn't know how to make a lie detector test work in a "psychic" framework and make it fun and entertaining as well.

Again it all come down to personal moral lines doesnt it... As well as context and disclaimers etc.

I personally dont like the I'm psychic angle, but thats my own preference. I know of many that do and do it well. The same goes with those who pull the psychological angle, i know those who fake it and fake it well. Either one in my opinion is just as dishonest as the other. I do wonder though in current trends of psychological presentations, how many people have asked those with the psychological ability to help with their personal issues much in the same way people have asked psychic to guide them.

Twenty years ago, NLP and associated stuff wasnt that well known to the general masses, not at a level it perhaps is now. Derren Brown has himself admitted that he gets many letters from people believing he can help them, not a psychic but psychological level. How is this really much different to the fake psychics who claim to read minds in the same way (ie magical means). I guess any person who wanted to be unscrupulous and obtain money in dodgy ways can, no matter if they use psychic, psychological or even the hypno guys. If you are percieved to be wise in an unknown area, then the masses will often seek your guidance.

E x

Just thinking that I don't really say I'm psychic I use the power of my ring and my intuition to do stuff
I've never looked at that slant Evie, I bet they do get asked.

Alex and I Skyped away into the small hours with this one.
For me it is simple - people want magic - we live in a data driven hell where magic has been taken from us - the basic human facility for animism that links us with the world and the universe - and gives us a deeper sense of purpose.
Magic can be revolutionary!
Magic can open our lost connection with something greater than our own egos.

.....well, perhaps not sponge bunnies!

Why hold out the promise of magic, just to take it away again? People are miserable enough!

Also, should we not all bathe in the beautiful ambiguity of it all?

I'd say it came down to the weight of the lie being told. If we presented a pseudomemory effect, the implications are less serious than if we presented the same effect but claimed that the spirits were giving you the answer. I appreciate that Brown still lies when it comes to psychological presentations, but the impact of presenting these abilities are less than if he were suggesting a supernatural explanation. When he suggests facial micro-expressions, say, allow him to work out a word that someone is merely thinking of, if we take him at his word we may be left believing that a valid physical phenomenon is more effective than it really is. If he suggested instead that he is genuinely telepathic and that it is possible to pluck thoughts directly from people's gullivers then the implication is much greater.

The difference then awkwardly must come down to the personal beliefs of the performer, and their personal integrity. Someone who believes in an afterlife and that that afterlife can interact with the living world will find little harm in offering persuasive but false evidence for that position. That said, if they choose rather than to present this in the abstract, to channel messages from Uncle Brian, then that's dishonest whichever way you cut it.

Now I find it funny that twice in a few weeks someone has suggested that if you present things in a psychic way then you must tell people the information comes from the spirit world. Why is this? (Sorry to go off topic) no one here as mentioned spirits apart from the people saying it's wrong to use that prsentation.

I was just citing it as the opposite end of the spectrum.

Wasn't picking on you sir just funny that twice this as been brought up.

Simon_Scott wrote:

I'd say it came down to the weight of the lie being told. If we presented a pseudomemory effect, the implications are less serious than if we presented the same effect but claimed that the spirits were giving you the answer. I appreciate that Brown still lies when it comes to psychological presentations, but the impact of presenting these abilities are less than if he were suggesting a supernatural explanation.

I disagree.

I don't believe the implications are "serious" either way, and I certainly don't believe that a supernatural presentation has serious implications.

It's entertainment and I don't think it matters much what an entertainer says as he guesses what card you're thinking of, or what item is in a box. Seriously.

Who are these people who are damaged by an entertainer saying they achieve their demonstrations through supernatural powers? I never met any.

I am a psychologist so by rights I should only be using the psychology, NLP, Scientific model but in reality I drift backwards and forwards between the Scientific and Mystic explanations depending upon which appears to me to be the best fit. Nether are absolutes. Both have elements of truth and falsehood which can be harnessed. Then, I like to flit around with such things and revel in the ambiguity of it all as that is exactly who I am. I enjoy trying to find answers myself; it's not just our clients or audiences; consider your own thoughts and knowledge too.

As far as my clients are concerned I am convinced that the vast majority could not care less whether the help I provide for them stems from hundreds of years of scientific study and experimentation, leaps out of the minds of ancient wizards & shaman or results from the exploits of turquoise sheep on a trampoline. What they want is the answer, a solution, the result. Now, that in itself does not necessarily have to be an answer; often a set of questions is sufficient to provide a solution they can take with them.

In a performance situation, again, the method is not really that important so long as there is a satisfactory payoff.

When giving a reading however you have to be sensitive about the complex network of contexts which may be at play. eg How do you know what someone really believes? At those times I do my best to make sure I am aware of what the expectations may be.


In an entertainment situation it does not matter whether those who 'fake-it' or use 'help' claim whatever. The result is the important factor. There are however some potential repercussions to be aware of as people will likely leave your performance at least considering what you have said to be true. After all you've just provided them with the proof. We have no way of knowing how they will use that knowledge in future decision making or even teaching. In my opinion people are usually intelligent enough to simply add what they've experienced to the collective mass and then make whatever assumptions from that but if a critical mass of mentalists, psychics, scientists, politicians or whatever make enough noise it will lead to people heading in those directions and perhaps missing other (maybe the real) answers. Oh the responsibility of it all. Well, it would be a responsibility if it were a mass coordinated movement with the intent to deflect opinions etc but it isn't. Therefore, no personal responsibility for the greater perspective; just for those who we are working with at a particular moment.
Oh the perils of free thought!!! I may have to amend some of this if/when I read it back another time.


There is an assumption made by many that psychic equates with supernatural and/or mediumistic type activities. That is one aspect of it but the other and more precise meaning is concerned with PSI and studying the potential applications of the mind. Sure others will have better definitions but this will do for now as i'm typing and eating ice cream simultaneously. No, not an experiment - I just like ice cream.

Well, I never said damaged, but I think there is something inherently wrong in presenting something in a way that may cause people to doubt their assumptions about the big questions, and hiding behind "entertainment" isn't always a get out. Most medium shows in the States, for example, are billed as entertainment, but it doesn't stop them confirming the existence of an afterlife for some viewers. There's the old view that if you open your mind to telepathy, say, then all manner of other nonsense can get inside, too.

Whereas it's true that there will be hardline skeptics and believers who will always filter or distort whatever you show them so that it complies with their existing biases, there are also those waiting for sufficient evidence of the paranormal, and belief in the paranormal can easily make someone a mark for the unethical. Now if we're presenting theatrical entertainment that is clearly hokum, where the audience in some way consciously sets aside rationality, then that's all well and good. There will still be true believers in the audience who will go away vindicated, but we cannot be marshalled by the ignorant. That's ignorant in the literal sense, by the way.

Houdini "pardoned" the Davenport brothers claiming that what they offered was purely entertainment and that they should not be criticised for it, but a look through the press coverage of the day, the way they presented their act and to whom makes it clear that they were making a serious and concerted effort to present what they did as real. These guys were practising spiritualists, promoted themselves through the spiritualist network, dubbed what they performed seances, appeared in court defending themselves against fraud charges and are still regarded by many today as the real deal; not bad for a rope trick. Houdini's blessing seems to be based on the notion that they sold tickets; certainly a lesser crime than attaching oneself to rich dowagers, but hardly squeaky clean. We have present-day performers who will show you trickery on stage and then sell you books on how to develop real skills, which to me seems underhanded because generally they do not draw a line between the two.

I can take Dr Jae's point about not holding responsibility for the greater perspective, but there remains a level of personal integrity that one needs to deal with, and the label of "entertainment" can only get you so far.

Mark Salem, and others, lie about using body language and psychology and sell books about how you can do it too!

www.marcsalem.com/home.cfm - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1878856058114159946&hl=en#

He says: "I'm working with non-verbal signals ... our subconscious is always at work...."

People believe his demonstrations are the real "psychological" deal. I saw his show, heard the comments, went backstage, met the man. It was all magic.

Is this better for you?


Would it bother you if I chose not to mention psychology or anything psychic in my shows and instead talked about alien contact and what the aliens have taught me after I was abducted in 1984?


The truth is I champion mystery, and find disclaimers for entertainers insulting to my intelligence and the intelligence of everyone who paid a ticket to see a show.

Regarding whether one lie is better than another, I think the ones who are believers will continue to believe because they want to. In our countries (and most others) anyone can speak to a professor, visit a library or bookstore, research the internet ... you believe in what you want to believe in, no need to hold anyone's hands here, therefore it makes no difference to me whatsoever whether a performer says it's "psychology", "paranormal", or "aliens".

I've nothing to add that I haven't already said, beyond the fact that Salem is teaching very specific things in the book. If he was claiming the book would allow someone to use body language to perform a billl serial number effect then it might be a problem; it's hardly the same as pretending to do psychometry and then selling a book on doing it for real. That said, he does repeat the "we only use 10% of our brains" myth, which is a pity.

In his recent documentary Max Maven was asked:

INTERVIEWER: "A lot of people who have seen your show, come out thinking that what you do is real, that you could read minds, so how do you respond to that?"

MAX MAVEN: Your question presumes that I can't.


And when approached with "Some have a school of thought that the truly generous attitude towards your audience is letting them know that this is all fraudulent and a trick so they are never lead to believe that this guy is really a mind reader."

Max responded: "On this subject of believability, I don't care what the audience decides to define what I'm doing as being."

"Knowing is a wonderful thing ... so is not knowing."


When I used to waste my time posting regularly at the Green place, I posted the above (search Ethics of Believability - Max Maven) because I got tired of performers like me getting called, "frauds", "con-men", "unethical", "liars", etc. Needless to say that thread never got a bad word from any of the attackers, they stayed well away from the thread. They didn't have the balls to attack Max Maven for the same thing, but always had a good time attacking me and other performers for championing mystery.

See films don't give disclaimers and some of late should have. Take paranormal Activity and A Haunting in Connecticut. Both played everything in the film as the real deal. A Haunting even says based on real events, I went and looked as I was intreged to how much of it was real. Basicly jack all

Can I say first that I think this is a very intelligent and well thought out thread with everyone, regardless of viewpoint making valid and well reasoned arguments. On other forums this would have decayed into a slanging match by now. So a testament to the depth of thinking that will distinguish us from other boards.
That said, i am ready to roll up my sleeves and barge in again!

---

My position on all debates is that no-one has a monopoly on reality. Therefore, everything that everyone can say on this subject is reality from that persons current viewpoint. Anything else is the only true definition of deception I hold.
My own moral view point is that if we prey on the weak, we are morally wrong. This for me is true if I am exploiting someone less intelligent than me with a scam, or profiting off the grief of another human being. At the same time if someone dear to me dies and a medium convinces me of the continued existence of the spirit of my loved one, is s/he interfering with the grieving process and therefore my psychological healing, or is she offering me hope and comfort that is genuinely of use? Also, I have an opinion or a belief as to the continued experience of the spirit after death, but I do not have, and cannot have, any empirical proof either way. Who is to say the medium is right or wrong? Let us not pretend we know, for that is true deception.

For me (and Bob!) the only real deception is when someone uses the word is.

For all my life, I have hoped to hold an open inquiring view point - to never 'make up my mind' (what a terrifying phrase that is!). In reality and deep down, I have always been skeptical (in the narrow sense). As Mulder put it - I have always wanted to believe.
Recently, due to illness (and it must be admitted, in some desperation) I visited a 'spirit healer'. The idea interested me and I wanted to 'have a go'. My mind was totally open, but at the same time, I really did not really expect anything to happen. Well, something did, something that was an unmistakably real experience. I could not doubt it, and could discover any wires nor any magnets. This was the first and only time that my world view was altered by an experience, rather than a belief. My paradigm had to shift.

What is the point of all this?

What do I want from 'magic' - well, I want real magic. Something that opens the doors to the potential of other realities and other possibilities. I want to explore and play in this undefined space. For, as soon as it is defined, then I sense that I am being deceived.
If I perform well, then I open this space up to both myself and to the person(s) I am performing with. Deception does not come into it, for I have left that behind in the 'real' world.

Both schools of presentation have their place, and they are just as unscrupulous as each other if used to fleece people. If used to entertain, it's a different matter.

To the average person who wants an experience, what holds more emotional appeal? Science or the paranormal?

I personally go for a witchcraft angle which is heavily implied rather than boldly stated, and never denied.

It's very fashionable for people to condemn anyone who claims 'powers', thanks to Derren Brown (who has sailed too close to exposure in his most recent shows) and the followers who imitate his every mood.
They have as much right to 'expose' fake psychics (if they are doing no harm) as the Masked Magician has to expose their methods.

Creepy stories which just might be true have a stronger emotional impact than a scientific 'demonstration'.

As for going around, pretending you have special powers, Jesus did it best and he has a bigger following than any of us will ever have!

took the words right out of my mouth.
Frankly, I am pretty sick of people telling me what I should or should not do. Who made them Pope?

Chris Gould
(Satanist and necrophiliac).

The irony of the whole DB thing is that if someone followed him on tour and exposed his workings backstage and said "This is how he does it!", there would be an uproar.

The psychic he followed was certainly an odious character, but I am sure his clients would see the show as a "stitch up" and still book him.

With his current tirades, Brown has become a bore and his exposure of methods that many of us are using for Mystery Entertainment was quite clearly not on. I hope he receives a similar kind of treatment.

I'm probably missing the point somewhere along the line, but I honestly don't understand some of the issues here.

People go to watch a movie and see Brad Pitt playing the part of a spy. For those 2hrs in the cinema, Brad Pitt no longer exists and they (we) completely suspend disbelief and accept the lie and deception. Isn't it exactly the same in this industry?? People pay to go see an entertainer - they KNOW real magic doesn't exist, yet are prepared to believe, just for that short space of time that perhaps it actually does.

They succumb to the romantic notion that anything is in fact possible, and who am I to contradict that?!? If you're talking about people attending a psychic reading where a person uses cold reading and fiddles the specs with those sorts of skills, claiming all the while that what they do is serious then I agree it's unethical. But, another small part of me says that a lie which provides comfort to someone who is suffering is perhaps a kindness.

As long as it's couched as entertainment (which it must be by law in the UK iirc), then where's the harm? If people know it's supposed to be entertainment, it's their own fault if they come to believe someone really contacted their Aunt Agatha. For all I know, there may really be people out there capable of contacting the dead. I wish that were true, but without belief, faith or proof, I will remain politely sceptical.

I only have a problem with those who are supposedly providing a service to vulnerable people and blatantly lying about their abilities. When it's purely for entertainment, I think anything goes. The onus really should be on the audience to decide whether the mentalist, or whoever, really can read minds or uses some trickery.

I feel like I've gone round in circles with this post. Hmmm, it seems I'm on the fence in some respects

I must admit, the last series of shows from Derren smacked a little of hypocrisy to me. I've seen him perform Victorian style seance routines and I'm sure some would believe he does have powers. I wonder if someone out there is going to expose his methods one day.

My view about disclaimers is similar to Michael Close's take on the endless debate among cardicians about flourishes. I'll have to paraphrase, since I don't have Close's book in front of me, but his advice is to decide for yourself what works for you, and remain consistent to your vision.

If you think discalimers enhance your performances or fit in better with your personal ethics, then use them. If you think your performances are stronger without them, don't use them. Ultimately, the only opinion that matters is that of your audience.

I see two differences between the card flourish debate and the disclaimer debate. First, while only card people seem to care whether card people perform flourishes, people who don't perform our chosen genre are not shy about offering excessively strong and strident opinions about disclaimers, accompanied with virulent insults against those who disagree with them.

Second, whether or not we use disclaimers, there will be people who insist that what we do is real, particularly when doing so bolsters their own beliefs in the paranormal. How we deal with such people may be an interesting thread of its own, but that has nothing to do with whether we should use disclaimers, except to note that they may find discalimers to be insulting challenges to their beliefs.

People lie all the time, with one of the biggest lies being the one that people tell their children. The one that involves a fat man with flying reindeers who comes down their chimney once a year to give them presents.

Why are kids told this rather than the truth?

Because it makes things more exiting, it makes them believe there is REAL magic in the world and most of all, it makes them happy!

Which is no different from what many of us are doing...

You mean............. there is...... there is no........... Santa?!!!!!


I think we have come very close to an agreed statement of common sense here - we are entertainers, it is an entertainers job to deceive. Just who gives anyone the right to pontificate about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. If it works for you, and it entertains (without exploiting the weak), use it.