Ben Earl - The Shift.pdf

the shift. effects technique theory

STUDI052 WWW.STUDIOS2MAGIC.COM The Shi~ #I, First edition. Copyright ©2019 by Ben Earl and Scudio52magic Ltd.

Second print October 2019 All rights reserved worldwide . No pare of this publication may be recorded, reproduced, transmitted, translated or communicated in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. No permission is granted to publish or communicate this material in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Writing, layout and design by Ben Earl. Project management and supervision by Henri White .

design

Technical photography by Kathryn Earl. Portrait photography Darren Lovell. Edited by Sarah Stott. Printed in the United Kingdom.

Dedicated to magic.

iliEN CONSIDERA1i10NS

•

.

• •

F.OR P.ROGRESS, DE L!IGH ili /\ND

MJ\S ili ERY.

xiii

Preface

9 3 Afterword

Effects: I

Spinner

II

Just a Second

23

Out of Oil

Technique: 33

The Overhand OPS

41

The Combination Shuffle

Theory: 53

A New Angle

63

The Art of Practice

71

Influence and Deception - Simon Henderson

You will read a unique chapter called The Art of Practice' in which revolutionary and highly creative practice techniques will be described; allowing the reader to explore new ways of increasing their abilities and developing new skills. You will also have access to a very special chapter called 'Influence and Deception' in which the relationship between magic and deception will be explored in great detail. I have worked with UK military and government groups for many years concerning influence, deception, psychology and magic. I have never been able to talk about or publish anything to do with this part of my life. However, recent events made aspects of this possible-giving you access to something very special. The magic community is extremely lucky to have this information/research-which was only previously available in specific military and government circles. The name 'The Shift' represents a shi~ in perspective or position while also referencing one of my favourite sleight of hand moves. The content is divided into three main sections: effects, technique and theory-as you read the book you are 'going deeper' into the fundamentals of magic. This same concept is also expressed through the use of design, layout and colour. The typeface was chosen to represent simplicity, flexibility and the relationship between classic and modern traditions. The use of different style playing cards in different environments is there to refresh the visual palette of the reader as they enter each new section. Finally, the front cover design not only represents simplicity but the observable artistic veneer which masks the inner-workings of magic. Every aspect of The Shi~ was designed to inspire the reader as they 'go deeper' while symbolising the author's technical and aesthetic approach to magic. I would like to thank the following people: my business partner and friend Henri White for all his help making Studio52 and The Shi~ a reality, Ben Tierney for the fundamental inspiration and constant support, my wife Kathryn and Darren Lovell for their amazing photography and Simon Henderson for his dazzling expertise and generosity. I am extremely proud and excited to introduce The Shift to all those interested in the art and craft of magic. I hope you enjoy it.

Ben Earl

October 20 I 9 X III

effects: Three direct, powerful close-up effects with clean, devious methodologies.No messingabout.

Two signed and folded playing cards change places under impossible conditions. One is held by the spectator, the other is in view at the performer's fingertips. Everything can be examined.The rest of the deck is never involved ... there is nothing to hide!

To set up, sign a duplicate Ace of Spades across the face, fold it into quarters and place it into a convenient pocket along with a Sharpie. To begin hand a deck of cards to a spectator and ask them to name any red card they want . Whichever card they choose (let's assume it's the Four of Hearts) ask them to remove that card from the deck . While they do this, reach into your pocket and finger-palm the folded duplicate as you remove the Sharpie . Hand the Sharpie to the spectator and request that they place their signature across its face-being careful to conceal the folded duplicate . Once they have done this, take their signed card and fold it into quarters-so that it looks the same as the concealed duplicate . You will now switch their folded, signed selection for the duplicate Ace of Spades in the following way. Simply place the folded card at the tips of the fingers and slightly overlapping the Ace of Spades (Photo . I). Now pull the card into the hand with the fingers as you say, "Hold your card inside one of your hands".As you finish saying this, allow the right fingers to push the duplicate Ace of Spades into view (Photo. 2). Now the left fingers hold the left side of the visible card as the right hand moves sharply to the right-as if giving the card a final, sharp crease-leaving the switched duplicate isolated at the left fingertips for a brief moment. The right fingers now return, taking the folded card at the fingertips and handing it to the spectator-subtly concealing the duplicate in finger-palm . Retrieve the cards and Sharpie while cont inuing to conceal the duplicate. The card has been invisibly switched in the action of simply folding the card and instructing them to hold it inside their closed hand .Just remember to orientate the cards in the same direction as you are performing the switch and execute all movements casually-don't make a big thing out of it. Choreographed management of the folded card, deck and pen is required, but it is much easier and simpler in reality than it may appear in print. Place the Sharpie on a nearby surface or held between the left fingers as you spread through the deck looking for the Ace of Spades.At this point say something like, "/ want to take out a card

that is easy to remember... maybe the Ace of Spades." Remove the Ace of Spades, place the deck to one side (or in a pocket), as you use the Sharpie and sign your name across the face. Do this while concealing their folded card and make sure you sign your name in the same way you did on the duplicate. Recap the pen and continue to hold it between the left fingers or place it on the nearby surface as you begin folding the card exactly as before. 2

You will now perform the exact same switch as previously described, but with a subtle change of script. You will say:

"Instead of holdingthe card inside my hand where you can't see it [performingthe switch],I willkeep it at my fingertipsat all times." As soon as the card right fingers execute at the left fingertips pocket-ditching the

comes back into view, the left fingertips grasp it-as the the same final 'creasing ' actions. The card stays in view as the right hand picks up the Sharpie and puts it in a folded duplicate along with it.

This choreography will create the impression that the deck isn't involved in the trick, only two single, signed cards are being used and that your hands are very clearly empty . Everything is performed in a very natural, casual manner and so there should be no suspicion that any sleight of hand or manipulation has occurred. You should now be holding a folded card at fingertips; however, it is very important that the switched card is held in the position shown in Photo. 3. While the card is held like this, simply relax and allow your other hand to be seen empty. Begin to draw all attention to the card at your fingertips as you say:

"Now remember,that I have signed the Ace of Spades,and it has my signatureacross it. It is one of the most common cards named and it hasn't le~ your sight.I promise that it won't leave your sight... but with that in mind you are going to see . . . and possiblyfeel... something very,very weird indeed." The script above is not simply 'presentation', it is there for a very specific reason. You'll notice that their card hasn't been mentioned at all-the focus is entirely on the Ace of Spades.You want to keep attention on the last card that they saw, and by creating focus on this we will not have any confusion about the positions of the two cards. You will also build tension by suggesting that they are about to see or feel something 'weird' . Now you deliver another short 'line', which is designed to create extreme focus on the folded playing card at the fingertips of your right hand.

"Now watch closely... as not everyone can see the switch." The above line will create extreme focus while suggesting that something will 'switch'.This relatively ambiguous line is enough to create exactly the right type of attention on the folded card . Your left hand-now empty-comes near the folded card (Photo . 3) as you gently shake you right hand up and down a couple 5

of times and then come back to the position in Photo . 3. Now do this again. Now, your left forefinger and thumb come to the top corner of the folded card and apparently adjust it (Photo. 4) before retreating back to the position in Photo. 3. This simple sequence is serving a very important function-it is creating a vivid picture of the orientation of the folded card having only one white border and two non-bordered sides. We want them to really burn the image of this folded card in their mind so that when it changes, the difference is immediately obvious. Now you are about to perform the same apparent shaking action, but with a very important distinction-as you shake you will spin the card 180 degrees. This small action is covered by the larger action of the hand moving, when performed correctly it is imperceptible. As your hand moves upwards your fingers pivot the card 90 degrees (Photo. 5), then as your hand moves down perform the rest of the rotation/movement (Photo. 6). Now give the card another soft shake-without doing anything and then abruptly stop. This action causes the card to look very different from its starting position. To begin, the spectator sees one white border and two non-bordered edges, after the spin they see two white borders and one nonbordered edge. The design has also been flipped-introducing some design elements which were previously hidden by the fingers and hiding others which were previously visible (Photos. 7 and 8). Because of the way you have framed what has been seen, the spectator will register the subtle visual change, but will not know how to interpret it-they will feel like they 'caught' something that maybe they shouldn't have. The way I think about it is this: I am not trying to show them something changing, I am just focusing on making the inside of the card change while imagining that they might feel something inside their hand change. The fact that there was a visual discrepancy was either unwanted or unnoticed by myself-yet it is the reason that the spectator is about to become mentally wrapped up in knots! The very moment that the card has apparently changed, you now say:

"This is no longerthe Ace of Spades [begin to unfoldthe card]. What was your card?" This is the first time you ask for the name of their selection. Repeat the name as you slowly open the folded card to reveal their signed selection! Now ask them to open the card in their hand-it is your signed selection! 6

It is at this moment that they fill in the gaps and believe that the 'change' they saw was the moment the card changed-what they saw must have had a causal relationship to the transposition. However, in order for this to be true, you must have had another object in your hands before and after the apparent switch-and yet there is nothing! The concept that the cards were already switched and what they 'caught ' was just a subtle ruse, is a step beyond their comprehension.

Notes This looks and feels extremely magical, your hands are completely empty, the cards have switched places , they saw the moment it 'happened' and yet there are no other cards or objects involved! The concept of a duplicate card doesn't seem to make any sense, neither does sleight of hand. The deck hasn't been involved, no extra cards are in play, you are completely clean. This is a deeply baffling and magical routine. The choreography and psychological management of this effect is designed to create the most amount of impact possible by increasing clarity and minimising confusion . The cards are introduced singly; they remove, sign and hold onto a folded card. No other cards are introduced, the effect is only about their card-at this point it is very clear what card they are holding. Only once this is clear does the performer do the same for their card-and the focus remains on their card for the remainder of the effect (visually and theatrically). The cards are also separated in space, held in different positions and are opposite colours . From a practical standpoint, the fact that the card is folded and inside their hand stops them casually 'checking' its identity. Even if they accidentally drop the card nothing will be exposed! The only slightly tricky thing to manage is the pen and its lid. There are a number of different ways that the pen can be handed to you-either with or without the lid on-so if you feel this is a problem , purchase a 'clickable' one-problem solved . However, I have always just improvised the handling in the moment and it always feels fine to me. For those of you who may feel a bit apprehensive about the bold nature of switching the folded cards-but really want to try out the visual endingany method using Double Lifts or Top Changes to initially switch the cards will work (as in many standard two-card transposition effects) . However, each time you fold the cards, take care not to flash the faces; you will end up in the same position as previously described and you can simply perform the 'Spinner revolve'. 9

The cards are shuffled and the spectator thinks of a playing card. The cards are now openly and slowly dealt one at a time into a pile. The spectator can say stop or reach forward and take a card at any time.The card they take is their mental selection.

11

The basic method at work here is that you will control a selection to the top of the deck and then perform continual Second Deals 1 until your spectator says "stop"-the classic 'Stop Trick' . However , there is much more going on in this handling to make this effect feel like a miracle . We will create the perfect conditions regarding space, timing and natural movement to make the procedure feel innocent while introducing an intriguing presentational angle to make the effect seem much larger than the sum of its parts. We will imagine that a table/surface is involved for the sake of explanation .To begin I say:

"I want to show you a card effect which will be the opposite type of card trick to anything you willhave seen before. It might seem very straightforwardto begin with... but at the end, you willsee why this is very unusual." You need to have a large amount of space between yourself and the spect ator on your left, but you want to contrive this situation in a natural way. No matter where the spectator is I ask them to shuffle the cards . This makes the effect feel fair from the very beginning but allows me time to subtly position myself slightly more to their right (my left) if I need to. Retrieve the cards and have one selected by any method which allows you to extend your arms to your left while you look away to the right (over your right shoulder)-a Fingertip Peek or Dribble Peek work extremely well here. The reason for using this particular 'selection' style is that it allows you to create a large amount of space between yourself and your spectator in a very natural way-you are forced to be at least an arm's length away from them . Once they have a selection, maintain the distance between you both as you control the card to the top using any method you wish-the key is simply to make it efficient and casual. Once the selection is on top casually shuffle three more cards onto it-so the selection is four cards down. At the same moment this is happening you say:

"I have no idea what card you are thinking of, nobody does. In fact if you were to change your mind nobody would know... it doesn't matter.All that's important is that you know the name and suit of the card you have in mind." If you examine the above script you will notice something very sneaky going on; it is creating the idea that the card's existence is largely mental and that they can change their mind . However, if you read it again you'll see that it I Specifically a Push-off Second Deal.A good description can be found in Card CollegeVolume 4, 1992, pp.

936- 938. 12

doesn't really offer them the chance to change their mind, it only suggests that it is 'possible'. This script is delivered while you control the card making any 'control' impossible to suspect.With the card now fourth from the top we can get into the nuts and bolts of the method. Hold your left arm extended-all the way to your left-so that it is right in front of the spectator (Photo . 9).Tell them that they can remove the top card at anytime they like, but if they don't want it it will be discarded. Suiting action to words, retreat your arm so that the deck comes back to a relaxed position in front of your body (Photo. IO).At this point, remove the top card with the right hand and carry it to a position on your right hand side (Photo. I I). Now still with the left hand relaxed and still looking to your right, turn the card face up onto the table with a deliberate action (Photo. 12). Now deal two more cards face up onto the pile as you say:

"You can take a card at any second... But if you see the card you are thinking of in the discardpile, then change your mind to a different card." This sequence is serving three very important functions. Firstly it is creating a large amount of natural distance for the hands to travel in order to perform the upcoming Second Deals deceptively. Secondly it is conditioning the spectator to look at the face-up cards being discarded-taking their attention off the deck. Finally, it suggests that their card is a mental selection and they could change their mind to a different card at any point. If you look at the first part of the above script, you'll see you are also telling them that you are executing Second Deals! But this is just a cheeky thing to entertain myself. You will now extend your left hand once again and offer them the top card, each time they don't take it move the hand back to your body, perform a Pushoff Second Deal and turn the card face up onto the pile. This entire action is smooth and relaxed-only once the card is face-up does the left hand move back to the spectator (Photo . 9). You will continue this sequence until they finally take the top card of the deck for themselves . However, how you execute these Second Deals is very important. Each Second Deal will be executed using subtly different techniques, such as the following: I. An American style Stud/Blackjack deal where the fingers are on top and the thumb is underneath as the card is drawn (Photo. 13).The card is dealt face up as the hand is rotated palm-up (Photo. 14). 15

2.

A casual face up deal in which the thumb is on top and fingers below as the card is drawn (Photo. 15).The card is dealt face up as the hand is rotated palm-down (Photo. 16). 3. A finessed one -handed turnover in which the card is withdrawn with the thumb on top (Photo. 15). It is then turned face up by the second finger moving on top of the card (Photo . 17) and then extends forwards revolving it face up (Photo. 18). 4. The Martin Nash 'Scissor Second Deal' in which the first finger is placed on top and the second finger below (Photo . 19).The fingers curl inwards and the thumb pushes upwards to turn it face up (Photo. 20) 5. An extremely casual 'dropping' action in which the card is removed as in Photo. 16, and then dropped over the pile so that it falls face up. Why do this? Well, using a variety of techniques to remove and revolve the cards brings an amazing sense of casualness to the procedure . The normally rigid, procedural nature of False Deal work is replaced with a fluctuating sense of casualness which seems to emerge from the apparent innocence of just turning the cards face up. Do not try to make a big deal out of it, you don't want it to be noticed that you are turning them face up slightly differently, but the fact that it is happening will make the whole procedure feel absolutely natural. Once you have become accustomed to executing these various deals, there are some nice subtleties that you can use to increase the deceptiveness of the proceedings : I.

At one point you can deal a card face down onto the discard pile and then immediately turn it face up-as if it was an unintentional mistake which you then corrected . This again suggests that your procedure is not robotic while creating more attention on the face-up pile. 2. Remove the card and then just before you turn it face up, place it back onto the deck and offer it to them again saying "Are you sure? I had a good feeling about this one." Now cleanly remove it and turn it face up onto the face-up pile. You are not really offering them the card again, it is an empty gesture, but it allows you the opportunity to cleanly remove the top card of the deck. 3. Make sure the left thumb is removed each time as the card is offered to the spectator (Photo . I 0). This makes the hand look innocent, natur al and relaxed. 4. Only ever look at the spectator or the pile of face-up cards . Never look at the deck, especially when it is in 'your space'. 16

13

15

5. Talk to the spectator throughout, keeping your words and interaction casual and relaxed. Doing this not only takes more attention off the deck but it suggests that you are not concentrating on anything and so compounds the feeling of fairness. Eventually your spectator will reach forward and remove the top card . At the very moment they do, ask them to hold it in between their hands. Continue to turn the cards face up onto the face-up cards as you mention that they could have stopped anywhere . Now you reconnect with the premise you introduced at the beginning of the effect by saying:

"Do you remember that I said this would be the opposite to any card trick you have ever seen ... well it is. Normally a magicianwould need to know your card in order to find it, I have literallyno idea what your card is, I also haven't attempted to 'find it'... you have!" "Forthe first time, name your card... [they name their card]... have a look." Notes This is my handling of the classic stop trick. Everything is engineered to create the perfect conditions for executing the False Deals while injecting an interesting collection of 'natural' behaviours into the process. In this way we can make the effect feel absolutely 'real '. This is not an exhibition of how well you can perform a Second Deal, it is an exhibition of how well you can disguise it. Remember to use each Second Deal technique 'randomly'-don't construct a preferred order or sequence-just execute them with a level of casual intuition . Sometimes I will dispense with the card control explained above and use a different approach: I. 2.

Palm the selection from the deck (as the spectator shuffles) and then add it back and shuffle three more cards on top. Glimpse their selection and then have the spectator shuffle the deck. On retrieving the deck simply spread through the cards talking about the random order and cull it into the fourth position.

The goal with 'Just a Second' is to be very open and fair while making the effect feel absolutely real. I don't want a sense of sleight of hand occurring, therefore, anything you can do to make the effect feel more casual and relaxed the better . 21

A spectator shuffles the cards and looks through the faces to see they are all different and thoroughly mixed. They deal the deck into two piles and when each pile is turned over it is seen that they have perfectly separated the cards into a pile of reds and a pile of blacks .... all without the performer touching the deck!

23

'Out of This World' is undoubtedly one of the strongest effects that one can perform with playing cards . In comparison 'Oil and Water' has always struck me as just a mild amusement-not a miracle. However, 'Out of Oil' combines both plots in a very unique and pleasing way in order to create a deeply baffling piece of magic. The technical methodology is very direct, but the psychological experience created is rather sophisticated.

"I want to show you something which has a number of ways that you can think about it... but I'm not going to tell you what to think,that is up to you. In fact the questions are actuallymore relevantthan the answers." What an interesting premise . It says everything and nothing; precisely setting up the type of atmosphere that I want for the style of effect which is about to take place. Once they have finished shuffling, take the cards from them and spread through them so that both you and the spectator can see the faces of the cards. As you spread through-mentioning the fact that the cards are all different and that this particular order is unique - you Hofzinser Cull2 al/ the red or black cards. This might seem bold, but the move is very well covered. The colour to be culled is determined by the colour of the face card. If you look at Photo. 21, you will see that the face card is black and so are the next two cards. Therefore you will be culling black cards, but you leave the first block of black cards and begin with the next black card you see (in this case the Five of Clubs). Continue culling all the black cards until you can close the deck sending all the culled black cards to the back of the deck. Now spread the first block of three black cards and close them getting a break under them and execute a Double Undercut as you say:

"In a moment I want you to give the cardsa cut likethis [execute Double Undercut]... so that the positionyou start from is completelyrandom... but before you do that let's give the deck one more shuffle... just in case you were able to memorise all of them!" With the deck perfectly separated into reds and blacks, turn them face down and split the deck at 26 for a Faro Shuffle.Weave the cards and at the moment they have perfectly interlaced (Photo. 22) rock the left hand back-and-forth slightly (Photo. 23)-this makes the precision of the Faro shuffle look/feel more random and casual. Now bridge the halves and allow them to cascade (Photo. 24)-the visual and sound of the 'shuffling' cards is a potent convincer of randomness. 2 A good description of the basic move can be found in Card CollegeVolume I, 1992, pp. 187- 189.Also check out Kostya Kimlat's Roadrunner Cull for tips on culling multiple cards.

24

24

However, don't fully square the cards after the shuffle-allow some to square and others to almost square, but not quite . Immediately lift and spread the cards in front of the spectator's eyes. Because you didn't allow the cards to fully square, a more random arrangement of colour will be seen-including some clumps of a single colour in a couple of spots (Photo. 25). Now lower the deck and hand it to them in a slightly casual mess (Photo .26 ). As soon as they take the cards ask them to square the cards-which gives them a tactile feeling of squaring a 'shuffled' deck-and then ask them to give the deck a complete cut . Once they have done this say:

"Now it is important that you know that the order of the deck is random and that you are starting from a random position. .. now can you deal the cards into two facedown piles... but don't look at what your hands are doing,just look at me and listen." The spectator will now begin to deal the cards into two face-down piles, they will instinctively deal alternately and they will be looking at you as you say the following:

"Thisstarted by you shufflingthe deck and then lookingthrough the faces. They were then shuffled again and you also cut them so you could not know where you would begin. I said at the start that there are a few ways to think about this.Youmight think this is a psychologicalstunt in which you have been influenced by the random order of the cards,maybe this is some kind of manipulationby myself or perhaps this is just pure magic.The answer isn't really that relevant.What is relevant is that you think about the possibilities." Try to time your statement talking . Now say:

so that they finish dealing by the time you finish

"I was trying to concentrate on talking to you and you were trying to concentrate on listeningand dealing so I have no idea where you started dealing and exactly which sides you dealt and at what point, I have no idea if you dealt evenly,randomly or a mixture of both... I don't know if you made any mistakes or if you did it perfectly. .. there is no way either of us can know at this point." The above script is there to do two things. Firstly it is there to cause the spectator to possibly think that they were dealing randomly while they were concentrating on listening. Secondly it suggests that they could have been. You are suggesting that you have no way of knowing what they did and that you don't care. 27

You only asked them to deal the cards into two face -down piles-you didn't say how! This is a very powerful piece of psychology as you are creating a sense of randomness even though their actions were perfectly controlled. Now lean forward and say to them :

"Do you think even though you have shuffled, cut and dealt the cards you have managed to do something amazing? Or do you think that everythingwas random? Well let's have a look." Ask them to start turning the top cards of one of the piles over (very slowly) as you say:

"Tellme if you can notice any patterns? [After about five or six cards continue to say] I think you can speed up.. . it looks likeyou have separated all of the black cards [or whatever colourit may beJ... from all of the reds!" Only deliver the final line 'from all of the reds' at the very moment they turn over the second pile.

Notes 'Out of Oil' is a mixture of Paul Curry's 'Out ofThis World' and the classic 'Oil and Water' plot.At first glance 'Out of Oil' may appear to be overly simplistic, but if you think objectively about the experience that a spectator is having, you will see that much more is going on. The spectator knows that the deck was honestly shuffled at the beginning because they shuffled it.You gave them an extra shuffle in order to make it even fairer-everything seems very much above board. However, from that moment onwards they know that they cut the cards and began dealing from a random location, they know that you had no direct control over their dealing and you never touched the cards. Therefore, they can only assume one of two things: either they randomly dealt the cards into the correct piles by chance/intuition, or the cards autonomously separated themselves before/after they were dealt . Either explanation is is utterly baffling! Everything about the construction of 'Out of Oil' was designed to allow them the possibility of indulging either or both explanations simultaneously-or at least considering the possibilities. Even if they remember dealing evenly, it won't make the effect any less amazing. It all comes down to them knowing that the deck was randomly shuffled to begin with and not suspecting your cull. 28

technique: Some advanced technique hiding within an innocent move- the Overhand Shuffle.

The Overhand DPS

The Combination Shuffle

The Overhand DPS is a Diagonal Palm Shift which occurs within the action of a casual Overhand Shuffle. This technique will also preserve a small stock of cards on top of the deck. For example, with four selections on top of the deck, an Overhand Shuffle is performed, at the end of which the initial top card is in the left palm and the rest of the selections are still on top.

33

The Diagonal Palm Shift3 has become a very popular move in the last few years . There are many problems with it-and the following technique doesn 't resolve all of them-but it does make for a very pleasing and deceptive handling . Begin by placing four-of-a-kind on top of the deck; you will appear to give the deck a thorough shuffle. When you finish, the top card will be in your left palm and the other three mates will still be on top .

I.

Begin by executing an Overhand Shuffle, and dropping about a third of the deck into the waiting left hand (Photo . 27) .

2.

Now the fingers of the right hand pick up the initial portion behind the rest of the cards (the Lift Shuffle4) as the cards above it are shuffled off (Photo. 28).

3.

Eventually you will be left holding the initial 'lifted' portion in the right hand and the rest of the cards will be in the left hand (Photo . 29) .

4.

You are now going to peel off one card from the 'lifted' portion onto the cards in the left hand, injogging it in the process (Photo . 30). Everything that remains in the right hand is now dropped onto the rest of the deck, leaving the injogged card protruding from the rear of the deck.

5.

Moving the left hand cards in an inwards/clockwise

direction, and the

right hand moving up (as if about to hold the deck from above), the selection will pivot off the base of the thumb and form a slight angle (Photo. 3 I). This action is minute and takes only a fraction of a second to perform. 6.

As soon as a slight angle has been achieved the right hand releases its pivot point and as the left hand continues to revolve the deck , the right hand now comes over to hold the deck from above (Photo. 32).

7.

Because of the angled card, the right thumb is able to grab the bottom left corner of the deck in a standard Biddle Grip (Photo. 33).

8.

From this position a Diagonal Palm Shift is possible as you square the cards and move the deck forwards (Photo. 34).

3 S.W. Erdn ase. The Expert At The CardTable, I 902 , pp. 137- 141. 4 Lift Shuffle - C. Lang Neil, The Modern Conjurer, 1902, p. 5 I.

34

29

30

Notes As you will notice, this technique not only allows you to execute a Diagonal Palm Shift within an Overhand Shuffle but a relatively large stock of cards is preserved on top-it is a fun move to play with. I never liked doing a Diagonal Palm Shift immediately after the insertion of a playing card as there is a large amount of attention/focus on the cards. By using the Overhand DPS, you can diffuse attention and reduce vigilance-as an Overhand Shuffle looks like such an innocent action.Attention drops at the end of any perceived action, so once your shuffle stops, attention will reduce and this is the moment you execute the palm . The action is also well motivated; the natural shuffling action means that squaring the cards is expected, and this is perfect for covering the move. You can execute the palm as you remove the deck to place it onto a nearby surface or perform an all-around square-up.You can also delay the move by continuing to hold the deck in right hand Biddle Grip-as the left hand performs some other operation-before the left hand returns to the deck and the palm is made in a squaring action .

39

1

You are about to learn an extremely deceptive false shuffle. Even when you know what is happening, it's hard to believe that no cards are out of place. Its effectiveness lies in the combination of principles being used and the casual, unremarkable nature of its appearance.

41

This shuffle combines ideas from many other false Overhand Shuffle techniques . It has a similar style to the Erdnase blind shuffle, First Method,5 with added influences from the Lift Shuffle and Optical Shuffle,6 the G . W. Hunter Shuffle 7 and Lennart Green's Greek Shuffle.8 To begin, hold the cards in your right hand and chop off a small block into the left hand (Photo. 35) . Now run two single cards from the right hand portion onto the cards in the left hand. Now as the right hand cards come down in front of the left hand's cards (Photo. 36), two things happen simultaneously: the left thumb begins to pull a block of cards from the right hand portion as the right second finger picks up the entire block from the left hand-behind the other cards (Photo . 37) . As the right hand blocks are lifted clear, the left fingers tip its block over and to the left (Photo . 38). Now half of the front block above the break in the right hand is dropped into the left hand (Photo. 39), the right hand cards are once again raised and the left thumb pushes the tilted packet back over to the right (Photos. 40 and 41 ). Now the cards in the right hand are brought down onto the cards in the left hand and the thumb mimics pulling off a portion of cards from the right hand, when in fact no cards move as this is just a simulation. This technique can look extremely deceptive if the movement of the left thumb is convincing and the moment the right hand cards are raised they scrape against the left hand cards creating addition al movement (Photo . 42).This particular 'optical' technique can be repeated a couple of times if wanted - although within this shuffle I rarely do it more than once. With the right hand cards now clear of the cards in the left hand , once again use the left fingers to tilt its portion to the left (Photo . 43), as all the remaining cards above the break in the right hand are dropped onto the left fingers (Photo . 44) .As the remaining portion in the right hand is lifted, the left thumb tilts its upper packet down onto the lower packet.

5 S.W. Erdnase, The Expert At The CardTable, 1902, pp. 159- 161. 6 C. Lang Neil, The Modem Conjurer, 1902, credited co Henri De Manche. 7 Hunt er False Shuffle, CardManipulations Issue 3, 1934, p. 61. BThe Gree k Shuffle , Green Magic Vo/. I ,VHS.

42

36

37

38

39

41

42

43

44

45

I

46

Now the right hand portion is brought over the left hand portion and two single cards are run from the right onto the left. All that remains is to drop the cards in the right hand onto those in the left, however we will end this sequence with a slightly more deceptive technique. In bringing the cards down onto the left hand cards allow the rear cards of the packet in the right hand to raise (Photo. 45). This is done with a subtle side-to-side action-as if the cards are being randomly jammed into the side of the other cards. To aid this illusion use the left fingers to push the rear card of the deck upwards (Photo. 46), creating a depth illusion which is extremely convincing. To end simply use the right fingers to tap all the cards square.

Notes There are a few additional touches I use, which will serve to make this shuffle even more deceptive: I.

Try to make both runs of 'two single cards', occur with a slightly different pace/rhythm to each other, this helps the shuffle feel more unconsidered and disguises the mirrored nature at the beginning and end of the false shuffle sequence. 2. Execute the shuffle much slower than you think you need to. Speed will attract attention and demonstrate proficiency, execute it slowly and it will become even more deceptive. 3. Make sure you glance down at your hands a couple of times while shuffling; don't stare at your hands or stare at the audience/spectator, split your attention between your hands and your external environment in a casual, intuitive fashion. The Combination Shuffle may seem complicated in print, but in practice it is extremely simple. Once practiced these actions will become automatic.

49

How do you hold ploying cords? Are there better ways to practice? What is 'deception'?These ore some of the most fundamental questions we con ask ourselves.

theory:

What if there was a way to instantly improve the deceptiveness of all your card magic with something so simple that it will only take a split-second to do? Well you can. It all comes down to how you hold the deck-or more specifically, the angle at which you hold the deck when executing sleight of hand.

53

Let's begin by looking deeper at the way we hold a deck of cards . If you are to hold a deck of cards in Mechanic 's Grip in your left hand, and completely relax, you should notice that the cards will naturally rest with the right side slanting downward at roughly 45 degrees. Even though the deck is flat in the hand it is in a diagonal position relative to the floor-let's call this the 'rest position ' (Photo. 47). If both hands hold the cards in a relaxed manner the diagonal angle will continue to be present (Photo. 48) . This is the position from which most 'secret ' sleights should be performed : Breaks, Shifts, Palms, Steals, False Deals, etc. This position allows for more efficient movement of the cards , hides the finger movements of the deck-hand and more importantly looks completely innocent .This position doesn't attract attention or create focus, it simply looks as if you are holding the deck in a natural, relaxed manner.With the deck in this position there is virtually no attention on the cards at all.This position not only makes the hand look natural but also the rest of the body! However, this isn't the position from which many of us perform sleight of hand . The deck position most commonly observed is one more horizontal to the ground (Photos. 49 and SO). This position actively attracts attention and focus on the cards-let's call this the 'display position'. For the cards to be in this position we must actively rotate the wrist, which alters the position of the entire left arm and shoulder. The display position is great when wanting to show a card being pushed into the deck, displaying the top card or performing a colour change-basically anytime you want to actively draw attention onto the cards themselves-but not great when executing a secret move such as a palm or shift. Secret moves should instead be executed in the rest position . Although this very simple rule will generally apply, it actually becomes more complex than that in performance; the purpose of this essay is not to go into detail about every nuance of how to use these positions but to simply stimulate your thinking so that you can begin applying it to your own card magic. So why are magicians performing virtually all their sleight of hand with the deck constantly in the display position? This position makes it more difficult to hide the finger movements of the deck-hand and attracts more attention onto the cards. If the rest position is so important for the deceptive execution of card sleights-if it makes such a big difference-why has it been so profoundly overlooked?Why has this seemingly simple'angle error' become so widespread? Well, I believe the answer is a complicated one. I don 't believe that the importance or significance of this rest pos1t1on has been fully understood or appreciated. Although some performers/authors 54

throughout history seem to have appreciated it for a specific move, they haven 't had a consistent appreciation or realised its fundamental value as a working principle for effecting attention across all card magic.This lack of understanding has a trickle-down effect for all subsequent teaching and learning opportunities. The illustrations in magic books compound this lack of understanding/ appreciation by constantly illustrating moves in the display position, without any reference to a diagonal angle for execution . Although I suspect this is due to a lack of awareness, the display position is absolutely the correct perspective to illustrate moves from in a book-otherwise the hidden action of the fingers can't be seen. These illustrations are often drawn with no background reference point, therefore it may be argued that perhaps the hands in many classic illustrations are being held in the rest position, and we have simply misinterpreted the angle that we should be viewing from.Although I don't think this is the case, the ambiguous perspective issue can be confusing . Below are some examples taken from the classic text The Expert at the CardTable in which we can see some of the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and misinterpretations which are possible when viewing classic magic book illustrations. On p. 97, Erdnase describes the Two-Handed Shift (commonly known as the Classic Pass), with specific reference to the importance of the rest position"The deck is held slantingly,with the right side downward.". Illustration I (below), supports the description and as a result it is very easy to understand the correct position. However, if you look closely , you will notice that the right elbow must have been raised for the purposes of the illustration in order for the reader to glimpse the action .

57

0 58

Therefore we can see that even with a very clear description, the illustration is not entirely accurate-the card mechanics are accurate but the body mechanics are not . Even though the description and the illustration makes the diagonal position of the cards relatively clear, many magicians are still trying to perform the sleight with the deck held horizontally. One of the most interesting and notorious shifts from The Expert at the Card Tableis the S.W.E Shift (p. 134). Illustration 2 clearly shows the diagonal position and yet most performers of this move do so with the deck in a horizontal position. This is possibly because the first person many saw do it was Steve Freeman-on the VernonRevelationstapes-and Mr Freeman performed it with the deck in a horizontal position. Illustration 3 has often been interpreted as a bird's-eye-view of the S.WE Shift, but it is in fact a view from the performer's right-hand side-however it is very easy to see both possible interpretations. So, here is a case where the description and illustrations are slightly inconsistent , and even though the diagonal position seems very clear in the first illustration, the move is still performed horizontally . The description of the Diagonal Palm Shift (p. 137), doesn't once mention the horizontal or diagonal position of the deck-illustrations 4 and 5 don't make it clear either. It is very easy to imagine both the rest and display positions when looking at them. So what position should be adopted? In the case of the Erdnase Top Palm-First Method (p. 37), the description says nothing about the initial position/angle of the deck and it is very difficult to determine from illustrations what the intended position might be; illustrations 6 and 7 seem to show two slightly different angles from the right side. However, a simple experiment will show how much better the diagonal, rest position is for deceptive execution of this technique. I am not attempting to 'decode' the intentions of S. W. Erdnase here, but merely show that written descriptions and illustrations are very difficult to communicate intricate ideas about sleight of hand in general-which is only made worse if the angle of the deck isn't appreciated within that explanation . However, we do not necessarily need to understand the true intentions of any author, we simply need logic. Place the deck in your hands and experiment with the rest and display positions, very quickly you will determine the difference. 59

In my experience, there seems to be a consistent,deep-rooted bias for magicians to adopt the display position when performing sleight of hand-which seems to go beyond a lack of awareness of the principle, the misinterpretations of magic books or conditioning through the observation of others. There might also be some deep-rooted cognitive and social psychological reasons. The diagonal, rest position unquestionably looks more natural and relaxed; this is largely because this is the position that the deck occupies when we are not actively thinking about the cards. However, when performing, we know that we are performing secret sleights, and so our own awareness of the cards and our techniques causes us to subconsciously adopt the horizontal, display position before, during and after the move. Our own awareness and focus on what we are doing is manifesting itself in a subtle physical tell-creating unwanted attention on the deck. This is entirely understandable, as magic is difficult to do; we must perform relatively complex technical manoeuvres, which are often attempting to go completely unnoticed, while we 'entertain'. This process will make significant cognitive demands upon us, so it is not surprising that there will be some side-effects or tells as a result of this cognitive demand. There is also a possibility that this awareness is slightly more ego-driven than many will admit; a subtle egotistical seeking of recognition or praise for our skill-even when the skill is designed not to be seen-a form of subconscious flashing in order to demonstrate competence. There is also an additional social psychological phenomenon which I think has contributed considerably to compounding this angle error/bias. More and more magicians are performing 'moves' online for other magicians-across a variety of social media platforms-in which a move is showcased and traded as a form of social currency for 'likes' and acceptance.The 'move' is actively on display and being 'performed' rather than hidden-with technical execution being valued over deception. This radically transforms the psychological space in which the 'move' exists and the relationship between performer and viewer has an entirely different set of values. The digital playground for magic has different rules. I cast no value judgments on it, but it unquestionably influences the realworld habits of performers-continuing to compound and condition the angle error/bias with every 'like' and 'share'. Regardless of the reasons for this angle error/bias, it continues to spread unnoticed through the literature, practice and performance of card magicians. I am not immune to it, I feel the bias in my handling and have been guilty of every handling mistake imaginable. However, I want to improve, and so I always 60

seek to go deeper and further. Personally this starts with some very simple questions surrounding an effect. What attention should I apparently have on the cards at this moment? What attention do I want an audience to have on the cards at this moment? How can I increase attention on the cards at this moment? How can I decrease attention on the cards at this moment? I believe the angle of the deck is an important factor when answering these questions and finding practical solutions. If you want to draw attention to the deck-in order to display a card or a climax-hold it in the display position. If you want to reduce attention on the deck-in order to execute a secret move-hold it in the rest position. Just your ability to adjust the deck by a few degrees will have the effect of increasing or decreasing the vigilance of your audience! This is a gigantic technical and psychological secret for those wishing to control the attention of their audience; with a simple turn of the wrist you can send people to sleep or wake them up. This may just be the most deceptive step forward you have made with your card magic in quite some time-and it has been hiding in plain sight since you first picked up a deck of cards.

61

Over the past ten years I have created many unique and challenging ways to practice, which not only develop more effective abilities but seek to eradicate fundamental problems-which are often side-effects of common practice methods. Most of my thinking in this area has been developed through trial and error, constantly searching for better ways to improve. In this series, we will be exploring many brand new ways to develop magic skill.

63

When it comes to practice, we generally overestimate what we can do in a day and underestimate what we can do in a year. Meaning, when we are so focused on the improvements which we can immediately perceive , we neglect to explore approaches that may initially set us back, but lay the groundwork for a much higher level of performance in the future. The basic concepts I use are 'restriction' and 'overload'-restricting and overloading one's cognitive and physical abilities- forcing adaptation and development . Having grown up playing many different sports, these types of training methods seemed very obvious and straightforward to me. I have used them myself for many years but it was only in recent years that I realised that other performers might also be interested in them. The very first method we will look at is 'arm-pinning'; a fun but very simple form of physical restriction which can be used to increase the technical execution of any sleight while developing more intuitive body intelligence . Basic Arm-Pinning Arm-pinning is a method which 'restricts' our movement .This restriction forces our body to compensate in order to execute the technique successfully. This compensation develops a higher level of ability once the restriction is removed . All you need for this exercise is a squash ball (Photo. 51 ).After many years of searching the squash ball is basically perfect for the following reasons : it is small enough to fit in a pocket without discomfort, it can be used for hand strength exercises, can be used to practice other ball moves , it feels nice, and it doesn't bounce-so reduces the temptation to bounce it everywhere. However for the purposes of the photographs I will be using a white ball so it is very easy to see .

For all of the following techniques, imagine that you are performing them in a live environment . Imagine that nobody can see the ball-even though you will be restricted, you are trying to act as naturally as you possible can. Place the ball at your left elbow (Photo. 52) and practice the move you want to perform for at least twenty repetitions . The goal is to hide the ball and forget about it, imagine it is not there at all. Become able to perform the move you want without being inhibited at all by the presence of the ball. Instead of just performing a specific 'sleight', perhaps go through a sequence of sleights or a routine. 64

51

By placing the ball at your elbow you will become very conscious of how the position of your arm is involved in your technique . It can highlight problems within your execution while developing greater control of your body and your hands. The goal is to become much more conscious of your technique while still being able to execute what you want perfectly. The restriction will force you to think, adapt and develop . Now move the ball to the middle of the forearm (Photo. 53) and again perform twenty repetitions of the exact same sequence.You will immediately notice that the movement of your left arm is now more heavily restricted . This increases the consciousness you have over your technique and your general body movements.You may have to explore new ways to overcome the restriction in order to execute certain sleights or sequences. Now move the ball to the left wrist (Photo. 54) and proceed as before with twenty repetitions . With the ball in this position your left arm will be highly restricted-virtually pinned to your side. This will be challenging to practice with, but this is often the position which will give you the most amount of benefit. It is forcing you to overcome a very difficult restriction, giving you greater skills and deeper insights into your technique in the process. I'm sure you can guess what the next sequences are ...Yes that's right, perform all the same repetitions but with the ball at the elbow, forearm and wrist of the right arm . After you have become familiar with the movements and positions you can alternate positions between the arms: left elbow then right elbow, left forearm then right forearm, left wrist then right wrist. Mixing-up how you alternate positions is important to keep it interesting and flexible . Of course changing the sleights and routines you practice with arm-pinning is also very important. You will notice that some techniques are more hampered than others with specific positions. For example with the ball at the left wrist practicing a Top Change is very difficult (Photo 55); it forces you to concentrate on developing a more fluid right arm and more controlled technique with the deck-hand. If you now switch the ball to the right wrist the deck-hand has to become more fluid and the right hand which holds the card has to be very controlled (Photo. 56). The more you practice different sleights/sequences/ routines, the more you will discover about them and your ability to execute them .

67

There are so many variations possible for you to practice : I. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Practicing Practicing Practicing Practicing Practicing

a specific sleight a specific sequence of sleights a specific routine random sleights and routines with different props

Arm-pinning allows your body to develop a greater sensitivity, flexibility and adaptation to variation-which is an essential part of deceptive execution. One of the more interesting 'general' benefits of this techniqu~ is that it makes you more aware of your posture as you practice . Performers have a tendency to hunch over and look down at their own hands. Arm-pinning subtly causes you to become more conscious of your body position and can allow you to discover and overcome any possible problems in this area. The more you practice with arm-pinning the more you will notice the benefits when the restriction is removed. I use it every day. Some days I casually use it, other days I use it to supercharge my abilities with a specific move. I would recommend making this a regular part of your practice regime. I would suggest using this practice method with all of your techniques and routines. Without getting too bogged down in exactly how much to use arm-pinning or exactly how to structure your practice sessions, simply play with it as often as possible and have fun in the process.

68

Simon Henderson is an independent deception consultant working in the UK and the US. His career spanning thirty-plus years has involved researching, teaching, and consulting on deception, counterdeception, information operations and cyber warfare within the UK Ministry of Defence, the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, NATO, and with various government, military, and law enforcement organisations. He is a lifelong student of magic and has published several original effects in addition to drawing extensively from magic throughout his career. Simon Henderson is not only the world's leading authority on influence and deception, he is also a friend, a work colleague and my secret resource for all things deception-based.

71

A Ruse By Any Other Name? Simon Henderson This chapter is a modified extract from the forthcoming book, Deception by Design,by Simon Henderson. It has been abridged and updated for readers of The Shi~ and constitutes the first in a series of articles by the author which explore the relationship between magic and deception.

Introduction

"I honestly be/eave it iz better tew know nothing than two know what ain't so." [Originalcolloquialspelling] Billings ( 1874, p. 286)

If one reads the websites of a number of professional mag1c1ans, one soon encounters widespread claims of expertise in "deception" . Many magicians claim that they are a 'Deception Expert', a 'Deceptionist', a 'Master Deceptionist' (presumably, somebody who has advanced beyond the level of mere 'Deceptionist'?), a 'Master of Deception', a 'Deception Artist', or even a 'Master of the Deceptive Arts' . They advertise shows with titles like 'Deception', 'Beyond Deception', 'An Evening of Deception', and 'The Art of Deception'. And the association between magic and deception has recently been further perpetuated by the 2018 ABC show 'Deception', about a magician who is recruited by the FBI to work as a consulting illusionist, helping them to solve crimes. Why is it that so many mag1c1ans claim to have expertise in deception as opposed to, say, magic? Are such claims valid? Have the performers making these claims ever studied, or even considered, deception as a topic that is distinct from magic? Do they understand the relationship between magic and deception? And can they even define what deception is? This series of articles intends to help magicians develop a better understanding of deception in order that they can advance their own professional practice. The articles draw from the author's career-long cross-disciplinary study of the topic and will discuss deception as a generalised phenomenon that is independent of, and transcends, domain . Across the series, readers are invited to consider more deeply the relationship between magic and deception, the 72

reasons why the study and practice of magic provide only partial insights into the broader field of deception, and how a more comprehensive understanding of the topic of deception can inform, and advance significantly, the theory, study and practice of magic. This introductory article seeks to define and bound the topic of deception and explores some of its core characteristics.

The Ubiquity

of Deception

"Deceptionis everywhere". Artist Jim Sanborn, creator of cryptographic artwork for the CIA (in Zetter, 20 I0) Deception exists throughout life. It occurs at all levels from the microbial to the geopolitical, and in every environment, including terrestrial, aquatic, and airborne settings. Bacteria employ molecular mimicry to trick their hosts into letting them enter cells so that they can survive long enough to reproduce. Plants use scent and visual mimicry to attract, predate on, and pollinate using insects, and employ a wide variety of different forms of deception, also for the purposes of survival and reproduction. Deception is used by fish, reptiles, amphibians, arthropods, birds and mammals, with many different systems of deceptive signalling and behaviour that take place across a broad swathe of the electromagnetic spectrum. Children learn to lie at an early age, and the emergence of plausible lying is indicative that they are employing higher-level cognitive functions, including theory of mind (the ability to conceive the world from the perspective of others and the construction of narrative), both skills that are fundamental to all human deception. Deception can be found in almost every area of human endeavour, including advertising and marketing, archaeology, art, confidence tricks, fashion, forgery, fraud, gambling, health, intelligence, linguistics, military deception, music, packaging, politics, practical jokes, the psychic industry,science,social engineering, special effects, sport (as a legitimate tactic, and as cheating), theatre, and many other areas. And yes, deception also occurs in magic. Increasingly, deception is becoming highly prevalent in cyberspace, where humans fool each other, humans are fooled by software, software is fooled by humans, and software is fooled by other software.

73

Deception can be used malevolently, resulting in the target (i.e. the focus or object of the deception) suffering some form of disadvantage, such as a scam that steals their money. However, what is generally less well appreciated is that deception can also be used benevolently, where the target benefits from being deceived. Examples of benevolent, pro-social deception can be found in art, comedy, drama, education, entertainment, fashion, beauty, make-up, gambling, magic, medicine, parenting, practical jokes, sport, storytelling and fiction, theatre, trompe l'oeil, visual effects, white lies, etc. For example, in a pharmaceutical application, a foul-tasting and inedible cough mixture might be 'repackaged' using pleasant flavouring as a 'wrapper', so that the medicine becomes palatable and can be ingested by a patient to treat the symptoms of their cough. Interestingly, the deceptive strategies employed in all such benevolent applications are precisely the same as those employed within cases of malevolent deception. This raises a range of important issues concerning the ethics of deception, that may be addressed in a future article. From the partial selection of domains identified appreciate the vast span of environments and forms to create advantage for the deceiver, and oftentimes diving deeper into the characteristics of deception, a few terms.

above, one can begin to in which deception occurs for the target too. Before however, let us first define

Defining Deception When seeking to understand what deception is, a perhaps obvious place to start would be a dictionary. However, dictionaries turn-out to be surprisingly poor sources for those seeking clarity on the topic. For example, the Oxford Dictionary of English defines deception as:

"[To] deliberatelycause (someone) to believe something that is not true, especiallyfor personalgain." Oxford English Dictionary (2016)

This definition falls short in several respects. First, it implies that truth or falsehood is a binary either-or state (i.e. things are true, or not true), and does not consider the possibility of varying degrees of truth, partial truths, subjective truths, contested truths, and unknown truths (for an excellent exposition of the complex nature of truth, see MacDonald, 2018). A second problem is that the definition cannot accommodate situations in which a deceiver wishes their target to not believe a situation that is true. The definition therefore is unable to accommodate situations in which an entity is operating covertly, and wishes 74

the target to have no suspicion, let alone belief as to their real identity or behaviour . A third , more fundamental problem with this definition is that it is entirely feasible to deceive a target without lying and by communicating using nothing but the truth . This form of deceptive strategy is referred to as 'paltering' (Rogers et al., 2017), and can be lingual or temporal in nature. This important and often overlooked fact highlights the limited utility and value of lying and lie-detection paradigms for making sense of the broader field of deception. In the context of a magic routine , for example, the performer might have a card selected by a spectator, memorised by them, and then returned to the deck . The selection is controlled to the top of the deck, whereupon the performer announces "I swear I have no idea what your card is. .. " moments before he glimpses the selection ,and then goes into a regular overhand shuffle. "I also have no idea where your card is in the deck. I swear I'm not keeping track of it. . . this is a realshuffle,and I promise that I willnot try to sneak a look to see what your card is. .. However,if you can concentrate on your card, I willsee if I can tell you what you are thinkingof .." All of these statements are I00% true and constitute an example of temporal paltering. In this case, truthful statements expire rapidly just after they have been communicated faithfully, thereby creating an understanding in the head of the target that is itself based on expired (and not current) truth. Other domains in which deception occurs employ their own localised definitions, but these are often specific to application and do not generalise well to deception more broadly. They also often have their own inherent problemsfor example, military definitions of deception often fail to distinguish deception from influence, and a number define deception as being prejudicial to the interests of a target. As discussed earlier, deception can in many applications intentionally be advantageous to a target. Some years ago, the author formulated a working definition of deception that sought to address these concerns , and set the notion of deception against a more contemporary , pragmatic and utilitarian psychological foundation (Henderson, 20 I I). Over the intervening years, the definition has remained extant in the face of extensive road-testing, critique and utilisation by many hundreds of deception practitioners from across a wide variety of different domains. Deception is defined as:

"Deliberate measures to induce erroneous sensemaking and subsequent behaviourwithin a target audience,to achieve and exploit an advantage." Henderson (20 I I) 75

Deception is a Deliberate Act . The definition begins by suggesting th at deception is a deliberate and intentional act, a view shared with a range of other authors and researchers in the field (including Buller & Burgoon , 1994; Galasinski, 2000; Caspi & Gorsky, 2006; Carrion et a/., 20 I0) . As a result , activities that unintentionally or accidentally induce erroneous sensemaking are non-deceptive acts that should more accurately be labelled as mistakes, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, gaffes, etc. It is therefore not possible to deceive by accident. Deception is Induced. Deception is brought about via a process of induction . A deceiver deliberately engages in a specific action or actions that are intended to fool the target. Deception does not, and cannot, happen by itself.

Deception Works by Inducing Errors in Sensemaking. A key component of this definition relates to the notion of 'erroneous sensemaking', meaning that some aspect of the target's understanding of the world is deliberately led to be wrong, or in error. It is this focus on error that differentiates deception from other related concepts, such as influence, persuasion or coercion, etc. For an explanation of how sensemaking functions, see Klein et a/. (2006b, 2006a); and Klein et a/. (2007). For an explanation of how sensemaking is manipulated in the context of magic, see Henderson (2017). The Goal of Deception is Behaviour Change. Deception aims to change the future behaviour of the target. If there is no behavioural change in the target resulting from their erroneous sensemaking, the same outcome could and would have been achieved by the deceiver doing nothing. In many domains the deceiver's goal for the target's behaviour change may be straightforward. For example, in military deception, the goal may be to get the enemy to move their defences to one location so that you can surprise them by attacking from a different direction (such as the 'left hook' strategy used by Gen . Norman Schwarzkopf in Iraq during the First GulfWar). Similarly, in sport , the deception goal could be to fool the opposing team into deploying their defenders against an empty-handed runner who convincingly mimes carrying the ball, whilst the real ball carrier crosses the goal line unopposed on the other side of the field. And in a cyber phishing attack, the hacker's goal could be to get their target to click on a link that will result in malware (software that compromises the integrity of a computer system) being installed on their computer to record and transmit their keystrokes as they enter their banking credentials. 76

---

In other domains, the deceiver's behaviour change goal for the target may be more subtle. For example, it may be less obvious what behaviour change is sought by a magician that is performing for a spectator. In this case it is worth considering what the target's (i.e. the spectator's) immediate and longer-term behaviour would have been had the deception failed. The spectator at the show may have groaned with displeasure and disappointment at not being fooled or entertained, would not have applauded, would probably have told others how bad the show was, would suggest to others that they do not go to see the magician, they may demand a refund, and they probably would not go to future shows by the magician. However, by strongly fooling the spectator (i.e. inducing error in their sensemaking, leading to surprise, and a sense of awe and wonder), their behaviour would likely be the opposite of each of these reactions.

Deception is Directed Towards a Defined Target Audience. Deception is directed towards a specific, identified and bounded target audience. The deception target may be an individual, a group, an organisation, a larger populous, and potentially even higher levels of human collective, such as a nation state. A target may also comprise any system that exhibits some form of behaviour, and within which behaviour change may be sought, including computer software, an algorithm, hardware control systems, etc. Successful Deception Creates Advantage for the Deceiver, and Sometimes the Target. Deception is conducted to obtain an exploitable advantage for the deceiver, for example: •

•

Military deception - in military operations, the deceptive force defeats its enemy. Trompe l'oeil - the artist attracts visitors to their show through word of mouth, and potentially induces them to buy their work. Magic - the magician earns money from their show, with the audience writing good reviews, recommending the show to others, and paying to come back to see future shows. Casino cheating - the card sharp leaves the casino with more money than they went in with. Practical jokes - the prankster gains pleasure and entertainment from their prank succeeding. Environmental fraud - the petroleum company's selective use of the one statistical model that (seemingly) 'proves' their low levels of environmental impact, receives benefit from the resultant governmental permissions to build further processing sites, ultimately leading to greater profit. 77

--Deception can also result in mutual benefit, wherein both the deceiver and the target gain benefit when the deception is successful. For example : When a magician successfully fools their audience, the audience benefits from the pleasure of being wowed, delighted and entertained, and the magician benefits by receiving the audience's praise, money, word of mouth publicity, and future attendance at their shows. When a chemistry teacher teaches their class a model of an atom that is simplified to the point of being fundamentally incorrect (as their students are not yet capable of grasping the more accurate quantum field theory), they benefits from the class learning the principles of atomic weight and the periodic table, passing their exams, and hitting the school's targets; whilst pupils benefit from learning basic principles of chemistry, leading to them obtaining good grades and better university and employment prospects. Is It Feasible to Deceive One's Self? It seems logically coherent to conceptualise deception as a transactional act that is committed intentionally by one person or organisation (i.e. the deceiver) against another (the target). However, many students of deception suggest that deception does not entail a deceiver fooling a target; instead, that the target always deceives themselves (for example, see Demosthenes, 349BC/ 1852, p. 57; La Rochefoucauld, 1678/ 1871, p. 16; Rousseau, 1762, p. 150; von Goeth, 1908, p. 94; Hoffer, 1955, p. 260; etc.) . However, the notion of a target somehow being able to fool themselves seems intrinsically paradoxical. Three broad schools of thought exist in relation to this issue, the lntentionalist, Motivationist and Deflationist perspectives. Each is now summarised. The 'lntentionalist' Perspective. The lntentionalist Perspective (e.g. Talbott, 1995) posits that self-deception in effect operates internally on the same basis as inter-agency deception, whereby a deceiver intentionally seeks to induce their own erroneous beliefs. This creates a situation in which the self-deceived person holds a true belief while at the same time incorrectly believing the contrary. This view requires that the deceiver's belief system can notionally be partitioned, so that one part believes the truth, and this part intentionally brings-about the erroneous belief in the other part. For example, in Aesop's fable about The Fox and the Grapes (Baldwin, 1824, pp. 4 2-44) a hungry fox first sights some grapes that appear purple, ripe and sweet; but after he realises he cannot reach them, he decides that they are too green to eat. He therefore intends to deceive himself; and is left holding onto parallel contradictory views. 78

Perspective. An alternative view, the ' Motivationist' perspective (e .g. Nelkin, 2002) posits that strong desire for certain incorrect beliefs about the world to be true can lead to these desired beliefs overriding and eventually replacing original correct beliefs about the world. For example, consider Person A, whose partner , Person B, dies unexpectedly. Person A's desire to reconnect with Person B is so strong that they decide to visit a psychic, despite being highly sceptical about their claims. As a result of the psychic stating that they have made contact with Person B and seeming to pass-on detailed personal information from them, Person A's sceptical beliefs are overwhelmed and replaced by the belief that it is actually possible to communicate with the dead. In this case, there is no intent for Person A to deceive themselves, as the deception occurs only as a side-effect of the desire to believe . There is also no requirement to hold conflicting views, as one view becomes replaced by another. The 'Motivationist'

The 'Deflationist' Perspective. A third view, the 'Deflationist' perspective (e.g. Scott-Kaku res, 2012) suggests that self-deception occurs as a consequence of biased cognitive processing that is itself the product of the motivational states of the subject. For example, if I strongly wish something incorrect to be true, I may pay more attention to information that confirms or supports my wish than information that weakens or disconfirms it. At some point, in light of all the positive supporting evidence I have collected that supports my wish, I am led overwhelmingly to the conclusion that my incorrect belief must be true. For example, if I am open-minded, and thus undecided as to the possibility that the moon landings may have been faked, I may decide to research the matter for myself. Online searches take me to a site that provides some shocking, exciting, and possibly plausible information that, if true, would prove that the moon landings were faked. As a result, I conduct further searches looking for additional evidence that corroborates this information, and happen to find plenty. After some time conducting further research, the amount of evidence I have gathered showing that the moon landings were faked is so overwhelming (and with so little evidence available to me that suggests otherwise) that I now have no choice but to believe that the moon landings were a hoax. In this manner, my desire for something to be true has biased the information I search for and subsequently find, which in turn leads me to search for more of this same type of information. Eventually, the weight of this one-sided 'evidence' is so overwhelming that I am compelled to adopt a false belief. In spite of wide-spread and popular suggestions that all deception is selfdeception, none of these theories help explain the vast majority of deception 79

that is observed in the natural world. Whilst the psychologic al belief formulation processes manipulated by a deceiver to fool a target exist in the head of that target, the agency that acts upon these processes is external to them. An important question, therefore, is to consider who does the 'heavy lifting' required to make deception work - the deceiver or the target? This issue will be addressed shortly; however, before unpacking this issue it is first necessary to consider the relationship between influence and deception , and the consequences of deception being discovered.

The Relationship Between Influence and Deception As deception seeks to bring about change in the target's behaviour, it seems logical that all deception can be viewed as influencing the target's behaviour. Which in turn then raises the question as to whether all deception is 'just' influence, or whether deception and influence are somehow different. Influence is defined here as:

"Deliberate measures to induce desired sensemaking and subsequent behaviourwithin a target audience, to achieve and exploit an advantage." Note the critical difference in this definition compared to that for deception - the term 'erroneous sensemaking' has been replaced by the term 'desired sensemaking' . It is this difference that sits at the heart of what deception is, what deception is not, and how deception relates to other similar concepts. Whilst error in the target's sensemaking is fundamental to deception, error is not required within a target's sensemaking in order that it is influenced . For example, a target may be incentivised to change its behaviour through the offer of financial reward. In this case, the target has been influenced to change its behaviour by (correctly) making sense of the reward offered, and no erroneous sensemaking or deception is involved. Deception is thus a class of influence, differentiated from other types of influence by its specific focus on inducing error in the target's sensemaking. As a result , all deception involves influence, but not all influence involves deception. Next, we shall consider issues relating to the discovery of deception .

Secrets, Revelations

and Surprises

".. . the most criticalobserver should not even suspect, let alone detect, the action." Erdnase ( 1902, p. 83) 80

Erdnase's principle from The Expert at the CardTableapplies to a wide variety of deceptions in which even the target's suspicion as to the mere possibility of deception could prove disastrous, in some cases even life-threatening to the deceiver. For example, consider undercover police officers infiltrating a violent criminal gang, Special Forces operating covertly behind enemy lines, or even a card sharp cheating in a dubious game of poker, etc. In some cases, the target may gain benefit from the revelation, or their discovery of, deception being used against them. For example, a visitor to an exhibition of work by French artist Bernard Pras might pass through the door of a gallery to find themselves facing a portrait of Malian actor Sotigui Kouyate. Only when they change position within the gallery, and thus their viewpoint, can they discover, appreciate, and enjoy the fact that the exhibit is an anamorphic installation that works by exploiting human perceptual processes. The portrait is entirely illusory. In reality it comprises a spatial assembly of tree branches, sticks, clothes hanging on a line and scattered on the floor, a palm frond, broken crockery, etc, which, when viewed from a single forced perspective, align to form the impression of a portrait of the actor. In other cases, the use of deception will always necessitate a reveal, irrespective of the deceiver's desire or intent for this revelation to occur (note that the term 'reveal' here refers to the recognition on the part of the target that deception has taken place, and is not related to the notion of exposure in magic). Whenever a magician performs an effect, an impossible outcome is always revealed at the effect's conclusion, thereby serving to let the spectator know that they have been deceived. In many forms of military deception (for example, fooling the enemy as to the timing or location of an attack) once the real attack occurs, the deception is inevitably revealed, and the enemy force becomes aware that they have been fooled. In both of these instances, the revelation of the deception creates surprise. When the target is not aware that deception is present or has occurred, they do not experience surprise. For more on the manipulation of sensemaking to achieve and amplify surprise in magic, see Henderson (2017). In summary, some circumstances dictate that the deceiver only gains advantage if they remain covert and their use of deception is never discovered; in other circumstances, the deceiver only gains benefit if the target realises they have been fooled. And in other forms of deception there is no option but to reveal the use of deception, thereby signalling to the target that they have been fooled. The advantages and disadvantages of these different outcomes are context, situation, and goal dependent. 81

Once Deception Has Been Discovered, Can It Be Repeated? Revelation of the use of deception to a target may result in a range of problems for the deceiver. The deceiver may suffer a significant loss of initiative and be unable to continue with their deception plan. A covert capability may have been disclosed and now has to be burned (i.e . given up or written-off) . The disclosure may lead to an expectation on the part of the target about the deceiver's potential use of deception in the future, leading the target to increase their vigilance, monitoring and security . However, just because the target knows that you have used deception to fool them previously , this does not mean that the deceiver cannot use deception (even the same deception) to fool them again. Good deception should always seek to divorce method from effect , for example by creating false expectations in the head of the target, or suggesting false solutions - strategies that are also intrinsic to effective magic (e.g. see Tamariz, 1988; Lamont & Wiseman, 2005, pp. 75-80) . This means that whilst the target may indeed realise that they have been fooled , they will not necessarily know how they were fooled. When portraying false solutions, the deceiver can plant false clues that will lead the target to conclude incorrectly that a different method has been used to achieve the outcome (i.e. the target is led to be absolutely certain, but absolutely wrong). Even if the target does suspect or somehow has deduced correctly how they were fooled, this creates a set of expectations that can be exploited, for example by changing the method through which the same outcome is achieved next time. In addition , real activity can be portrayed as deceptive activity (with the intention of being dismissed by the target), exploiting and apparently confirming the target's suspicions that deception will be used - a strategy known as 'reverse deception'. An example of reverse deception occurred during Operation Bertram in El Alamein in 1942, when Commonwealth forces dumped waste materials under camouflage nets, making them appear to be ammunition or ration dumps . Axis forces noticed these, but, as no offensive action followed and the 'dumps' did not change, they were subsequently ignored . This allowed the 8th Army to build up supplies in the forward area unnoticed by the Axis, by replacing the rubbish with real supplies and ammun ition (Barkas & Barkas , 1952). Revelation of the use of deception to the target does not preclude its future use. However, good deception should always build-in the capability to deceive the same target again in the future. 82

Who Does the 'Heavy

Lifting' in Deception?

"Such things as we being bewitched do imagine,have no truth at all either of action or essence, beside the bare imagination.". Scott ( 1584, p. 3 18) An important, yet overlooked, principle in the design of deceptive action is that the mechanisms via which erroneous belief is formulated occur entirely inside the head of the target (note that this does not constitute self-deception as such deception is still induced by an external source-i.e. the deceiver). Consider the 'Ghost Tap' effect (Marshall, 1980, pp. 17-18) in which a performer seemingly proves the presence of a spirit to a spectator, who feels a tap on the back of their head whilst whist the magician's hands are seemingly occupied, the index fingers of each of the magician's hands resting on the spectator's closed eyelids. The effect is achieved by the magician swapping his two index fingers for the index and middle finger of one hand immediately as the spectator closes their eyes, thereby leaving one hand free to execute the taps (the hands and fingers are swapped back just before the spectator opens their eyes again). Despite the incredibly simple mechanics upon which this effect relies, it can, (especially when amplified by setting an appropriate scene, and the use of engaging narrative) provoke an incredibly strong reaction from the spectator, including shrieks, leaping into the air, stunned silence, deep confusion, or some combination of these. Immediately after the effect, it is also usual for the spectator to look behind them, to see who it was that tapped them on the head (the effect works best if done in a one-to-one setting, with no other people around). The experience that the magician has, and the experience that the spectator has, are very different. To the spectator, at the time of being tapped on the head, it genuinely feels as if a third entity is in the room with them. However, for the magician, in practical terms, they deliver some patter, swap fingers, and tap the spectator on the head with their free hand. The effect demonstrates the way in which a target's mind can take just a couple of fragments of information and mentally use these to fabricate a rich, vivid, and visceral (yet entirely erroneous) internal mental experience, that feels vastly different from the simple, subtle, means used to induce it. The asymmetry that arises in the simplicity of the method compared to the magnitude of the effect can be seen in many cases of deception. It helps explain why simple actions can create such powerful deceptive effects, such as balsawood and canvas being used to simulate convincingly an entire army in the middle of the Egyptian 83

desert (Barkas & Barkas, 1952), security penetration testers gaming access to secure government buildings using nothing more than a pizza delivery bag (Dupuy, 2014), and people successfully using fruit to hold -up and rob banks (Hartley-Parkinson, 2019; Times of Israel, 2019) .

"Too great cleverness is but deceptive delicacy,true delicacy is but the most substantial cleverness." La Rochefoucauld( 1678/ 1871, p. 17) It is the target that does all the 'heavy lifting' involved in being deceived. It is they that put the pieces together, they assemble the narrative, they fill-in the gaps, they make the wrong assumptions, they project their thoughts incorrectly into the future, and they make erroneous sense of what is happening-building an erroneous world, erroneous beliefs, erroneous assumptions, and erroneous expectations in their head. The target's subjective experience of reality, and their resultant beliefs about the world may be very different from their objective reality and the real state of the world. This is important when it comes to designing deceptive action . For example, imagine you were tasked to make your target's house vanish into thin air - they arrive home from work, and as they are walking up to the front door their house evaporates in front of their eyes, leaving no trace . There are a number of potential ways to achieve this-bulldozers, wrecking balls and explosives may come to mind . When the problem is looked at through the lens of deception, however, it becomes clear that you do not really have to make the house vanish. In fact , it is readily apparent that it is impossible to make a house vanish into thin air. Deception creates an opportunity to use significantly more efficient means to achieve the desired outcome-by shaping the target 's beliefs about events, as opposed to trying to create the events themselves for real. Indeed, it may be impossible, or too risky, or too expensive to create the events for real. However, creating erroneous beliefs about those events having occurred may indeed be feasible, be low risk, and be significantly cheaper than creating the events for real. Instead of thinking about bulldozers, wrecking balls and explosives, we instead start thinking about lighting, projection , black art, sound effects, misdirection, inflatables, set-design, rumours, witnesses, news reports, misdirecting a target towards a simulacrum of their house, etc. The two approaches to the problem are very different . When seeking to do something that involves affecting a target's experience of reality, it is not necessary to create that experience for real; only to allow the target to believe that they have had that experience for real. 84

These are just some of the core components of deception, but of course, there are many others . Other components , dimensions and principles of deception will be explored in future articles .

Summary Dictionary definitions of deception are poor. Accordingly, deception has been defined here as: "deliberate measures to induce erroneous sensemaking and subsequent behaviour within a target audience, to achieve and exploit an advantage." Deception is an intentional transaction that occurs between deceiver and target. It is possible to deceive without lying, and also to deceive using nothing more than the truth (that truth having been exploited lingually or temporally) . Deception is a form of influence , and therefore, all deception involves influencing, however not all influence involves deceiving . Deception seeks to change future behavioural outcomes to the benefit of the deceiver, and often the target too . If the target's behaviour does not change as a result of their erroneous sensemaking, the same outcome could and would have been achieved by the deceiver doing nothing. Revelation of the use of deception to the target does not preclude its future use; however, good deception will always build-in the capability to deceive the same target again in the future . And it is usually feasible, cheaper and less risky to induce a belief in having experienced impossible events within the head of a target, than to attempt to construct and administer such events for real-an important principle that is relevant to all deception planners, irrespective of their domain of professional practice. Deception occurs everywhere that life exists, at all levels from the microbial to geopolitical. But does anything link together these different forms of deception? What are the common threads,and where are there differences? In later articles I shall seek to un-weave and disentangle some of the threads that constitute this seemingly complex tangled web. I will discuss how deceptive principles from magic have been exploited in other domains and will explain why a crossdisciplinary study of deception is fundamental to enhancing deceptive practice in any domain of application, including magic. In the next article, I shall address in more detail the relationship between magic and deception and will highlight fundamental issues in deceptive practice where the theory and practice of magic has little to contribute. By highlighting such limitations with the generalisability of magic, magicians should start to see how their practice sits in relation to the broader field of deception, and what they can learn from other domains where it occurs . 85

References Baldwin, E.( 1824). FablesAncient and Modern.Adapted (or the Use of Children. (St. Clement's), Strand.: M.J. Godwin and Company. Barkas, G., & Barkas, N. ( 1952). The Camouflage Story (from Aincree co Alamein). London: Cassell. Billings,J. ( 1874) . Everybody'sFriendorJosh Billing'sEncyclopediaand ProverbialPhilosophyof Wit and Humor. Hartford, Conn.:American Publishing Company. Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. ( 1994). Deception:Strategicand NonstrategicCommunication.In J. A. Daly & J.M. Wiemann (Eds.}, Strategic InterpersonalCommunication(pp. 191-223) . Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, New Jersey. Carrion, R. E.,Keenan,J. P.,& Sebanz, N. (20 I O).ATruthThat'sToldWith Bad /ntent:An ERP Study of Deception. Cognition,I 14(I}, I 05-110. doi: I 0.10I6/j.cognicion.2009.05.014 Caspi.A., & Gorsky, P. (2006). Online Deception - PrevalenceMotivation and Emotion.Cyber Psychologyand Behavior,9( I), 54-59. (349BC/ 1852). Third O/ynthiac(C.R. Kennedy, Trans.) O/ynthiac,and Other PublicOrations.London: Henry G. Bohn.

Demosthenes.

Dupuy,T.(2014). He Hunted Osama bin Laden,He Breaks Into Nuclear-PowerPlants. Retrieved 09/07/2019 from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/che-infiltracor/359818/ Erdnase, S.W. ( 1902). The Expert at the CardTable (Artifice,Ruse and Subterfuge at the CardTable :A Treatiseon the Science and Art ofManipulatingCards).Chicago: Frederick J Drake & Co. Galasinski, D. (2000). The LanguageofDeception:A DiscourseAnalyticalStudy.Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Hartley-Parkinson, R. (2019). Man Jailed for Carrying Out Bank Robbery Armed With a Banana and Sainsbury's Carrier Bag. Retrieved 09/07/2019 from https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/ man-jailed-carrying-bank-robbery-armed-banana-9992797/ Henderson, S.(2017) . Making Sense of Magic. In J.Gore & P.Ward (Eds.), 13th International Conference on NaturalisticDecisionMaking (pp. 65-80). Bath, UK:The University of Bath. Henderson, S. M. (20 I I). DeceptiveThinkingWorkshop. Paper presented at the I st MilDec Military Deception Symposium, 2nd-3rd November 20 I I, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Shrivenham. Hoffer, E. ( 1955). The PassionateState ofMind:And Other Aphorisms.New York: Harper. Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R.R. (2006a). Making Sense of Sensemaking I :Alternative Perspectives./£££ IntelligentSystems, 21 (4), 70-73. Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R.R. (2006b). Making Sense of Sensemaking 2:A Macrocognicive Model./£££ IntelligentSystems, 21 (5), 88-92. Klein, G., Philips, J. K., Rall, E. L.,& Peluso, D.A. (2007).A Data-Frame Theory of Sensemaking. In R. Hoffman (Ed.}, Expertise Out ofContext:Proceedingsofthe Sixth Conference on NaturalisticDecisionMaking (pp. 113-155). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

86

18/

La Rochefoucauld , F.d. d. ( 1678/ 1871 ). Reflections;Or, Sentences and Moral Maxims U.W.W. Bund & J. H. Friswell,Trans .). New York: Scribner.Welford & Co. Lamont, P., & Wiseman, R. (2005). Magic in Theory . Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press. MacDonald, H.(2018). Truth:How the Many Sides to Every Story Shape Our Reality(First United States edition. ed.). New York: Little, Brown and Company. Marshall,J. ( 1980). How to Perform Instant Magic.Oregon: Quality Books, Inc. Nelkin, D. K. (2002). Self-Deception,Motivation,and the Desire to Believe.Pacific Philosophical Quarterly(83), 384-406. Oxford English Dictionary .(2 016) . Definitionof'Deception'. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rogers,T., Zeckhauser, R., Gino, F.,Norton, M. I., & Schweitzer , M.E.(2017) . Artful Paltering: The Risks and Rewards of UsingTruthfulStatements to Mislead Others.J Pers Soc Psychol, I 12(3), 456-473. doi : I 0.1037/pspi000008 I Rousseau, J. J. ( 1762). Emile,or On Education (E.Worthington.Trans.). Company.

Boston: D.C Heath and

Scott, R. ( 1584). The DiscoverieofWitchcra~. London:William Brome. Scott-Kaku res, D.(2012). Can You Succeed in Intentionally Deceiving Yourself/ Humana Mente: QuarterlyJournal of Philosophy,20, 17-39. Talbott, W J. ( 1995). Intentional Self-Deception in a Single Coherent Self. Philosophyand PhenomenologicalResearch, 55( I), 27-74. Tamariz,J. ( 1988). The MagicWay:TheTheory of FalseSolutions and the Magic Way. Barcelona: Editorial Frakson. Times of Israel.(2019). Israeli Ex-Con Holds Up Two Banks Armed With an Avocado. https:// www.timesofisrael.com/man-holds-up-two-banks-armed-only-with-an-avocado/ von Goeth, J.W. ( 1908). Spriiche in Prosa.Leipzig: lnsel-Berlag . Zetter, K. (20 I 0). Kryptos Artist to Reveal Rare Clue co Baffling CIA Sculpture . Retrieved 09/07/2019 from https://www.wired.com/20 I 0/ I I/kryptos-clue/

87

The effects described in this first issue were 'classics': a transposition, a stop trick and a separation of colour. The techniques described were a steal/palm and a false shuffle from the traditional Overhand Shuffle.The theory presented dealt with fundamental elements of our craft.There was a foundational theme to all the material, but hopefully with each new section you will have experienced a sense of 'going deeper' than you have before. I have attempted to begin multiple conversations and stimulate multiple perspectives, hopefully you are closing this book with more to think about than the sum of its parts-something more than tricks and moves. I don't just want to record or document my approach to magic, but also embody it through design. This is something which The Shi~ will continue to do in a variety of ways. It has taken a huge amount of work to bring this into reality, and I am extremely proud of the results. By now you have had a comprehensive introduction to what The Shi~ is about and what it is trying to achieve. Hopefully you enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoyed creating it. I'd love to hear your thoughts, feel free to email [email protected] with anything you took away from this volume. I am not an authority, just someone who loves magic and is trying to express himself honestly while learning as much as possible. I am hoping that The Shift will be the start an interesting journey for you, me and Studio52. The future isn't a place we are going to ... but one we are in the process of creating. Ben.

93