The Logical Disconnect And other Misdirectional Strategies for the Mentalist
Bob Cassidy
Bob Cassidy
Copyright©2011 by Robert E Cassidy All Rights Reserved
This e-book may not be reproduced in whole or in part and may not be distributed, resold, uploaded, or transmitted either electronically or manually in any form without the explicit written permission of the copyright holder.
2
The Logical Disconnect
Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................. 4 What is the Logical Disconnect? ................................................................................ 7 The “Almost Impossible Prediction” (Fetch- Mullica- Robin)................................... 9 The Psychokinetic Pen.............................................................................................. 16 Other Applications .................................................................................................... 18 An Interesting Exercise............................................................................................. 19 Test Conditions and other Variations ....................................................................... 21 Film Canisters and Altoids Tins ............................................................................... 24 Find the Disconnects................................................................................................. 28 The Technology Dilemma ........................................................................................ 33 The Next Step ........................................................................................................... 35 From Don Rackley.................................................................................................... 35 The Logical Disconnect Teleseminar/Audio ............................................................ 37
3
Bob Cassidy
Introduction
Many years ago my good friend, the late Bob Haines, coined the term "logical disconnect" to define a strategy to thwart a logically minded observer from "reverse engineering" the actual methods used to accomplish particular effects.
In this new era of overexposure and easy access to "secrets" on the Internet, the Logical Disconnect has taken on an added importance. It is one of the very few things that will even work against those who may be familiar with the concept.
Over the years I have referred to the concept many times but its meaning and application still seems to be widely misunderstood. In The Logical Disconnect the concept is explored in depth and explained in detail. But the book goes beyond mere theory and includes real world routines that illustrate the principle in action and serve to show how it can be applied to many of the effects already in the readers' repertoire.
This eBook began as a thread on a popular Internet forum for mentalists in which I invited readers to ask questions about the principle and to provide examples from their own experience.
4
The Logical Disconnect The Logical Disconnect is not a stand alone work. It is the foundation and workbook for an upcoming teleseminar/audio presentation that will be produced in the coming weeks after its first publication. All purchasers of this work will, of course, be given free access to that portion of the project. Readers will be invited to submit additional questions and observations prior to the teleseminar so that I can address them in detail.
Since the concept of the logical disconnect has been such an important part of my thinking over the years, I have made many references in these pages to my prior writings. For the sake of completeness I have included brief summaries, where necessary, so that the reader who doesn’t have the particular works in question will have no problem in understanding how they fit into the overall theory.
Good thoughts,
Bob Cassidy Seattle, WA August 2011
5
Bob Cassidy
From The Principia Mentalia:
Principium 15
To Avoid Detection Use Misdirection.
It is very important to disconnect everything, if you know what I mean. If not, you should do it anyway because it is a good thing.
- Dr. Bob
6
The Logical Disconnect
What is the Logical Disconnect?
As I have often noted over the years, many effects in magic and mentalism are accomplished by a single subtlety or gimmick. If either is discovered or suspected, the mystery is weakened, or, even worse, the secret exposed. Most of these problems can be resolved simply by achieving technical mastery and applying proper routining. But there are, nonetheless, too many effects that can be solved by the application of pure logic regardless of the performer’s presentational skills. What is missing from such effects is what my friend, the late Bob Haines, called the “Logical Disconnect”.
The principle is illustrated by the cover illustration of this workbook. It depicts a chain with a broken link. The broken link is the disconnect that disrupts attempts at reconstruction or reverse engineering by an astute observer.
David Copperfield's famous “Flying” illusion provides an excellent example of the principle in the context of stage magic. As David “flies” over and about the stage, even the most naive spectators will suspect that he must be on wires. (They've all seen "Peter Pan.") But when he flies into a solid glass box which is then covered with a lid, and continues to fly INSIDE THE BOX, the idea of wires is demolished.
In mentalism the principle is applied by either breaking the chain of logical thought and/or by making the actual method used appear to be impossible. Years ago I released an effect called the "White Dwarf" (in The Art of Mentalism) which was based on the principle of a transparent envelope. At the beginning of the effect a spectator would verify that the envelopes used were absolutely opaque. That was the logical disconnect. The method was transparency. The disconnect was demonstrating that the envelopes were opaque. 7
Bob Cassidy
My first direct confrontation of the problem of logical reconstruction of an effect took place in 1974 when I introduced a new effect into the act I was then performing on Holland America Cruises’ MS Statendam. The effect, Jack London’s “Almost Real Prediction” was a very clever (or so I thought) variation of a mathematical matrix force.
Basically, the original effect looks like this:
Three spectators each remove a dollar bill (or a credit card, social security card, driver’s license etc. – anything with a series of numbers on it) from their wallets or purses. The performer approaches each of them and points to the first four numbers on their bill and asks them to focus on just those numbers.
The performer then writes a prediction and hands it to a fourth spectator for safe-keeping.
Picking up a large pad or clipboard, the mentalist asks the first participant to call out one of the digits he/she is thinking of. The performer writes that digit on the pad near the top left of the paper. The other two participants also call out a single digit from among those they are thinking of and those, too, are written on the pad, thus creating a “random” three digit number.
This procedure is repeated three more times, the participants calling out the other numbers they are thinking of. Thus, four “random” three digit numbers are created.
The performer adds up the numbers and the total, as you may have guessed, matches the prediction he made earlier.
What originally attracted me to the effect and presentation was that it appeared to resolve two of the main problems in most Add-A-No or “number total prediction” effects. There was no need to switch the spectators’ numbers and the performer himself did the addition
8
The Logical Disconnect in full view of the audience, thus eliminating the all too common problem of an audience member adding the numbers incorrectly.
But I had overlooked a glaring deficiency in the effect. After my first performance, an astute spectator (turned out he was an accountant) came up to me and said the effect was pretty obvious – that if I had simply memorized the totals of the four digits from which each of the participants was making his/her selections, the order in which they called out the digits wouldn’t effect the final total at all. Thus, he concluded, it was simply a matter of simple mathematics and memory.
He was still somewhat impressed by my ability to memorize the totals of the spectators’ digits so quickly, but, needless to say, I was pretty dismayed that the method was so obvious to a logically minded observer.
Years later, after the application of the logical disconnect principle, I found that it was an easy matter to break the logical chain simply by changing the manner in which the digits were selected and by inserting a meaningless “convincer” into the routine.
Here’s the finished routine as I described it in my 2009 lecture. See if you can spot the disconnects as you read the effect description and before you go on to read the method:
The “Almost Impossible Prediction” (Fetch- Mullica- Robin)
EFFECT:
The mentalist writes a prediction and hands it to a spectator for safekeeping. He then removes nine business cards from his wallet (or otherwise obtains nine index cards,
9
Bob Cassidy match book covers, etc.) He numbers them on the blank sides from one to nine. The numbers are large and cover most of each card’s surface as shown below:
He turns the cards face down, mixes them, and hands three cards to each of three spectators.
“Before we go any further,” he announces, “one of these three individuals will be eliminated and he will tear up his cards.” He asks a member of the audience to indicate which of the three participants will be eliminated. That person tears his cards in half and sits down.
Addressing the two remaining participants, the mentalist continues, “In a moment you will each call out one of the numbers you hold and we will put them together to form a random two digit number. No one but you knows what numbers you hold and if either of you had been the one to be eliminated, a completely different set of numbers would be in play.”
He turns to the individual who eliminated one of the three participants and asks, “Which of these two people will call out the first digit of our random two-digit number?”
10
The Logical Disconnect Whichever individual is selected, he is asked to call out one of the numbers he holds, show it to the audience and then tear it in half. The mentalist writes the number on a pad of paper or other writing surface. Suppose the participant calls out number ‘7’ – the mentalist writes it on his pad like this:
The second participant is now asked to call out any one of his three numbers, which will become the second digit of the random two-digit number. Assume he says ‘4’. The mentalist writes that on his pad which now looks like this:
11
Bob Cassidy
The second spectator is asked to tear his number in half and drop it to the floor.
Turning to the first spectator, the performer asks him to call out one of his remaining cards to form another random number. “And remember,” he adds, “If one of these individuals had been the one who was eliminated, we would have a completely different set of random numbers.” Suppose he calls out number ‘3’ . He is told to tear up that card and the mentalist writes the number on his pad thusly:
12
The Logical Disconnect
The process is repeated with the second spectator. Each then calls out the number remaining in his hand to form a final two digit number. Depending on which numbers they call, the final series of three two-digit numbers might look like this:
The mentalist draws a line beneath the three numbers and openly adds them up:
13
Bob Cassidy “The total is one hundred and sixty-five. Is that correct?”
The audience acknowledges that the total is indeed correct.
The conclusion depends on the effect being presented. In a remote viewing approach, for example, a spectator would now be asked to open an Atlas to page 165 and concentrate on the map found there. If it is a straight number total prediction, the mentalist asks the spectator who was handed the prediction before the effect began to open it up and read it aloud and show it to the rest of the audience.
The prediction, of course, reads “165.”
METHOD:
The effect is purely mathematical, although it hardly seems that way. While it seemed that the performer initially wrote the numbers on the cards at random, he actually wrote them in this order (from the top to the bottom of the stack of cards):
8–1–6–3–5–7–4–9–2
Note that the first three digits, 8, 1, and 6, total 15. Likewise, the second set of three (3, 5, and 7) and the third set (4, 9, and 2) also each total 15. The performer crimps or otherwise marks the top card of the stack before apparently mixing the cards further. Actually, he just gives them a series of cuts (or the Vernon over and under false shuffle) and finally cuts the crimped card back to the top, leaving the cards in their original order.
The first participant is given the top three cards. The second participant gets the next three and the last three go to the final volunteer. Thus, each of the spectators gets three cards that total 15. You will note that it doesn’t matter which of the participants is eliminated or which of the remaining volunteers calls out the first digit of the first number. The total will always be 165 since the two vertical columns of numbers will
14
The Logical Disconnect always total 15 each, no matter which order they are called out by the participants. (Also note how I cleverly alternate the words ‘participant’, ‘spectator’, and ‘volunteer’ to avoid redundancy.)
You may be wondering what the “Fetch, Mullica, Robin” in the title is all about. Simple. It’s the mnemonic code phrase I use to remember the three sets of numbers. In most mnemonic systems, the ‘f’,‘t’ and ‘ch’ sounds found in the word ‘fetch’ correspond to the numbers 8, 1 and 6. The ‘m’, ‘l’ and ‘k’ sounds in ‘Mullica’ correspond to 3, 5, and 7. Finally, the ‘r’, ‘b’ and ‘n’ sounds in ‘robin’ represent the digits 4, 9, and 2.
There are two logical disconnects in the preceding routine. The first is the simple false shuffle of the number cards that makes it appear that the distribution of the numbers was random and that the performer has no idea which numbers each participant holds.
The second is the elimination of one of the spectators before the selections begin. These two disconnects effectively serve to throw off the more analytical individuals found in most crowds.
After I started to perform the effect this way, I never again had a “helpful” spectator explain the working to me after a show.
That is a good thing.
Matrix force notes:
If you use a stack of number cards that has, say, six each of the digits one through nine (for a total of fifty-four cards), you can come up with different combination and totals.
15
Bob Cassidy This arrangement allows you, for example, to force 1665 and still use the "eliminate a spectator" ploy that serves as the logical disconnect in the original method. You simply hand out three cards each to four or even five spectators (after false shuffling the stacked pack), and then have someone eliminate one or two of them, leaving three participants in play.
If you just stack the top twelve cards you can start with four participants, and then eliminate one. The remaining cards in the pack are in random order, thus making a convincing false shuffle child's play.
One of my favorite disconnects is found in my “Falling Pen” routine in The Artful Mentalism of Bob Cassidy. Here is an abbreviated description that shows how the disconnect works.
The Psychokinetic Pen The standard presentation of the dealer effect known as “The Psychokinetic Pen” goes like this - a pen is balanced on the end of a table with half of its length extending over the edge. After due concentration, the mentalist causes the pen to fall over.
It looks spooky, but it is hardly, upon reflection, a very effective demonstration of PK.
It is virtually guaranteed that audience members will think you used a thread, surreptitiously blew on the pen, or secretly bumped the table.
By applying the principle of the Logical Disconnect, however, the effect becomes a virtual masterpiece.
Instead of one pen, the effect is complicated a bit by using three.
16
The Logical Disconnect A participant calls out a number from one to three and the performer balances the three pens in a row on the table’s edge. Suppose the participant called out the number “two.” The mentalist tells everyone to concentrate on the second pen in the row of three. He walks well away from the table and, after about ten or fifteen seconds, the selected pen falls to the floor.
The performer returns to the table, picks up the pen from the floor and gives it away as a souvenir to one of the participants who “showed very strong concentration.”
Do you see the disconnects here?
The logically possible ways to accomplish the effect with a single pen are all ruled out by using three. The fact that the pen that fell is given away at the end of the routine “proves” that the pens were ordinary.
You can find a detailed handling in The Artful Mentalism of Bob Cassidy, but for our purposes here a simple explanation will suffice:
One of the pens is gimmicked. The other two look exactly the same but are unprepared. The pens are not balanced on the table’s edge until AFTER a number from one to three is selected. Thus, the performer need only put the gimmicked pen in the correct position. (This might seem incredibly ballsy, but, believe me, it goes right by them every time. Since the pens all look alike it doesn’t appear to make any difference.)
Giving the fallen pen away is the easiest part. When you go to pick up the fallen pen with your right hand, your left takes the remaining two from the table. Your back is naturally to the audience as you bend down. As you stand up you simply switch the fallen pen for one of the two duplicates before you turn around and give it away to an audience member.
17
Bob Cassidy Not only is the effect incredibly simple to do, but the impact is stunning and all logical methods appear to have been ruled out.
Other Applications Those familiar with my “classic” effects will notice that they all contain “disconnects” of one kind or another. In my “Name/Place” and “Fourth Dimensional Telepathy” routines, for example, the disconnects should be apparent. Both utilize what I like to call the “delayed peek” or “long peek” method. In the former, I actually begin to reveal information about the spectator’s thought BEFORE the peek is made. Of course it is all very general information – vague “visions” if you will – that I describe before I write my actual “impression” down on the uppermost billet of a stack I’ve just removed from my pocket. It is then, while looking at the stack, that I make the peek of the billet stolen earlier.
In “Fourth Dimensional Telepathy” there are at least a couple of disconnects. The first is that the performer emphasizes that he NEVER touches the billets. This is made possible through the use of a Shaxon flap envelope. The second, again, is the “delayed peek”.
[I am always baffled by those who “improve” the effect by utilizing an “Acidus Novus”, or other “instant” peek, after taking the billet from the participant and while inserting it into the envelope themselves. Not only does this remove the disconnect of apparently never touching the billets, but it only leaves the performer with a split second to peek at and decipher what the participant has written. The time-delayed “long peek”, on the other hand, gives the mentalist all the time in the world to figure out a participant’s tiny or sloppy handwriting.]
Those of you familiar with my card memory routine should appreciate the boldness of the disconnect it employs. In that case, the performer is not apparently performing anything
18
The Logical Disconnect even remotely paranormal. Instead, the effect is plausibly presented as an actual demonstration of pure memory. In the routine actual mnemonic techniques are explained to the audience thus giving the demonstration complete plausibility. The amazement factor lies in the extreme speed at which the performer is apparently able to memorize a pack of cards.
This is kind of a reverse application of the logical disconnect. Instead of breaking a logical chain to accomplish the effect, the performer constructs a fabricated, yet entirely plausible, chain of his own, thus masking the basic method employed – a stacked deck. (Of course, the shuffles used throughout the setup for the memory also serve as disconnects from the actual method.)
Pre-show work and the magic of television editing (whatever your opinion about the ethics of it) are also excellent examples of logical disconnects in action, although you may not have thought about them that way before. Those examples, though, are somewhat outside of the scope of this work. I will, however, in the teleseminar/audio that you will be receiving, discuss these in a bit more detail and perhaps, in the process, clear up a lot of the misunderstanding that seem to exist regarding the actual secrets of television and radio mentalism.
An Interesting Exercise My good friend and business associate, Jheff Poncher, contributed the following effect based on the classic “Ten Card Row” effect described by Erdnase and found in many of the classic magic texts. Read it through and then I’ll have some questions for you that should help you discover how to apply logical disconnects in your own routines.
The following are Jheff’s words:
19
Bob Cassidy This is a card mentalism effect that I've been doing recently. I love exploring and discovering the older material because apparently most other magicians and mentalists don't, which makes such material "fresh" for today's audiences and mystery performers. This one dates back pretty far, appearing in such books as Hoffman's MODERN MAGIC and Erdnase's EXPERT AT THE CARD TABLE, though it's probably much older than those. It is indeed a self-working trick. Here's what the audience sees: The performer holds a packet of ten cards. He instructs a participant to move up to ten cards one at a time from the top to the bottom and to remember how many cards were moved. The performer then turns his back while this is done. When the performer turns back around, he quickly spreads the cards face down on the table and removes one card without looking. He asks the participant to call out the number of cards moved. Five, for example. The performer turns the card around and is holding a five spot.
The secret, if you're not familiar with this, involves having an ace through ten in order, from the top down. Take the number of cards total in the packet - in this case, ten - and subtract whatever the bottom card is and that will tell you where the card representing the participant's number will be. For example, the bottom card is a six. Ten (ten cards) minus six is four. The fourth card down will represent the participant's number. It's self-working. In performance, I demonstrate moving cards from the top to the bottom. I always move six. Because I started with an ace on top, a six spot is on the bottom. After I turn around and take the cards back from the participant who has moved cards, I spread the cards face down on the table and simply pick up the fourth card from the top. That's it. To repeat this effect, simply square the cards, note the bottom value, and subtract from ten. That will be the new key number. The disconnect is that the one card is picked up from the facedown spread. The performer never looks at the cards. Being able to pick out the right value card without looking is that disconnect. Also, the faces or identities of the ten cards are never shown. Were I to show the cards being ace through ten in order, it would be obvious that the cards were specifically selected and organized, and be immediately suspect of being a mathematical effect, which, of course, it is.
20
The Logical Disconnect If you use marked cards you can disconnect the entire sequence and allow the spectator to genuinely shuffle the cards himself when you perform a repeat of the effect. This, in fact, is an excellent way to conclude the routine and will baffle those who may have a vague memory of the older effect.
Note that Jheff has introduced an important presentational change to the original effect, which originally had the spectator moving cards from one end of a tabled row to the other. By doing the moving in the hands (from top to bottom) not only do you reduce the amount of table space required, but the handling is far less awkward.
So here are your questions and the “interesting exercise”:
1. Can you find any other logical disconnects that can be inserted into the effect to further disguise the method?
2. How would you go about strengthening the “mental” aspect of the effect?
3. Find an old self-working effect that you used when you first were starting out. (Look through Scarne’s Magic Tricks if you can’t remember any.) See where you can apply logical disconnects to transform them into little “miracles” that you can use and that no one else will be doing.
Test Conditions and other Variations Go onto any magic forum on any day of the week and you will find a variation of the following:
“I need to find a way to do ________________(fill in any popular effect or ‘trick of the month’), but I don’t want to use any impression devices, swami gimmicks, electronics (or any other devices currently known to man), and no pre-show, dual reality, instant
21
Bob Cassidy stooges (or the regular kind), forcing, equivoque etc., and definitely NO PLAYING CARDS.
“This has got to work under test conditions as well.”
While you probably won’t find anything EXACTLY like that, I’m sure you will find plenty of posts that are very close to that. Every day someone is looking for the Holy Grail of something or another.
Requests like these generally come from new performers without much stage experience. It is not our job to meet so-called “test conditions.” Artful mentalism requires only that we sometimes create the illusion that such conditions have been met. As I’ve discussed in my writings and previous teleseminars, that is yet another of the functions of the Logical Disconnect, wherein the presentational ploys incorporated into the presentation seemingly rule out the actual devices used to accomplish the effect.
Generally, “test conditions” effects are those which apparently prove a mentalist's abilities by demonstrating them under restrictions which would seem to preclude trickery. I have expanded the definition somewhat by including effects which are given a very realistic and apparently scientific presentation.
Most test conditions problems can be solved by "simplification through complication." That may seem to be a contradictory phrase, but it is not really. All it means is that the problem is simplified by complicating the effect. The apparent restrictions that make the effect into a test conditions demonstration are actually complications that make the effect possible.
Blindfold effects offer the best example of what I am talking about. The best way to insure that a mentalist cannot see is to have him close his eyes and then put your fingers over his eyelids, keeping them shut. Fortunately, for this is not a practical or common
22
The Logical Disconnect method of blindfolding. The next best thing is to tie a rolled heavy cloth around the head, making sure it hangs down far enough in the front to preclude "down the nose" vision."
Mentalists sometimes use blindfolds that seem far more imposing, adding dough, putty, bandages, etc. to make the possibility of peeking or trickery seem impossible. These additions, however, are complications which actually simplify the mentalist's task by opening the doors to various forms of trickery and deception that would not otherwise be available.
But a good logical disconnect is to take it even one step further. After creating the “complications” go ahead and perform a blindfold routine that doesn’t require you to see through the blindfold in the first place!
Now let’s look at another popular type of mental effect – the book test. As Henry Hay once observed, the book test had, in his opinion, one major flaw that couldn’t be overcome. If you want a person to think of a word, why do you need a book in the first place. Why not have them just think of any word?
That’s where the principle of complication comes to the rescue. Applying this principle, the savvy mentalist would inform his audience that, when asked to think of a word in the English language, most people will come up with something common like “Love.” And at best they will think of a word that is in their everyday vocabulary.
“It’s very rare,” says the performer, “for a person to come up with a truly random word when they are standing before a group.”
“So, to make things harder for me and to insure a truly random choice, I have here a copy of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary*, from which one of you will select a word at random.”
* Or whatever book you feel like using
23
Bob Cassidy
I think you see the point. The book is justified because it is presented as being a “test conditions” device – something that will seemingly make the effect harder for the performer. In fact, of course, it is the book that makes the test so much easier.
Film Canisters and Altoids Tins One of the earliest “test conditions” effects I devised was an effect involving film canisters. It was inspired by the tests that were then (mid 1970’s) being given to Uri Geller by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff at the Stanford Research Institute. One involved his ability to detect which of several film canisters contained water without touching them.
Several other effects existed at the time in which the performer detected which of several containers had a crumpled dollar bill hidden inside. Many of these (notably Larry Becker’s) concluded with the performer not only revealing the location of the bill but its serial number as well.
My first contribution to the genre was inspired by the Geller test. It involved ten or more film canisters. The idea was simple. While the performer’s back was turned, or while he was in another room, a participant would put an object into any one of the open containers resting on a table. He would then put the lid on the container and tape it shut with two pieces of Scotch tape criss-crossed over the lid and affixed to the sides. He would then seal all of the other canisters in an identical fashion and mix them around on the table.
Upon his return, the performer could, after a bit of acting, point directly to the container that held the hidden object.
Now is this day of microelectronic devices I am sure that many of you could instantly come up with a workable method. But any electronic solution would interfere with the 24
The Logical Disconnect examinability of the props involved. In my effect, the canisters were all identical and the object hidden inside one of them could be anything at all.
The effect was made possible by the principle of complication. It was the addition of the Scotch tape (cello tape to my overseas friends) that made the effect work, though its ostensible purpose was to provide extra “security.”
As you know, when you take a piece of scotch tape from a dispenser, there is a little piece of serrated metal that allows you to tear it off easily. When you do that, the piece of tape is given a serrated edge as a result.
The tape is prepared beforehand by snipping the end off the role so that the first piece removed will have one straight edge and on serrated edge. All of the remaining pieces torn from the dispenser will have two serrated edges.
All the performer needs to know to find the object is which canister was sealed first. It will be the only one on the table that has a straight edge on one of the ends of the pieces of tape attached to each lid.
Later, I took the idea much further and made a stage effect out of it. One of the problems with the original was that sometimes you had to look pretty closely to find the right canister. I wanted something that was a lot easier.
I settled on using five canisters and stuck white labels on the sides of each of them. (Not on the lids!) Then, with a Magic Marker, I numbered them from one to five.
Prior to the performance I cut five dollar bill size pieces from a newspaper. At a casual glance they all looked pretty much the same. But, actually, each was cut from a visually different portion of the newspaper. One was cut from the comic strip page. The second was cut from the classifieds section. The third was just text on both sides. The fourth contained headlines on both sides and the fifth had photographs on both sides.
25
Bob Cassidy
The only other requirements were a small sack or paper bag to hold the canisters and a dollar bill, the serial number of which I had memorized.
The presentation went as follows:
The film canisters were displayed on my table with the lids removed. The audience could see that they were numbered from one to five.
I showed the five newspaper bills, crumpled them into balls and dropped one into each canister. In fact, container number one got the “comic strip” bill, container number two got the “classifieds”, container three got the “text”, four got the “headlines”, and five got the “photographs.” (Note that if you knew what to look for you could tell by looking at each crumpled ball which section of the paper it came from. There was no need to uncrumple the ball to see which one it was.)
Next I put the lids on the canisters and dropped them all into the small sack. A participant was asked to come to the stage and to hold the bag behind his/her back. I asked someone in the audience to remove a dollar bill from his wallet and crumple it into a ball. I went into the audience to retrieve it and, on the way back to the front, switched it for the duplicate with the memorized serial number.
I told the participant on stage to remove one canister from the sack and keep it hidden behind his back while he placed the sack on the table. He was then told to remove the lid from the selected canister (still behind his back so no one, not even him, would know which numbered canister had been selected) and to remove the crumpled piece of newspaper. I then traded the piece of newspaper for the crumpled bill and told him to put the bill in the canister and replace the lid. (Remember, he keeps the canister behind his back the entire time. When he trades the newspaper ball for the bill the canister is still behind his back in his other hand.)
26
The Logical Disconnect Next, he was told to retrieve the sack with his free hand, bring it behind his back and drop the container with the bill inside with the other canisters. He was then asked to shake up the bag, mixing the canisters, before bringing it forward.
While he was doing this I would wander off into the audience, leaving him alone on the stage. I gave him most of his instructions from at least twenty feet away.
Finally, I told him to take the canisters from the sack and to place them on the table in a row, with the numbered labels facing the audience.
I would then proceed to reveal which of the canisters I believed contained the bill. Say it was number three. He then opened the other canisters and dumped out the newspaper balls. Finally he opened number three and showed that it indeed contained the “borrowed” bill.
Again, remember that I was out in the audience the entire time, never coming near the stage. To conclude, as a seeming afterthought I would have him unroll the bill and concentrate on the serial number, I would reveal it number by number as I returned to the stage for the inevitable applause.
The working should be apparent. As soon as the participant traded his newspaper ball for the bill I knew which container was in play. If, for example, he handed me the “comic strip” ball, I knew that the container behind his back was number one.
The main point about this effect, apart from its test conditions nature, was the time-delay of the serial number divination. The switch of the bill takes place long before anyone has any idea where the effect is going, thus adding greatly to the impact of the serial number revelation at the end of the routine.
27
Bob Cassidy Sadly, I can’t do the routine that way anymore. Film canisters have rapidly become a thing of the past and are not the “common objects” they once were. (The only people I know who have them today are stoners who use them to stash their weed.)
Then one day I bought a small tin of Altoids mints at the supermarket. I looked at the size of the container and the light bulb in my head lit up.
I bought four more tins and now an updated version of the routine is back in my act.
Find the Disconnects The following is a modified version of an effect from one of my earlier works. Even if you are already familiar with the effect, as you read it try to see where I have inserted disconnects into the routine. (Before you read the “modified method”, please!)
Effect:
The mentalist proposes to give a participant an ESP test. He shows five standard ESP cards (Circle, cross, wavy lines, square and star) and five manila envelopes. He puts one card into each envelope and mixes them so that the spectator does not know which card is in which envelope. The performer holds one envelope before the spectator and asks him to try and guess which design it contains. He then draws the design of the spectator’s choice on the envelopes. The procedure is repeated for the remaining envelopes.
When the cards are removed from the envelopes it is seen that the spectator has correctly guessed all five designs. The odds of this happening by chance are just one in one hundred and twenty.
28
The Logical Disconnect The Original Method:
This is as bold as it gets. The performer never really writes on the envelopes at all. Each envelope already has a design drawn on it, which matches the card inserted by the performer. The stack of envelopes is held seam side up. The top envelope of the stack has a circle on its face, the second a cross, the third has three wavy lines, the fourth a square, and the fifth has the star. Since they are in a known order the performer merely puts the circle card in the top envelope, the cross in the second, etc. He absentmindedly mixes the envelopes around a bit before continuing with the revelation just in case the spectator remembered the order of his choices.
The performer never shows the faces of the envelopes. Of course if a spectator correctly guesses an envelope, the performer can show him the face of the envelope after he has pretended to draw the design on it.
That's the entire effect and, bold and simple as it may seem, it can be very deceptive if presented confidently and seriously. It could, however, be worked out by a skeptical spectator with a sharp mind and a good memory because it is a very logical method.
The logical spectator could think like this:
1) I noticed that he didn't show the faces of the envelopes until the end.
2) If he put each card in an envelope that was marked in some way to show what card it contained, he could then ignore my actual guess and draw the actual design in the envelope.
3) But I would have been able to tell by his hand motions if he was not drawing the design I picked.
29
Bob Cassidy 4) Wait a minute! That's why he never showed me the faces of the envelopes! They already had the right designs on them, so of course his hand motions looked right. He was just pretending the draw the card I named!
Bingo! And if you don't think there are spectators out there who think in this very logical manner and who pay attention to everything you do, you are wrong.
Now, before you go any further, try to reason out where logical disconnects should be inserted to make the routine more deceptive.
There are many effects that can be deduced by a person who has no knowledge of magic, even though the effects are very strong and totally fool most of the audience. Many selfworking tricks are like this.
Most people don't pay attention to all of the details and really don't make a serious effort to work out the method, but there are far more than a few who do think about it. Occasionally they think out loud. This, again, is where the principle of the logical disconnect can be used to literally "disconnect" the logical sequence which leads to a solution. The "disconnect" is usually a subtlety that rules out the actual solution.
If, in the above effect, the spectator had seen the fronts and backs of the envelopes before he made his selections; if he saw for himself that the envelopes were totally opaque; if he mixed up the cards himself before they were put into the envelopes; the logical solution could not be correct.
Many performers, in trying to improve an effect like this think it is necessary to change the method. But very often the cleanness of the original presentation is lost. The logical disconnect is usually the answer. In my improved version of the effect the spectator will remember that he verified the envelopes were opaque, he saw both sides of the envelopes, and he mixed the cards before they were sealed up. (It is important to note that the performer never overtly draws the spectator's attention to any of these facts, he just
30
The Logical Disconnect modifies his presentation and handling to apparently make them self evident. The actual method, though, remains the same!
Here is how the logical disconnect is used to make the effect completely impossible looking without complicating it in the least.
When you prepare the envelopes be sure that your drawings are big enough to be seen, but just small enough to be covered by your left thumb. I use a Sharpie marker rather than a pen or pencil because the lines are very visible even if the drawing is rather small.
Also, I use six envelopes rather than five, and the ESP cards are marked so I will know which is which after the spectator has mixed them.
When the effect begins the five ESP cards are in the sixth envelope, which is totally unprepared and has no markings on either side. The envelopes are in a stack and are flap side up. The top envelope of the stack is the circle. The next is the cross, etc. The bottom envelope is the one that contains the cards.
When the stack of envelopes is initially brought forth it can, therefore, be casually shown on both sides as you make a remark about the necessity of using opaque envelopes for the test. Hold the stack seam side up and hand the bottom envelope, which contains the cards, to the spectator. As him to look at both sides of the envelope, hold it up to the light, etc. to see if he can see what is inside.
He'll probably say that there is something in it, but he will agree that he cannot tell for sure what it is. He cannot see through the heavy Manila paper.
Take the envelope back, remove the cards and pocket the unprepared envelope. The others are seam side up on the table in front of you or in your left hand. Be careful not to flash the drawings on the backs.
31
Bob Cassidy Show him the cards and explain the designs. Then let him mix them up. When he is finished, take the cards and deal them out in a haphazard face down row on the table.
Tell him you are about to test his ESP and that you will seal the designs at random into the envelopes. Because the cards are marked, you will have no trouble picking up the circle first- apparently just randomly picking it up from the row on the table and sliding it into the top envelope of the stack, which you are now holding in your left hand. Put that envelope on the bottom of the stack. Then "randomly" select the cross and put it in the next envelope. Continue in this fashion until all the cards are in their proper envelopes. Casually mix the envelopes up and then put them down in a stack, seam side up.
Reach into your pocket for a Sharpie marker (the same one you did your drawings with!), pick up the top envelope with your left hand and turn it so the design faces you. Cover the design with your thumb and casually show the envelope on both sides, asking the spectator if he is able to see what card you inserted. (Important- you are not showing both sides of the envelope as if you are trying to prove they are innocent. You are making sure that the spectator cannot see through them, an important distinction- we're doing mentalism here, not a card trick!)
Turn the envelope toward yourself again and ask him to guess what card it contains. Whatever he says, pretend to actually draw it on the envelope in the same position as the drawing you made early. Don't just move your hand around. Let your motions show that you are actually drawing his design. Put the envelope face down on the table and follow the same procedure with the rest of the envelopes.
DON'T show each one of them front and back, you don't want to be "over proving" anything.
Should the spectator actually correctly guess a design or two, you can flash the drawing as you put the envelope down.
32
The Logical Disconnect You're all finished and clean. Just casually mix the envelopes around before you reveal the perfect results.
The Technology Dilemma Bionic psychokinesis and electronically enhanced telepathy are rapidly becoming a reality in the 21st Century. Already, there are pens sold in toy stores that let kids draw a calculator and then use it by tapping on the drawn keys. The answers appear instantly on an LED screen in the pen's barrel.
Also available are hi-tech writing implements that look very much like ordinary pens, but transmit whatever they're drawing or writing to remote computers or monitors. Some of these sell for very high prices and, to many mentalists are among the most sought after modern impression devices .
The problem is this: Audiences today know about these things and may suspect an illinformed mentalist of using them even if he isn’t.
At first glance, the problem seems insurmountable. On closer examination, however, the technological advances that seem to spell doom to psychic entertainment may actually offer the mentalist the opportunity to be more convincing than ever.
The answer, as always, lies in the use of the "logical disconnect', the misdirectional technique that serves, in the minds of the audience, to eliminate from consideration the actual method used by the performer. As noted previously, the logical disconnect serves to break the chain of logic that would otherwise lead from an effect to its solution. The actual method employed is thus ruled out. Another classic example of the principle in action is the use of the hoop in a levitation illusion. Without it, the logical solution is that hidden wires are attached to the floating assistant. With it, the logical chain is broken.
33
Bob Cassidy In other words, the presentation eliminates the solution; and this is all that is necessary, in magic, to allow an audience to voluntarily suspend its disbelief. They already know they aren't witnessing "real magic". But just as the illusion of a film's reality would be destroyed by constant reminders that "this is only a movie," the blatant mention of various magical methods, in order to eliminate their consideration, would make the magician's task of suspending disbelief much more difficult. Needlessly passing things around for examination and referring to an object or prop as "completely ordinary" only serve to remind an audience that they are watching tricks.
This is not the case in mentalism. There are three types of people in a mentalist's audience:
1) Those who believe that what they are seeing is real 2) Those who are willing to be convinced, and 3) Those who believe it is all a trick and will not hesitate to explain the mentalist's methods to anyone who will listen.
To persuade the second group and to effectively silence the third, the mentalist's use of the logical disconnect must be much more direct than the magician's. The magical axiom that states a performer should never directly mention a method in order to prove it is not being used does not apply.
When I first started out in mentalism I used to cringe when famous mind readers and psychics said things like, " I didn't have anyone write anything down on one of those special boards that have carbon paper in them or anything like that," or "These are solid rings of steel, not the trick ones with an opening in them that you can buy in magic shops," or "This is not a magic trick." It took years for me to realize that, for them, such an approach was powerfully disarming. By doing so they effectively separated themselves from run-of-the-mill tricksters and pre-emptively countered attempted exposures by skeptical detractors.
34
The Logical Disconnect The same approach provides the solution to the problem posed by modern technology. It is simply necessary to confront it directly:
Don't use any props that could even remotely be suspected of being hi-tech devices and go out of your way to prove that you are not using such methods – even if you are. Better yet, don't use any props at all unless they are either:
1) Invisible, or 2) Appear to be mere visual aids or "test conditions" devices designed to preclude trickery and guarantee fairness.
The Next Step As I indicated in the Introduction, this eBook began when several members of a well known mentalist’s forum began asking me about the meaning of the Logical Disconnect. In the audio portion of this work I will be answering many of the questions that haven’t already been answered here and, in addition, feel free to send me additional questions or observations that may come to mind before the teleseminar.
Some of my good Internet friends and fellow mentalists have contributed some of their own approaches to the disconnect for inclusion here and in the audio/teleseminar segment. The following is from Don Rackley and it serves as a good example of some of the things that will be developed further in the teleseminar:
From Don Rackley I actually got the start for this idea from reading Devin Knight’s Glass Box Prediction. It’s a gross extrapolation of his paper ball marked with an “X”.
35
Bob Cassidy My shows are small, ideally 28 people. As they come in, each person selects a “goody bag”, a small white paper gift sack about the size of a lunch bag. Each contains a sharpened pencil, some index cards, candy, and a small white envelope.
The envelope contains a business card, either blank on the back, or bearing one of sixteen symbols (Zener symbols, card suits, etc.) I don’t explain anything beforehand, and don’t encourage anyone to open the bags before the show.
After the opener and greeting, we come to the bags. A couple of quick effects use the index cards, and involve the whole group.
Finally, the envelopes. I explain that the symbols are a method of “randomizing” the spectator selection. “It’s impossible for a human to act without some sort of bias, and this helps to eliminate that bias.” I show a Ziploc bag containing matching cards, which will be drawn at random when a helper is needed. Not everyone will be involved, thus the blank cards. (I printed a chart showing all of the symbols, but only used it in the first show; it just doesn’t seem to matter to the audience.)
After mixing the bag (making sure to keep the cards face down), I do actually use this to choose a few helpers, whenever the result is not critical, and it sets a pattern in their minds.
The real setup is that only fifteen symbols are actually distributed throughout the goody bags. The Ziploc is a clear two-way force bag, which has the fifteen matching cards in one side, and a sixteenth card, alone, on the other side. My confederate has the mate to it in her purse when she enters the room.
The goody bags are sealed using Avery colored dot stickers, red, blue, yellow and green, in no apparent order. In truth, I make certain that the bags sealed with a yellow dot contain blank cards, and my assistant knows to choose one of these bags. She has ample time to switch the cards before anyone knows what they’re for.
36
The Logical Disconnect
When it’s time to “ring in a stooge”, I simply draw the lone card from the other side of the bag, and wait for my confederate to raise her hand.
Hope this is useful to you. ________________________________________________________________________
Don has provided an excellent example of how to rule out the use of a classic, and often all too obvious method – the use of a confederate. The apparently random selection is the logical disconnect that rules out that solution in the minds of the audience.
The Logical Disconnect Teleseminar/Audio The Teleseminar/ Audio segment of this work will take place within the first weeks of September 2011. All of you who are reading this are already guaranteed admission. (As long as you’re not reading a knock-off! If you are, I will hunt you down.
Questions, observations, etc. that you would like to hear discussed can be sent to me at:
[email protected]
I look forward to seeing you there. Afterwards you will receive additional post event notes based on the material covered in the teleseminar.
Good thoughts,
Bob Cassidy
37
