Vol 7. Psychological Forces.pdf

Vol#7 Psychological forces

Introduction In this volume we will be looking at psychological forces. In this series we have already looked at psychological playing card forces, this volume takes a look at a range of different forces using similar psychological techniques over a range of plateaus. One of the staple books in mentalism (in fact staple series) is the psychological subtleties series. I have made a purposeful effort in this volume to ensure that I am not crossing over the content in those books. Psychological forces for me are a particular interesting subject and throughout this volume you will see the novel (yet entirely practical) ways in which to apply psychological performances and fit these performances into your own working repertoire without having to worry about them failing. I have spent a good number of years chasing down and inventing psychological forces, I will in this volume talk about a variety of techniques I have not shared in the past - I will try to give you a glimpse into how I create psychological forces. This all started, for me many years ago. Many years ago my friends and I (within the mentalism world) used to play a game in which one of us named an object/ item/ place/ thing and whoever was nominated by the group had to psychologically force that piece of information on the next person that was willing to participant in a ‘mind experiment’. This was not only fun, but it gave each of us the confidence to know that we could do this on the fly (should we need to) and at the same time helped us gain confidence in our ability should a routine not go to plan. That is the greatest thing I ever learnt, how to make a routine that had failed completely seem like a success. I personally learnt how to pretty much force anything. I will outline the game and the rules of the game later in this volume, before that, I would like to share a little history on when I first become interested in psychological forces. I remember first becoming enthralled in psychological forces after watching Derren Brown’s television series’. Once every so often (at the start of random episodes) he would perform an effect for the audience at home (to the watching participant) and remember being blown away, I was completely hooked. I took these psychological forces to Leeds city center, armed with a camera and tripod I filmed myself trying a series of psychological forces on random participant’s and NOT ONE HIT!

You hear me?… NOT ONE FUCKING HIT! I remember instantly dismissing psychological forces as being non-practical and instead of trying to work on them, I started studying other things. Years later after studying/ learning about other areas/ aspects of mentalism and how to use my voice as my strongest tool in my box of tools, I thought I would give psychological forces another go and after having a much different experience to the first time I had tried these forces. I feel this was down to my newly I realized just how little I knew when I had tried them out the first time around. I was not utilizing the forces wrong or the scripting, it was my mannerisms, my beat and my willingness to trust myself and then veer off into another course or direction should I feel that things weren’t going my way… In short, it wasn’t the force that was at fault, it was ME. I am very honest when I say that. A lot of performers tend to blame the force/ routine when it doesn’t work first time for them and dismiss the material – Learn how to test these moments in performance without the participant ever knowing if it was a miss. Then when these moments hit, you won’t believe the reactions. Things like this take time, they are just like any good other principle in mentalism - a tool. Think about it this way The first time you try to ride a bike, could you jump on it and off you went? The first time you attempted to walk, did you just stand up and start walking? The first time you attempted speaking, did you start fluently reciting whatever language it is you speak? The answer to all of those questions are no, no you did not. You had to work hard and train yourself, once you had whatever it is you were trying to perfect, perfected, you forget the amount of time and effort you put into perfecting your new found skill. You then after getting your new skill down, you hit a patch where it comes so naturally and mentalism is the same! You have to be open, receptive and willing to learn something new every day. Do not keep relying on the same skills you have gained time and time again – Yes refine them and work them to the point they are perfect but do not stop learning. If you do it would be a crying shame. In this volume I am going to share a series of principles, subtleties and tools that do work, they just require an effort on your part – They are not ‘Takeaway mentalism’. If you were to watch a performance video of me years ago and then watch me perform today - there are vast improvements. I am constantly criticizing my own performances and

learning how to refine myself. This is something I will continue to do, don’t worry about doing this to yourself. It is often the hardest thing to do, looking at your own performances and being harsh. This is the true secret to success, film everything – Look at yourself, rectify your mistake and work over. Try to find someone that give you a second eye, who isn’t a yes man/ woman. Someone who is open to tearing you to pieces but will help build you back up. I know I have a hell of a long way to go to match the vision I have in my head of myself and what I know I can achieve. I have no natural talent, every skill I have ever acquired I have acquired with nothing other than hard work. I hope you get a lot of mileage out of the material in this document and it opens up a new world of possibilities for you.

Peter Turner 2016

What is a psychological force? Psychological forces, also known as psi forces or psyche forces are essentially verbal statements that appeal to the participant’s psyche in order to box them or control them (a good portion of the time) to select or think of whatever item, object, place and or piece of information the performer wants the participant to think of at any given time. It is the practice of mixing verbal acrobatics, statistical practice and cat like finesse.

Are psychological forces 100%? The honest answer is no, this shouldn’t however detour you from performing them, with practice and chops you will smash the ball out of the park a massive percentage of the time. There are ‘ways’ outlined in this volume in which your participant will never know that you missed and ‘ways’ to get a second opportunity should you miss the first time whilst simultaneously making things seem fairer from the participant’s perspective.

Are psychological dependent?

forces

language

restricted/

Yes and No. That is the simple answer. If you translate these forces as closely as possible into any language then these forces will certainly work. BUT What I have found, is that different cultures think differently whilst still thinking the same. What I mean by this is even though some cultures/ demographics think differently and the answers are different to the ones listed here (forces aimed at the U.K/ U.S demographic) the people from within those different cultures/ demographics will still think in a similar way TO EACH OTHER and if you take your time to learn how those cultures think and the way they consecutively respond to these forces then you can re-adjust your answers to fit the area you are. So in short, in America for example the most frequently named number from one to ten is seven. In India (I threw out a random country) you might find seven never hits but five keeps coming up time and time again. You would re-adjust the way you think to coincide with this fact. Therefore the forces are not technically restrictive, you just might find that the answers are different to the ones listed here. This is something that is very important to understand, the only way you are going to get these forces down is to work them MORE THAN ONCE!

Also a slight change in the way you talk/ pace can affect the way that an overall force plays out and the way the participant responds. Do not dismiss the force should it not hit, try it a few times you might just find that your participants are answering consistently with the same or similar answers. If this is the case instead of trying to change the way you talk/ pace or adjust the linguistics, just change the way you perceive the answer. Adjust your answer, don’t try and change yourself - it’s the most simple and logical way to operate.

Piggybacking principle This is a principle that is going to run concurrent throughout this entire volume. This principle was born out of the back of feeling ‘cold’ with the psychological forces I had read in the past. One thing I loved is the (almost) sure fire nature of the simple forces that were outlined in previous writings on the subject of psychological forces. Forcing the colour red/ blue, 37, a lion, 7, a chair, a triangle and a circle and the other simple forces we all know and all have performed at some point in the past. They are simple/ fast to force in terms of process and hit frequently. The only thing I felt with these forces is that they all felt a little bit unfinished. I sat and thought about that for a while and realized that because these forces are mostly surefire, why not piggyback off of these forces to get my participants to think of things that were more impossible. Piggybacking is the process of taking simple forces and using those forces as stepping stones at the beginning of a larger psychological force. The results you will see throughout this document.

A list of psychological forces I thought I would start by outlining a series of forces and techniques to force specific thoughts. Then talk about how these forces can be used in conjunction with classical methodology to create incredible routines. This list is only a foundational list but with the tools offered you will see how easy it is to force other things using the same principle.

Forcing places/ countries There are a range of ways to force places/ countries, I am going to outline a few here for you to think about and then offer my thoughts on how these forces can be used to force other pieces of information.

Paris This is by far the easiest city to force, I am going to outline two ways to force this city and then ways to use this city and ‘piggy backing’ principle to move to other cities/ countries.

Variation #1 The performer addresses the first of two participants (this can be done solo). Performer: “I want you to think of a part of the world for me. When you have one in mind, think of a country in that part of the world. Maybe think of a few things that make this country stand out to you.” (Wait till they confirm they have done that.) Turn to the second participant. Performer: “I want you to do something similar. Focus on a landmark… Or building and the city that surrounds it. Really focus on the smells and sounds in this city, the people.” Address both of them. Performer: “I want you both to use all your senses in symphony to culminate in and create an image of these places in your mind.” Take note of the script. I direct the second participant to focus on a landmark and then the city that surrounds it. The chances are it will be Paris or Rome. I have found that Paris is the most frequently selected. The framing of the linguistics are so important in this force.

The very first force of Paris I ever heard was - “Think of a city with a landmark in it”. It felt so restrictive, and none impressive. I thought of a way of asking the same question in a different way. That is essentially the secret to a lot of the more impressive psychological forces. The linguistics that wrap up and hide the method. Notice how I ask the first participant to think of an area of the world, then focus on a country within that area of the world. This participant’s thought is irrelevant to me – Although knowing that the second person is likely going to be thinking of Paris I could use this piece of information as a one ahead to gain the country also (if I wanted). The second participant is the participant that is of interest to me. Look at the linguistics – Performer: “I want you to do something similar. Focus on a landmark… Or building and the city that surrounds it. Really focus on the smells and sounds in this city, the people.” I use the pause and restrict principle -

The pause and restrict principle The pause principle that is little known and to credit it where it came from is something that I have found impossible – In fact I have never seen another document that has talked about this principle, all I know is I have come across this principle in the past and I utilize it. The principle is psychological in nature and really helps restrict a participant to a singular thought. Here is an example – Performer: “I want you to simply think a colour for me and when you have that colour in mind think of something that is natural, organic that is that colour… (Pause until you see the participant start to think) or if you mentally struggle to do that, you can think of something that is manmade. It really doesn’t matter as long as you have something in mind that I could not guess. There are a few key factors that come into play here, the first is that you are waiting just slightly for the participant to start making their decision. This is important because the likeliness is that they are not going to change their thought process and will continue on that train of thought. This is the pause principle. The second subtlety (the restrict principle) is a subtlety I created to add to the pause principle. This is a subtlety that comes into play whilst using the line “If you mentally struggle”, look back up at the scripting. Do you think anyone is going to want to admit to mentally struggling? This line forces the participant to complete their initial thought as they want to prove that they can complete their natural thought. In the above example all you have to do is think of the colours that the participant could be thinking of – Red, Green, Yellow, Blue – and think of things that are natural that are connected to these colours.

I will go into detail more on ‘piggybacking later’, I feel this principle is the most important principle in this entire volume. Utilizing the pause principle in this context opens up something so beautiful, we obviously know we have forced the participant’s choice down to one of just a small number of objects all easily manageable but opened ourselves up to apply this line – Performer: “You could be thinking of something that is natural or manmade, any colour, shape or size. I really didn’t restrict you in anyway shape or form. There are well over a million different things that you could be thinking of right now”. This is a very cheeky script that can be applied after using the aforementioned principles, after funneling the participant into a small box you are able to remind them that they could be thinking of anything. I think this in itself is a thing of beauty. We will look into this principle in more depth later after learning other force applications.

Back to Paris force variation #1 Performer: “I want you to do something similar. Focus on a landmark… Or building and the city that surrounds it. Really focus on the smells and sounds in this city, the people.” Notice the use of the ‘pause and restrict’ principle, after mentioning landmark I pause – I let the participant start their process of thinking and then proceed with “OR BUILDING” – This line is the important line. The participant has already started thinking and therefore I know the landmark is going to override the building but it opens me up to be able to say – Performer: “I asked you to focus on a city, but to make it an interesting city, a city with something that stands out about that city like a building or landmark. If for example you had thought of the piece palace it might have been Den Hague in Holland or The Burj Kalifa in Dubai. There are well over 50,000 cities in the world and over 30,000 of those cities have something interesting about them that makes them unique”. After funneling the participant into one of a few cities, I then open up the amount of vast possibilities that were available to them whilst simultaneously reframing what I actually said. Take notice this line – “a city with something that stands out about that city, like a building or landmark”, I led with building as opposed to landmark and therefore the script about Piece palace or Burj kalifa completely stays consistent. This also serves as a way to create a false memory when the participant reiterates their experience to their friends later.

Paris Force Variation #2 This time we are going to use a very simple tactic to force Paris.

As Paris is widely known to have romantic ties we are going to exploit this in this particular force. This serves as a good example of how to create a psychological force – I will go into detail after the force that will exemplify (I haven’t used that word for a while) exactly what I mean. For this force to work, we are going to be creating a list of emotions then entice the participant to select the “Love” or “happiness” emotion and finally ask them to tie a city to that emotion. The script below outlines the force (feel free to play with it). Performer: “In a moment I am going to ask you to make a choice; this choice is something that is not tied to your life. I don’t want you to let your private thoughts become part of this; I want it to be random. Before you make any decisions, it’s essential to understand how we make decisions. No matter what decisions we make in life, we make them based on one specific emotion. I am sure you have made irrational decisions when in a negative frame of mind, we all have and on the other side of the coin made cool calculated decisions when thinking positively. I want you to choose an emotion, then use that emotion to make a decision. Clear your mind. Think of the words envy, Love (slight pause), Happiness or Sadness and while thinking of one of these emotions think of the first city that pops into your mind.” Then quickly add as a side note: Performer: “If you can't do that with the first emotion you think of, jump to one where you definitely can.” Notice the opening of the script, I practically tell the participant that if they choose a negative emotion, then they will be making an irrational decision. By getting them to vocalize that they have made irrational decisions when in a negative frame of mind, you will steer them away from the negative emotions because it will still be lingering subconsciously. Not only that I also stated at the start of the script that I do not want them to tie this to their private life, I need it to be random. Tell me how envy ties to a city? Or sadness? Or happiness? Love is the only emotion that really ties to a city at random. This might seem a simple force in writing, but the participant won’t be able logically break it down the way that it is laid out here. Another subtlety at play is one that I will go into more detail on later, love is “potently placed” in the most psychologically selected position and this also aids in upping the probability of love being selected.

Additional ideas – (Paris forces) As this is such a simple force to perform I feel that it is a good place to briefly look at the ‘Piggybacking princple’.

You can apply the piggybacking principle to this force in order to get the participant to think of another country (IF YOU SO WISHED). Be aware this adds extra process, if you are time conscious then I would suggest dismissing this additional particular idea but, if you are more the conversational performer then this can be a nice way to subtly guide the participant towards any country you wish (or name/ word but this will be something that we will discuss in more depth later). Here is a simple script to apply after you have forced Paris – Performer: “In-fact let’s make this a little bit more random, think of the country that this city exists within, think of the first letter of the country, go up the alphabet one letter and think of a completely new country starting with that letter. I cannot think of a fairer more random way to think of a city”. The country Paris exists within is obviously France, France starts with an F, the next letter up in the alphabet is the letter G and therefore the country must be Greece or Germany. This is not restrictive in terms of place/ subject area you can have the participant think of, by adjusting the way the participant moves up and down the alphabet and or the subject you want to force them toward.

Another interesting idea to add to the Paris force is contributed by Seamus Maguire (see contributions section of this volume for his other wonderful contribution). After you have forced the landmark upon the participant (without revealing it) then add, Performer: “I want you to imagine a gentleman standing at the side of whatever building/ landmark stands out to you in this city. He has quintessential regional name that is tied to that place you are thinking of - do you have an image of this man and his name in mind also?” Take a few seconds to read this – What name would you go for with France in mind? I will reveal the name just before the next section, you can see if you were right. What I personally feel is beautiful about Seamus’ idea is that you now have the choice to reveal either the name or the place that the participant is thinking of. In my opinion I think it is nicer to not name the place and slightly obscure the name so that the place is still in the participant’s mind and you can employ the ‘Bob principle’ or ‘Piggybacking’ later of the piece of information that was never said out loud and still Segway off into another effect for free. - What do I mean by that?

The name was ‘Pierre’ did you get that? The name I would reveal is the name Peter, not pierre. I am pretty sure that everyone knows the translation and therefore when you hit the name, the place is forgotten as it seems irrelevant. I wouldn’t focus on the routine as a place force, just a way to generate a name at random. This reveal is also more impressive from the audience’s perspective as a name like Pierre is really only relevant to France. Whereas Peter could be relevant to anywhere and your audience still don’t have a clue as to what the place is. I am sure with a little bit of thought you could also find names that are relevant to other countries to apply this same logic. I feel this is a perfect example of just how good piggybacking can be with a little bit of thought. A few years ago I added a contribution to a book by Dale Shrimpton that outlined an object force using a similar principle. If you can think of objects/ items that are widely known to be connected to a specific country or city and you can force that city with ease it is only a stone’s throw away from leading them to the object.

Creating psychological forces This is really going to be something that I am going to discuss briefly as you will see several times throughout this volume ways in which I construct psychological forces. When you need to force something psychologically the fastest way to start to construct a force is to focus on the most direct route to get to the participant to think of what you want and then slowly work away from that to the point it doesn’t seem so obvious. Here is an example – If I said to you, what is in the sky during the day time, yellow and large? The Sun right? Or name a famous reindeer? Rudolf right? (Sorry Art I couldn’t resist!) So taking the sun, we know it occurs in the daytime we know that it is yellow and we know it is in the sky. Let’s start obscuring the details, Performer: “The way our brain constructs particular images is really interesting, it is interesting in the sense that it will take the smallest characteristics of whatever it is we might be thinking of for example the smell, size, texture and construct these characteristics at such a speed that we see it in its entirety.

If for example you thought of a tangerine, our brains would envision the shape and sweet sugary smell, the colour and texture or its skin and then present our brain with the fact we are thinking of a tangerine faster than the speed of light. If I were to ask you to think of a colour you might likely think of the colour red, because this coffee cup is red (point to anything that is red) or green because it might be your favourite colour each one of those choices would be conscious and therefore contrived. I want this to be random, close your eyes think of a colour and then think of something that is that colour”. The participant might think of the colour blue or yellow now (these would be the most psychological colours chosen at this point). If the participant chose the colour yellow – the participant would think of a banana or the sun – I dismissed them thinking of a piece of fruit as I mentioned a tangerine in my previous script… How can this be random if it is the same as my thought? If the participant thinks of blue, they will likely think of the sea – By simply fishing for colour (without making it overtly obvious) if you know they have picked blue and they are going to draw the sea you could still take back the hit. Performer: “Whatever you are thinking of I want you to construct a full picture in your mind, so for example let’s say you had picked something completely random like a chicken, you might draw a barn or a tractor to construct and entire picture in your mind”. They will do this, the most obvious thing to do is draw a boat, some birds and on the top right (which is psychological in itself) the sun. To get the participant to think of the sun look at your participant and in the air draw an imaginary frame – Performer: “I want you imagine your picture filling the inside of this frame, I want you to focus on specific areas of this picture, firstly focus here (point to the bottom center) now here (the bottom right corner), here (the center), here (the top right where the sun is) focus here I find this interesting. This is the area of the photo I think I want you to focus on, I don’t know why I just feel it is”. Wallah! This is one way to force the sun. Another way might be to use a series of ‘reverse restrictions’ using the exact opposite to lead the participant to the thought. Performer: “Think of something at random like an object… (Pause) or thing be it natural/ organic like a flower or manmade like a key. When they have something in mind, let’s make this more random. If this is something you could hold or pick up in a moment we are going to change to something that you could not and vice versa but before you do that think of this.

If this is something that is small, make it something that is really big, if this is really big, make it something that is really small. If this is something - man made make this something natural or organic and vice versa. This just ensures that you are thinking of the sense that you are going with the exact the first place. I believe this force would I simply constructed it as I was writing to

something that is not statistically chosen, in opposite of whatever it is you committed to in force a tree or the sun – I have not tried it outline how I might construct a force.

Remember there is a simple rule, focus on the characteristics of the thing that you want to force ensure these are characteristics that if you asked your participant what it was you are thinking of they could simply answer for example – What has a steering wheel inside it? TO STRESS – You would never ask this question, but you would inch by inch see how far away you could get from asking this question (whilst still asking this question – if that makes sense?) and in the end what you will have is a psychological force that is not obvious to the participant, they will really feel that they could have had a free choice.

Germany/ Greece This force is again another simple force that utilizes the ‘Piggybacking principle’ – address the participant, Performer: “before you do this I am going to tell you that most people go for the number 3, I want this to be an entirely free choice. Think of the first number that pops into your mind and count along the alphabet that many letters so if you did choose 3 it would be C. When you arrive at that letter think of a country that starts with that letter. Here we are assuming the participant will think of the number 7. For the people reading this that are new to the whole area of psychological forces, I will quickly outline the ‘7 force’.

The Seven force/ other important pieces of information If you ask a participant to think of a number from 1-10 the likeliness is that a participant will choose 7, the second most popular psychologically chosen number is the number 3. These are the most psychological chosen numbers. The exact science behind this in all honesty I do not know but I can offer a theory that I believe is the reason why this works as solidly as it does. If you start by dismissing the number 3 (as outlined earlier) or by simply saying “Don’t go for three as everyone does” and then move onto asking the participant to think of a number BETWEEN 1 and 10, what happens In the participant’s mind is without consciously being aware of it they will dismiss the number 1 and 10 because you said BETWEEN 1-10, the number 3 is dismissed as is the number 2 and 4 as they are touching the number 3.

This leaves the numbers 5,6,7,8 and 9. The number 7 is right in the middle of all of those numbers and that is the reason I believe it is the most psychologically chosen number. I have also noticed that if I ask a participant (after dismissing the number three) to name the first number that pops into their mind the participant will almost always picks a singular digit and it is almost always the number 7. This is a really strange psychological oddity that exists within the subconscious of the mind. Try it – Try to put a slight amount of pressure on the participant when asking the question, be fairly assertive and the biggest secret to this sort of thing is to speed up your speech when you dismiss the number 3. This is implicit to the participant that their answer needs to be quick without you saying you need them to hurry or ever saying the word quickly. There is nothing worse than saying to a participant “Quickly name the first number that pops in your head”. I totally feel that this ruins the overall effect you are trying to convey and makes the performance seem rushed and it loses its power. The last thing I want is the participant to feel that they were pressured into making a choice. Knowing that the number 7 is psychologically chosen number, performers (magicians and mentalists) tend to go for the number 6 or the number 8. This is something that I have discovered from jamming with other performers. Another interesting thing to try out is the reverse logical of forcing the number 7 to force the number 3/ 4. Let’s for the sake of example say the participant is going to be asked to think of a number from 1-10 if you address your participant by saying, Performer: “Most people go for the number 7 when asked to think of a number between 1-10, if you were to envision seeing the number 7 in the forefront of your mind and then jumping back to another number like the number 9 for example. See it really largely like this” This is where you would draw the number nine (in reverse, so it is the right way around from the participant’s perspective). This will force the participant towards the number 3/ 4. If you get a little bolder you never need mention to the participant to think of a number from 1-10. If you use implication to have the participant believe they are only to select a number from 1-10 when you re-frame later you can point out that you never specified a cap on the size of the number they could have selected. Here is an example, Performer: “When asked to think of A (emphasize the letter A whilst holding up your forefinger) number you will find that most people will go for the number 7. If I asked

you to envision the number 7 on the forefront of your mind and jump back to A (emphasize again slightly and hold up your forefinger again) number like the number 9 for example what would it be?” This leads me to another point that in my haste I almost missed – If you ask the participant to THINK of a number, it gives them a chance to think about their choice and change their mind. The probability of the participant going for what we want is upped massively by asking the participant to name the number out loud. By naming the number out loud it doesn’t give the participant a chance to think and change their mind and adds an air of pressure to the entire situation without you specifically pressing the participant. If the participant thinks of 3/ 4 then you can also force – Canada/ Denmark by using the aforementioned force of Germany but using a reverse logic. Here is an outline of how to use this logic to get the participant to think of a name.

Invisible Dice force This is another reliable way to force the number 7, I outlined this force in the ‘Numbers’ volume in this series but as we are on the subject of piggybacking off of specific forces to create places/ names I think this fits aptly here. Performer: “I want you to imagine that you are holding a dice in your left hand and another in your right, in a moment, not yet, you are going to imagine rolling the two dice. Obviously each dice has the numbers 1-6 upon the faces, when you imagine rolling the dice I want you to see a different number on each dice when you roll them. One dice for example might be a 2 and the other dice might be a 6, if we added those together the total would be 8. The total is obviously going to be different each time you roll, the second time you roll the total might by 5. Imagine rolling the dice now, seeing the two numbers and then adding the two random numbers together”. This will usually as suggested above force the number 7. The reason it reliably forces the number seven is that you eliminate the numbers 1 and 6 by mentioning them. You then mention the number 2, the number 8 and the number 5. 2 can never be totaled as as the numbers on the dice have to be different. Psychologically this leaves the number 7 or the number 9. I can also open myself up for a second chance should it not hit the first time I ask the participant for a number – by saying “I am sure you know that each time you roll the dice it would be a different total if you were to roll them now for example, the total would be?”

If they say 7 then it is perfect and you have achieved what you set out to achieve. If they do not roll the number 7 it is fine, just simply say. Performer: “How fair is this? Roll them again the total will be different and we will go with whatever the next total is”. Look at the key line in the script I carefully crafted the words ‘for example’ into the script– this is placed really cleverly in the scripting in a place that means you can go with the total they give or point out that when they just rolled it would be an example. If they hit seven on the second roll you are golden, the first part will only ever be seen as an example. When you see how you can simply force a name using this technique (in the next example) you will see how much fun you can have with it.

Psychological force of a name Here is an example of how to use the force outlined for the country above to get the participant to think of a name and then determine what that name is.. Performer: “If I asked you off of the bat to think of a name the likeliness is that you would pick the name of someone that is connected to your life and the more skeptical people that are watching will possibly think that I overheard you on the phone or somehow profiled you on Facebook. I would like to propose a completely random way to think of a name. Follow me here. When asked to think of A (emphasize the letter A whilst holding up your forefinger) number you will find that most people will go for the number 7. If I asked you to envision the number 7 on the forefront of your mind and jump back to A (emphasize again slightly and hold up your forefinger again) number like the number 9 get one in mind. I am going to assume the number is under 26, count along the alphabet whatever number it is you are thinking of and then when you get there, think of the first name that pops into your head that starts with that letter. This ensures complete randomness, you didn’t know you were going to choose this number and therefore there is no way that you could have known what letter you were going to be thinking of and if you didn’t know the letter there is no way that you could have known what name you would have ended up thinking of”. [You will know if the participant has they won’t need to place their fingers be able to count along to the letter participant is having to count then it

chosen a letter near the start of the alphabet as behind their back to count on, they will mentally without too much effort. If you notice that the might be time to revert back to the trusty billet.

The names they will likely be thinking of are – Carl, Chris, Christine, David, Daniel and Danielle.] The first port of call is to determine the sex of the person the participant is thinking of. There are two ways to do this, the trusty closed question or a verbal dodge.

Option #1 Performer: “The name you are thinking of is not a male name is it?” If the participant answers with a yes, simply respond with – “I thought as much” with a slight smile that suggested that you knew it was a male name. If the participant answers with a no, simply respond with – “I didn’t think as much” with a slight smile again that suggests you suspected their answer. Option #2 (my preferred option) This is a verbal dodge that really works well, it’s as simple as watching the participant’s reaction – Performer: “I feel with you, you went for a male name (pause *for reasons you will understand in a moment*) but then you changed at the last second to a female name”. You are pausing very slightly to see the participant’s reaction to the male statement. If they respond positively with a confirmation that you are right, you don’t need to counter. The reaction if the participant is confirming you are right should be instantaneous, if you see a slight, slight hesitation in the participant’s reaction quickly counter with – “but then you changed to a female name”. This is where you seemingly hit from the participant’s perspective but cleverly whilst seeming to hit find out the answer to the most important question – Is the name they are thinking of male or female? Now you have established the sex of the name the participant is thinking of, it’s time to hone in on the name. There are several principles available to whittle down the amount of names to a couple and then you can use a mechanical principle to get down to one. One principle is Michael Murray’s incredible ‘CUPS principle’ – by simple asking the participant, “Can you think of the exact amount of letters in the name you are thinking of?” By gauging the reaction of the participant’s affirmation you should essentially know if the same is a short one or a long one. This will reduce the number of possibilities. Another one is to apply the ‘Wash principle’ – This has been outlined a few times in this series but fits perfect here –

The Wash Principle The Wash Principle can be used verbally or physically. This principle (when used wisely) will reduce your miss rating massively. In this instance, we will pretend we are working with letters as opposed to anything else. Let's start with using the wash principle in a physical scenario.

We will imagine we are fishing for a letter someone is thinking of out of a series of letters, just to give this a real world context we will imagine we are coming toward the end of a routine (like a word divination). We have deduced after reducing the participant’s choices down to two letters (via whatever process). For the sake of this hypothetical situation we will say the letters are F and G. Address the participant, Performer: “Focus on the first letter in this person’s name? Imagine drawing the letter in the air; imagine seeing all the different lines and the way that letter is constructed. Concentrate for me but don't say anything out loud.” This is where you pick one of the letters and start to draw the letter in the air. (We will imagine the participant is thinking of the letter F). Remember to draw the letter from the participant’s perspective, in essence you are drawing it backwards. Watch the participant’s face; if they react by starting to smirk, you know it's that letter! If not, wipe the air clean and shake your head as though you are not seeing it clearly. Secretly we now know what the letter is based off of the participant’s reaction. Ask them to re-focus on the name and proceed with your effect. Even if you didn’t hit, you corrected yourself and therefore have NEVER missed. The theatrics are beautiful here also as it really is just two minds working in unison. You can see how this would be useful if you are torn between two pieces of any information. Return to effect*** When you got down to two names, write one name on a billet and place it sticking out of your breast pocket (writing towards the chest), if you are not wearing a suit jacket, simply place the billet face down on the table and tell the participant it will be important later and not to worry too much about it for the meanwhile.

Greg vs Gary This is bold, but awesome – Simple and effective. For a female participant Performer: “We are going to create a fictional situation, a fictional first kiss – This has to be entirely random, I want you to think of the first number that pops into your mind, then count along to the letter that falls at that number. A would be 1, B would be 2 and so on and so forth. When you reach that letter, think of the first name that pops into your mind that begins with that letter – This will be your fictional first kiss. This ensures that we are not

revealing anything personal and at the same time it would prove if I could guess this I could guess any name you were thinking of”. For a male participant – Performer: “We are going to create a fictional situation, a fictional best friend from school – This has to be entirely random, to ensure this is random I want you to think of the first number that pops into your mind, then count along to the letter that falls at that number. A would be 1, B would be 2 and so on and so forth. When you reach that letter, think of the first name that pops into your mind that begins with that letter – This will be your fictional first kiss. This ensures that we are not revealing anything personal and at the same time it would prove if I could guess this I could guess any name you were thinking of”.

Another principle that you can use to force a name/ country is a principle I have discussed in the past but is purely psychological and I feel fits perfect here – ‘The increment force’.

The increment force This force, as I am sure you will come to realise, is a lovely little force. There are a number of applications for this force. Let your imagination run wild. I am currently exploring lots of applications for this force and will detail my findings in my “Book of the demons” Variation #1: The performer asks a participant to think of any letter of the alphabet—the participant never says this out loud. The performer also says very little and only talks when he is instructing the participant. The performer then asks the participant to take that letter and to think of a country that starts with that letter. The performer is able to deduce the country.

Breakdown This force can be used to force anything that goes up in increments (or anything that goes up sequentially; i.e., 5, 10, 15), and more than that it also teaches a valuable lesson (I think) about how to take things that are not considered useful within a specific art and, with a little bit of work and refinement, make them incredible and totally practical. The original concept goes back to the “stop force” or “timing force” using playing cards. Don’t worry, this effect isn’t done using any cards at all, but to understand how it works you need to understand the timing force.

This is also referred to as the “stop force” or the “dealing force.” To quickly refresh your memory, it’s the force where the performer deals down the cards one at a time at a particular pace and the performer asks the participant to say stop at any point, which usually forces the sixth card. The first thing I did with the force was to eliminate the cards and to replace them with a beautiful invisible piece of theatre. I hope you enjoy what I have done with it. To start with I will explain how the stop force is done with playing cards (after all, this is a great way to practice the pacing). At first this will seem bold, but I promise once you have the timing down, it is so easy and will work 99% of the time. Take a deck of playing cards and place a force playing card in the sixth position. When you are sitting with a participant, start to deal down at a moderate pace. When you have dealt two cards, look at the subject and say: Performer: “just, say stop.” (Say it in a tone that suggests that they should have known they were saying stop. Their brain will freak out at this point and they will say stop on the sixth card. Get the pacing down, and once you have, you can force any number. The card they stop at will always be four cards after you have said, “Yeah, say stop.” That is, if you want to force the tenth card, then use the stop line after the sixth card and then they will stop on the tenth.) Once you have gotten used to the pacing and you’re comfortable, you are ready to practice the Increment Force. Here is the scripting/difference between the Timing Force and the Increment Force. Performer: “In a moment when I ask you to think of something, it's essential that you say nothing out loud. “If I ask you a question of give you an instruction do not say anything out loud. Do you understand?” If the participant responds, remind them not to talk. (This may sound like overkill, but it's essential and it ensures things go the way we want.) Performer: “I am going to touch the air like this (tap a full stop in the air). Every single time I touch the air like this (touch a different spot in the air), I want you to imagine letters of the alphabet going up in increments.” Here we will give the participant a demonstration. Touch the air while simultaneously saying, “A,” touch the air again and simultaneously say, “B,” and repeat for C. Whilst doing this, remember the pace of dealing down the cards as

the same pace is going to apply theoretically; it is like you are dealing invisible playing cards into the air (without making a dealing motion). Performer: “In a moment I am going to do this without saying a word. The only time I will say anything is if I want to give you an instruction. It’s essential you count in your mind up through the letters every time I touch the air. Do you understand that?” This will force them to verbalize a Yes or physically nod their head. When they do you want to remind them: Performer: “Stay as still as possible and don’t say anything. “Are you ready?” Start to touch the air (implying the same pace as you would deal a playing card onto the table). After the second air touch, say: Performer: “Just think stop.” This will force the letter “F” (or somewhere in that very near vicinity)—I rarely miss on this. Continue to touch the air but increase the pace after a few letters, and when you have estimated you have counted all the letters, wipe the air clean. The number of touches really doesn’t matter as the participant stops counting after they have stopped on a particular letter. (This will subtly suggest that you went through the entire alphabet and the subject had the free choice to stop anywhere. More importantly, this is beautifully theatrical). Address the participant: Performer: “You are now thinking of a random letter, and neither of us said anything out loud; everything was done in our minds alone. Do you agree that letter was a completely free choice?” Participant: “Yes.” Performer: “I would now like you to think of a country that starts with that letter. This ensures that there is no way I could have somehow influenced you to think of a country, as fate decided what letter you would stop on, and that ultimately helped you make the decision on the country.” I would like to remind you that you are not just limited to forcing the letters in the region of the letter “F.” Here is an example of how you could force the letter “I.” Continue to touch the air until you point to the letter “E” and then apply the line, “Yeah, think stop.” This would force the letter “I.” The reason this works is it forces the participant to just stop a few letters after the letter “E.” If you wanted to force another letter for whatever reason, it’s easy as long as you remember this line: “A few before.” What do I mean by that?

I would go to the letter I wanted to force (let’s say we wanted K). I would then count a few letters back, K – J – I – H, and that would be the letter “H” and therefore that is the letter on which I would apply the line. As you can see this force relies on the old timing force. I would suggest that if you are comfortable forcing the number 7 using this technique (instead of letters) then you can also apply a simple principle to get the participant to move wherever you want the participant to move. This is as simple as saying, “there is no way I could know what number you are thinking of, in fact let’s make it more random add 2 onto whatever number you are thinking of”. If you tied this to letters, the 7th letter would be the letter G and we know we can comfortably force this. By asking the participant to add two to their number (before asking them to tie the number to a letter) then you know they will be thinking of the letter I. Again I have just taken something that is mechanical in workings and made it psychological. This particular force is great for countries as there are a restricted amount of countries that the participant could think of.

Something small but interesting When you read this you will instantly dismiss it, I know that because it’s not an effect and reading it on paper you will never understand the power it has on the participant. This is for the psychological performer as opposed to the more esoteric performer. But as an esoteric performer you could utilize this too (I do occasionally). This is situational, at every show I have ever done there is always one person that puts what I do down to NLP or Body Language or asks me if it plays a part in it. I always explain now (as a more esoteric performer) – “When I first started doing this I studied that sort of thing massively and made a conscious effort to utilize it at any chance I got but to be honest after years and years of doing this it sort of become second nature. In fact I remember the very first thing that I learnt, let me show you”. This is the set up for the more esoteric performer, if you are a psychological performer you never really need to explain anything. -

Like I said you are going to find this really silly, but I promise you the participant will totally buy into this and give you credit for nothing.

Address your participant, Performer: “What I need you 2 do is 4-get any suggestions you might think I am throwing at you, it is essential you have the 3-dom of choice during this experiment. I want you to name the first number that pops into your mind”.

As I say ‘mind’ I snap my fingers and extend five fingers toward the participant (like my hands are demonstrating a mini explosion from the front of my brain). Your work is done. It doesn’t matter what the participant names – Let me explain if the participant says the number one simply say – “The way this works is simple, remember I said tell me the FIRST number that pops into your head”. Two would be – “The way this works is simple, think back to what I said, what I need you TWO do is”. Three would be – “The way this works is simple, think back to what I said, I said you have the THREEDOM of choice”. Four would be – “The way this works is simple, remember I said FOURGET any suggestion you think I am throwing at you”. Five would be – “Remember the very last thing I did? I snapped my fingers and did this right? How many fingers were I holding up?” You simply recite the script that is relevant to whatever the participant named out loud. Since the participant believes in stuff like this (as they asked you) and cannot remember what you said any bit of script you highlight they are completely going to remember. They will always take it as a hit and you will get credit for nothing. If the add up moving name a say.

participant names a seven for example just highlight two parts of the script that to that number and explain that is why they went for that number. This is about yourself verbally to adapt the participant’s choice. I have never really had anyone double digit but its fine if they do just learn to adapt yourself to whatever they

This doesn’t just apply to numbers, you can create scripts for any area of mentalism. I find with numbers the script is simple to remember and you are ready to use it a moment’s notice. Always take credit for any hit you can get for free, I feel as well this answers perfectly the participant’s question. I would suggest at the end of doing this to act like you have just experienced a nostalgic experience you could even smile and say “I haven’t done that for years”.

Macro! This comes from totally being inspired by the way Bob Cassidy thinks and acts. Bob talks about opening every stage act with a ‘Macro effect’ as opposed to a ‘Micro effect’. What he means by this is an effect that is performed on the entirety of the audience instead of one or two individuals.

I totally agree with this way of thinking, this creates a fail-safe in which you can perform any psychological effect and not have to worry about failure. You can do this when you are performing to three people (I’d say this is the minimum number) up to as many as you like. As you know that the majority of the room is going to be thinking of whatever it is that you are forcing – You can frame this as a test of being receptive to suggestion. I frame this as a test to separate the senders of information and the receivers. I would usually frame it like this – Performer: “Before I can get into anything I need to be able to separate the room into two groups, the first - those who are adept at transmitting information and the second those who are proficient at receiving information. When transmitting or receiving information the brain acts very much like a cell phone. That is probably the best analogy I can create, if you think about the way a cell phone operates if two people try to call each other simultaneously the call can never connect, if two people are waiting for the other to call obviously the call can never connect. The only way that a call can successfully connect is if one party makes the call and the second party is receptive to answer that call. That is why it is necessary to know who is going to be good at transmitting information and who is going to be good at receiving information”. This is where you would perform your psychological force, now it is a test to separate the two groups and there is no focus on failure as the audience will put down those who received the information as good receivers and those who didn’t as good senders. There is NO failure. Think about this, in a close up group knowing who is good at sending or receiving information (even though we are using this as a pseudo excuse) is important to remember. Because there is a small number of people, it is likely that the audience will remember if the others in the group were senders or receivers. You need to take this into consideration in your performances. If there is ever a spectator as mind reader routine, then you might remember to choose a participant that was better at ‘receiving information’ if you are going to guess a piece of information you might pick someone who is better at sending information. If you are going to perform a routine such as do as I do (a self-working variation) you might pick one sender and one receiver. Try to stay consistent with the opening effect. When using a macro effect I highly recommend utilizing ‘Harvesting’ from ‘Psychological subtleties two’ – Banachek. This is not my principle to tip, but it is very, very clever.

One thing I can share is what this principle inspired me to create – This is not similar to Banachek’s principle but if it wasn’t for his amazing principle I would have never created this -

The Nando’s principle/ Culling Nando’s for those who don’t know is a chain of restaurants in the U.K, I didn’t name this principle the Nando’s principle, Mark Chandaue did. I shared this principle with Mark in Nando’s and from that day forward he’s always called it ‘The Nando’s principle’. This fits in here as a way to dismiss a psychological force (or any other type of force) as a random choice. For example – Let’s say we were performing a psychological force of a name and the name was ‘Fred’ (this is purely an example, but possible with the forces in this volume) we will say for example that we know for a fact it has hit (I know we can’t for sure but this principle can be applied to a routine where you billet read and can be sure). Just before you come to the reveal look around the room and point at random people (people that the participant is never going to approach) and say – I feel this lady would have gone for Jack or Jake, this gentleman Paul, this lady I would say Lauren you see it’ all about getting a feeling for it. What did you go for?” Participant: “Frank”. Performer: “Turn the piece of card over and see what I thought you might go for”. When the participant turns over the piece of card and it hits, it also confirms the fact that the random people you pointed at would have thought of the names that you said they would think of and you get the credit for those hits too! This is also clever as it dispels the idea that everyone would think of the same thing. It essentially quashes the psychological force and makes the reveal more impressive.

Hidden in plain sight One of the biggest secrets when performing psychological forces is probably going to be one of the smallest segments in this volume. This is the art of learning how to hide predictions in plain sight (so you can use them or dismiss them). It is essential when performing psychological forces to utilize mechanical outs to ensure that you don’t have to have the guilt of failure. I have NEVER felt guilt when I am performing, I always liken any psychological performance to ‘The trick that cannot be explained’ the reason I liken it to that particular effect, is that your participant does not know where you are going with the direction of the effect. I am not scared of trying for the hit and if I miss simply saying “Ok this tells me – “.

Then I create a logical statement as to how that person thinks. You will notice I never filled out what it tells me about the participant, the reason I have purposefully left out what to say is because it has to be different each time. I can however give you an example of what I say. Performer: “Ok this tells me that you think slightly outside the curve of what is considered the norm, which is good as it tells me you are constantly refining your thoughts and the best way to describe the way your brain works is organized chaos. Loyal and consistent in your thought process”. This way if the psychological force does not hit, it only seems like a test to see how your participant thinks. Remember they do not know what needs to happen in order for you to do what you do and the likeliness is that the participants have never seen this stuff in person before. If you are in paid performance the census is that you are “Paid to hit” – So you need to learn to utilize certain techniques in order to give yourself more chances when performing routines like this. Let’s hypothetically say that you have reduced the participant down to two different possible outcomes. On a billet write one of the possible outcomes – While saying – “This is going to be important later” place this face down on the table. “Be honest did you go for XXX?” If the performer says you were correct (revealing this verbally) then it’s a hit. Simply point to the piece of paper address the second participant, Performer: “I did say that this was going to be important”. Proceed into a second routine and just before you come to the reveal simply say – Performer: “In-fact, I am going to change this I think my first thought was wrong”. Remove it from the table and then simply write down whatever is relevant to the second effect. As you can see the physical prediction is easily cleaned up. If however you say to participant one – “Did you go for XXX?” and they say NO, simply counter with “Out of interest what did you go for?” They will then say whatever it is that you wrote on the piece of card you simply say, Performer: “I did say this would be important, please turn it over”. Another little subtlety is the broken heart out –

The broken heart (out) This is an out for any occasion, it really is stunning (in my opinion). I always loved the notion of pocket writing, but always struggled with the transparency of the process (no matter how good the performer).

Maybe out of guilt or the fact that I felt pocket writing was illogical, I came up with a logical answer which eliminated the thought of any type of pocket writing being utilized. In-fact from the participant’s perspective it would eliminate the notion of writing in the pocket and give you a solid hit in any situation. I will write this idea up in the context of as an effect, so you create a vision as to how this plays out in a routine.

Effect (broken heart) The performer asks a randomly selected participant to think of any piece of information; the performer then starts to read the participant slowly revealing pieces of information directly from the participant’s mind. The performer then picks up a stack of business cards and looks directly into the participant’s eyes, after a few seconds the performer commits himself to a piece of information by writing upon one of the business cards. The performer then places the card in full view and proceeds to guess smaller pieces of information from the participant, pieces of information surrounding the participant’s private life and just before coming to the big reveal the performer decides to change his mind on the thought he had previously committed to on the business card. The performer tears up the business card, quickly writes a new thought on another business card and then places that business card face down in place of the previously committed thought. The performer then places the torn pieces and stack into his pocket, removing them from the equation. He then looks sincerely at the participant and asks the participant to state out loud the thing he is thinking of, Participant: “A pair of curtains”. The performer looks dismayed for a few seconds and proclaims, Performer: “All night I have constantly spoke about the value of following our own instincts and intuition. I second guessed myself at the last second. I think this will serve as prove as to why we should always trust our instincts”. The performer reaches into his pocket taking out the torn pieces from earlier, he places the pieces together so that the audience can clearly read the word written upon the card (in joined up handwriting) "Curtains". This sounds amazing uh? Obviously there is no way you could pocket write (with joined up handwriting) on two pieces of torn card, so how do we seemingly accomplish this impossible feat? Try this -

Take a stack of business cards, hold them horizontally (landscape) and stare at them (blank side facing toward you). Make a tear in the middle (at the bottom horizontal edge) of the face card. The tear should be just over a centimeter going upwards towards the center of the card (if you were to continue pulling upward it would tear the card in half). Place two business cards on top of this "prepared" business card so that the prepared card is the third card down from the face. You are ready to perform. In the context of psychological forces this ‘out’ gives you a second (or third chance if you use the aforementioned billet subtlety). Write the thing you are forcing on the face card, leave it face down on the table for a period of time whilst you ‘read the participant’ – For more information on reading participants see the ‘Readings’ volume in this series. The reading is the motivation for changing the piece of card on the table, after deciding you want to change your mind, pick up the business card (keeping it toward yourself) and tear it in half. Place the two pieces face down on the table. Write a new ‘prediction’ the reason I have inverted the word prediction is because you are essentially writing your second out. Place this out face down on the table and then place the stack (which should now have the ripped card on the face) and pieces (ensuring they go onto back of the stack as not to obstruct the face of the card with the rip in it). The stack and the ripped cards go into your pocket. Ask the participant what they are thinking of. This is where you will deliver the line about trusting your instincts – The participant’s focus is completely going to be on the business card on the table. As you deliver the line about instincts, write the word the participant said. Be really casual when writing remember the audience and participant’s focus in on the business card on the table. After you finish delivering the intuition line, fiddle in your pocket like you are fishing for the ripped pieces. Whilst in reality you are grabbing one of the ripped edges on the face of the prepared card and you begin tearing upward as you bring it out of your pocket. Bring out one piece and then go back in directly for the other half of the prepared card. Your pocket will dampen the sound of the card being torn. The audience see torn pieces go into your pocket and torn pieces come out. A quick additional subtlety that works well with this – If you want be greedy and you hit what the participant was thinking of on the nose (with the piece of card you changed your mind to). By simply asking the participant, “Out of interest what did you change your mind from?”

You can then use the ‘broken heart out’ to suggest that you not only predicted what they changed their mind to, but what they changed their mind from!

Utilizing mathematical means to create psychological forces Some of the forces listed above even though they are incredibly solid, there is nothing wrong with using mathematical techniques to create a solid foundation in which a psychological force can be built upon. Everybody remembers the “Grey elephants in Denmark” gambit. When we look at that force it seems so simple and we dismiss it as a trick for kids or beginners BUT if the mathematical process was smaller and less known and there were a purpose for the reason the person was thinking of a country and it was imbedded into a bigger process that was story based the effect could be completely baffling. I once read an article (I cannot remember where) that said as soon as an audience see a red silk come out of a performers hand an audience instantly associate it with a thumb tip (if the audience know about the existence of the trusty thumb tip). The article then went on to say that if you simply change the colour of the silk to white, because the audience cannot buy thumb tips with a white silk and are accustomed to the red silk they lose the mnemonic that ties them to the method. This will ultimately mean that they are fooled by a method that they already know. I feel that this principle could/ should apply to any area of mentalism. By simply changing the process that the audience are used to and then ending the routine somewhere else it is completely possible to fool the audience with the same methods. There are a lot of strange oddities that exist in the world of math. IF you can find certain equations that always add to a specific number then you are set to force any host of information – This is really an area of field that I am naïve in, and I am exploring one such force (that I feel has too much process right now but in the future watch this space) that could be interesting. I will outline this just so that you can see how this turns out, it is really interesting and yet I cannot explain how/ why it works it just does. I am not going to offer any mathematical forces – As I want to stay in kin with the psychological nature of this volume. But with a bit of searching, it shouldn’t be hard to find/ create your own. If I take my date of birth – 26 October The date and month would be 26 10 Add those numbers together gives me 36 –

Whilst you are reading this, do the same for your birthdate, lets for example sake say you were born 15 1 Your total would be 16. If I took my total 36 and multiplied it by 16 it would total = 576 Add these digits together it 5+7+6= 18 Times my total by yours, and then add each of the digits of that total together and I bet it totals 18! Maybe this has something to do with the mystical qualities of the number 9 (I don’t know) like I said the process is still far too long but I think it is just strange how it works. As each time I do this it equals 18 I could reduce it down further. Anyway onwards!

Lead and pace This is quickly becoming a favourite of mine, I am currently sat in Dubai and have just performed this three times in a row to a small group at dinner. The census of the table is that I must have spent years upon years training my brain to influence waves that the participant in this ‘mind game’ (they kept calling it) can somehow pick up on elements of. This on paper is something that I cannot write in depths about, because we would be here forever and the possibilities are vast. This effect requires initiative and the ability to think on your feet. I am going to create connections and a path for you to use to guide your spectator. The rest is down to you, I want to go off on a tangent (like I do every volume) on how this is going to help you outside of this volume. I will then get back to the effect. This is all about quickly finding and creating natural connections/ characteristics or ties (or binaries/ opposites) to whatever is named. Here is an example. Apple -

Tree, Natural, red, green, round, light, hand held, food, good for you, phone, technology, Steve jobs and many, many more.

As you can see these are a quick set of connections/ characteristics that can be applied easily without too much thinking. You may be wondering what this has to do with the rest of your work or material. Well it is a key attribute to add to it when revealing information. It is always devastating for me to watch when performers simply reveal information like it is the easiest thing on the planet with no process, no journey for the audience, no way for them to make a leap in a logical sense and the guess from the performer seems to comes from nowhere.

By creating commonalities/ characteristic (in your head) during performance you not only have extra information to use as hits but the audience also feel like you have figured out more than you have and will give you credit for more than. If the participant is thinking of an object like a mobile phone, instead of just revealing that it is a phone, reveal its approximate weight, texture, the fact it’s handheld and other qualities. I also employ a subtlety whilst doing this to up the hit I call this “at the center of ambiguity”. This is a short essay. I know you are thinking, “Another essay…pfft.” Trust me, this one will be worth it. It will take your mind reading and make it seem credible, and only takes a couple of moments to learn. I only ever once shared this with a close friend of mine, and watching the results have been amazing. Let’s set up a hypothetical situation: You have asked someone to think of a random object, item or thing. You got the peek and they have written “Sunshine.” - I know, this is a psychological force volume, bear with me, this is purely hypothetical. We come to revealing the word. I personally never ask someone to think of a letter in the middle (Banachek’s “Brain game”). The reason I don’t ask someone to think of a letter in the middle is that is not how we logically look at words. We look at them sequentially. With digits I think there is more of a logical justification for using “Brain Game,” which for the record I think is awesome in this context and something I totally use. The only time I would ever ask someone to think of a letter in the middle of a word is if the method depended upon it. Don’t think for one second you have to follow my logic. That is the great thing about mentalism, every one of us has our own way to do things and I am simply offering my perspective. Back to revealing the word. I would start by revealing the first letter; I think it makes the most logical sense. The important thing here is to show process. After you have revealed the first letter, in the audience’s eyes (no matter how big or small the audience is), revealing the word at this point is only a stone’s throw away and is psychologically not that impressive, we need to take back the power. To make the entire thing a lot more impressive, you are going to get the people watching (the audience) trying to guess for themselves. The participant’s brains will naturally try to do this if you drop a few clues. In this context the word is ‘Sunshine’, you have to think fast and in your mind create as many ambiguous terms you can think of – We are going to try and distance the audience from the word sunshine. Here are several examples of scripts/ terms that are ambiguous when thinking about sunlight: Beams, potentially dangerous, I don’t know why but I get a real sense of happiness, this is something that changes the way people look. You wouldn’t throw these scripts out like this, it would be scripted along these lines.

Performer: “I feel this is something that could be potentially dangerous, I don’t know why I am getting this though it is also something that can change your mood and is connected to happiness even though it could be dangerous. Am I right in saying that this could change your appearance?” Because the audience knows the “thing” starts with the letter S, and because we have strategically dropped in some of the ambiguous clues above, the audience will start to make a guess as to what the thing is and of course you have taken them way off base. It will be very, very difficult if not almost impossible for the audience to guess because you have led them off the path and all of this whilst simultaneously convincing the participant that you are picking up on elements of the thing of which they are thinking and getting closer to their target thought. This is a really interesting yet strange logic, getting closer to the participant’s thoughts whilst leading the audience away from it. This is important as when you come to revealing the “thing,” from the audience’s perspective it is completely impressive as they will be way off base and wonder how you got so close. In short you are subtly convincing your audience that just because you revealed the first letter of a word, does not mean that it is easy to figure out what that word is. Think about this subtlety and how you could apply it to your mentalism; it really is worth taking the time to adapt to your existing performances. Anyway sorry for the tangent.

Back to the effect I start by writing the word ‘Car’ on a business card. The first game I always write something simple that the participant could easily pick up on. Each game after this I really can write whatever I want. I have found by starting with something simple it is easier to guide the participant to what I have written and at the same time teach the participant the way the game plays out. Not only that there is a chance that the participant will go for that word instantly. I set up the game as thus, Performer: “The likeliness is that the thing that you name out loud will be completely wrong but you will surprise yourself at how your subconscious brain can pick up on certain similarities. I have written something down what is it?” Participant: “A shoe”. Performer: “I did say that the likeliness is that you will be completely wrong but you will be surprised at how your subconscious brain can pick up on certain similarities and connections.

I want you to stick to answering these questions with similarity in mind. Do you think the thing I am thinking of is natural/ organic or manmade?” Participant: “Manmade”. Performer: “A shoes purpose is for travelling in, what does a shoe need in order to move?” Participant: “A Person”. Performer: “What else do you feel need a person to make it move?” Participant: “A car”. Performer: “Had you of said a flower to start with, you would have been naming natural or organic items/ objects. If you had of named an inanimate object or thing you would have been naming inanimate natural objects or things like an orange. You can see how different this could have been. I think you will find it strange how your brain leads you to these things”. Point towards the piece of card and when the participant turns it over it will be a hit! Note to reader – I have had participant’s instantly name car several times as the first thing that they name. When this happens don’t even play a second game! Let’s look at this again and imagine that the participant had selected a flower to start with (we know this is the exact opposite of a car). Performer: “The likeliness is that the thing that you name out loud will be completely wrong but you will surprise yourself at how your subconscious brain can pick up on certain similarities. I have written something down what is it?” Participant: “A flower”. Performer: “I did say that the likeliness is that you will be completely wrong, because it was a guess and the likeliness is that the thing I am thinking of is the exact opposite to the thing you are thinking of. I want you to stick to answering these questions with having the opposite in mind. Do you think the thing I am thinking of is natural/ organic or manmade?” Participant: “Manmade”. [Of course the participant is going to go for manmade as you said to think with opposites in mind.) Performer: “A flower isn’t something that moves or travels from place to place, so with that in mind what do you think I could have potentially wrote down?” Participant: “A car”.

[If the participant names something else you simply continue using this process of guiding your participant towards whatever it is you have written down to lead to what it is you have written). If you want to play this game a second time the likeliness is that the second game the participant might accidentally end up changing the rule of the way you pace. What I mean by this is, say the first game the participant named something with similarities there is a chance that in the second game the participant will select something that is an exact opposite and vice versa. So we can cover ourselves by saying – Performer: “The next game is a lot more difficult, the reason being is that your brain might work one of two ways it might have gotten comfortable and take you further away from the thought I have committed to or it might have become more receptive. That is the outcome I am hoping for, if it does get more receptive you would not believe the subconscious similarities that the brain can create”. This is where you proceed with the second game and lead your participant’s with clever questions and links/ opposites to the thing you have written down. Once you get this down it is quick and effective and easy to force your participant towards the one thing you have committed to. This on paper seems really obvious and not much of an effect, try it in person you would not believe how simple and effective this is. I recommend using things that you can easily psychologically force – Your out then is if you are struggling or find the participant is going miles off of base simply employ the psychological force to get them back on track. Once you get good at this you can more or less force anything at all.

It’s all in the tips This is something that I am still investigating, the routine I love and I am certainly going to be implementing this into my work in the future. I love this routine and I feel it is a very clever way to guess the name a participant is thinking of. I will first list a full performance and then outline the method by breaking down the performance. –

Full performance We will assume that the participant is acquainted with the performer and he has already performed for the participants.

The performer addresses the participant, Performer: “The notion of guessing things people are thinking of has always been fascinating to me, more often than not when it is something that cannot be logically explained the people who witness such feats put the explanation down to me somehow profiling them just to make things in their world logically make sense again. Sometimes if I feel that if that is what those people need to put their mind to rest I will of course leave them to believe what they wish. If however I feel sometimes however that the sitter wants go further down the rabbit hole I will prove this is not the case. So I ask you, do you want to go further down the rabbit hole?” Participants in unison: “Yes!!” Performer: “I am going to ask you both to create a name together, but if I asked you to think of a name the likeliness is that you will think of a name that is connected to your life or if you were both conferring then I might over hear you. I would like you (addressed at participant one) to start by thinking whether the name you are going to be creating is going to be a male or a female name, don’t say anything out loud. Place both of your hands behind your back, holding all of your fingers out stretched. If you decided that you are going to be creating a male name we will solely be working with your right hand and if it is a female we will be solely be working with your left hand. Do you know which hand you are working with?” Participant: “Yes.” Performer: “I want you to imagine this finger (the performer touches his pinky) is number one, this number two (the performer touches his ring finger), this is number three (the performer touches his middle finger), this is number four (the performer touches his forefinger) and this is number five (the performer touches his thumb). I want you to think of a number from one to five have you got one?” Participant: “I have”. Performer: “Change your mind entirely, remember this is number one (points to the pinky) and this is five (points to the thumb) I want you to collapse the finger you are thinking of on the hand you decided we would be working with”. The participant confirms they have done that. Performer: “Let’s make this even more random, you know the number you are thinking of right?” Participant: “I do”.

Performer: “I want you to move that many times from the finger you are thinking of in any direction. If you were thinking of the number two you would move two times, three, three times BUT only move one finger at a time and don’t jump from end to end”. The performer touches his thumb and then pinky to emphasize his point. Performer: “You are now on a brand new finger or coincidentally the same but it is certainly something I could not have pre-empted or predicted. Please do not forget which finger you are thinking of, extend all of your fingers so I do not know which finger you are thinking of and then bring your hands out and hold your hands palm up fingers extended”. The participant does as required. The performer then addresses the second participant, Performer: “I am going to touch each of (participant one’s name) fingers and as I touch each one I want you to call out a letter at random”. The performer then looks at participant one and addresses them. Performer: “Whatever letter (participant two’s name) calls out at the finger you are thinking of remember”. The performer starts to touch participant one’s fingers in turn. Participant two: “K, D, A, F, G, S, L, P, O and G”. The performer addresses participant one. Performer: “Whatever letter you are thinking of, think of a name that begins with that letter, remembering if the name is going to be male or female”. Participant one: “I have one”. Performer: “I don’t think there is a fairer way to do this, let’s recap what happened. I asked you to think of a random number, then change your mind and then I even gave you the opportunity to move finger. Then I asked you (participant two) to call out random letters as I touched each of (participant ones) fingers and finally asked (participant one) to think of a name starting with the letter that falls at the random finger they are thinking of. I don’t think this could have been fairer had you (participant one) think of a random number had the number been different the finger that was tied to it would have been different. You would then when asked to change finger moved a different amount of times and the finger you ended up on would have been different. If you had called out different letters, this would have been different and finally there are several names pertaining to both sexes that then start with the one random letter that happened to be chosen by you (points to participant one). Are we completely happy this is random and fair?” The participants in unison: “Of course”.

Performer addressing participant two, Performer: “Do you have any idea what (insert participant ones name) is thinking of?” Participant two: “Not a clue”. Performer: “I think this serves to show just how fair this is”. The performer looks towards participant one and goes through the process of reading them, he takes out a pad and writes down a name. Performer: “What is the name you are thinking of?” Participant: “David”. The pad is turned around to show that the name he wrote matches!

Breakdown In writing this seems like a long process, in actual performance it is not at all. It plays out quickly and seems so fair. The amount of utilities that I am developing using this principle is crazy. The first phase in this routine is utilizing - ‘restricting without seeming restrictive’. I need to ensure I can have some control on the finger that the participant is going to choose. For this I use a variation on ‘Kane’s Variant’ created by Peter Kane. Let me attempt this with you the reader. Think of a number from one – five and change your mind a few times. When you have settled upon a random number extend your left hand in front of your face palm toward you. Your little finger is number one, ring number two, middle number three, forefinger number four and thumb number five. Take your right hand and touch the finger that coincides with the number you are thinking of. Wait until I say to move, I first want you to understand what it is I want you to do – Whatever number it is you are thinking of move left or right one finger at a time, that number of times. If you was thinking of one you would move one time, if it was two it would be two times and remember if you come to the thumb or pinky don’t jump from end to end, work your way back. Do this now… You have now arrived at a random finger correct? There is no way I could know what finger you are thinking of right?

You are on your forefinger right? – If you’re not you must have changed your mind one more time than I anticipated and if that is the case it must be your RING FINGER! Pretty cool right? This is completely self-working. If you follow these instructions. -

Think of a number. Touch the finger that coincides with that number. Move whatever number it is you are thinking of left or right one finger at a time but do not jump from end to end.

The participant can only ever end up on the forefinger or ring finger and therefore you are going to know in a moment which two letters the participant could potentially be thinking of. Now you have we have taken a look at how to force 1 of two fingers, let’s take a glance at how to work out which hand the participant is thinking of.

Which hand? Knowing the hand the participant worked upon is a simple process. This routine is cleverly constructed to restrict the participant to one hand, when you work out the hand you know the sex of the name the participant is thinking of also and which letters they could be potentially thinking of. You have two choices when it comes to working out the hand. The first choice is to watch the participants arm muscles during the moving fingers process. This will work if the participant is wearing a short sleeve top and they are doing the motions behind their back. You will see the participant’s muscles on that one arm moving and this will tell you which hand the participant is using. If you are seated it is preferable to have the participant have their hands make the motions under the table and the above method won’t work. If you are in any situation in which this isn’t going to be a method that you can use then use this verbal dodge – Performer: “I feel with you, you went for a male name… (Pause) but then you changed to a female”. You are using this dodge that you should now be familiar with, if you are not I will quickly outline what is happening.

You start by saying “I feel with you, you went for a male” – Then you pause if the participant reacts then you know they went for a male. If you don’t get an instant reaction you then simply add – “But then you changed to a female”. Either way you are going to hit and at the same time know which hand the participant is thinking of. Where you place this ruse is up to you in performance there is two places it fits. The first place is before the second participant begins to call out the letters. I wouldn’t recommend doing it this way as it reduces the amount of possibilities and therefore the overall effect isn’t as strong. This is however recommended for the performer if you don’t feel you can remember four letters for a period of time. The second place is where I personally place this ruse. The second participant calls out letters at random, I remember the letters that fall at the force positions on both hands (the first and ring fingers of each hand). After I have done this I then apply the line. We are down to two letters and we know what sex the name is going to be. Whatever two names are the first to pass your mind are likely to be the same as the names the participant would think of. This is where you would use the same aforementioned principles to reduce it down further.

No time like the present

Psychological forces even in their simplest form can be great with the right scripting. Scripting can turn something that is bad, good, something that is good, great and something that is great, phenomenal. Let’s take the classic 37 force – Many performers avoid using this force because of the massive amount of restrictions. Let’s take a look at the force in its original format. Performer: “I am thinking of a two digit number, this is a number under 50, both of these digits are odd and both of these digits are different, so eleven wouldn’t work but 15 would. I want you to think of a number now”. It is restriction, after restriction, after restriction. Why? A few years ago I created a principle that I named ‘restricting without seeming restrictive’ and it was a principle that took a look at forces like this one. So let’s take a look at the restrictions and then convert them. The first is it must be a number under 50 – if you have to tell the participant the number is under 50 then this is a restriction. Why not try and find a natural cap? What exists where the maximum number is around 50? Playing cards, Minutes on a watch face and I am sure if you did some digging a lot more. I personally use the watch. Let’s take a look at the force with a little bit of linguistic deception. Performer: “I have written a prediction that is related to a random time that is important to me. I want you to focus on a watch face, there is the hour and the minute hand. I want you to take your time to focus on the minute hand, there are obviously 60 minutes in an hour so this is going to be a number from 1-60. Firstly do you think the minute hand is just past the hour or further?” -

While doing this you are going to lead your participant using actions, when you say “just past the hour” hold your hands like the hands on a watch face – (left hand at 12 o clock and the right hand at five past). Then as you proceed to say “or further” keep your left hand at 12 and then press your index finger on five past (where your right hand just was) and run your finger round the entirety of the imaginary clock face (like you are displaying there are a lot more minutes).

Obviously when you do this, you are implying is that there are a lot more minutes in a watch face than just past the hour. This will lead the participant to say further. Don’t worry if they do not (I will explain what to do after I finish the force). The participant should say further, this is where you follow with,

Performer: “You felt that this was further into the hour and therefore it must be a two digit number. Clear your mind, the only clues I am going to give you is that both digits are different and they are both odd. So just so you are clear, eleven wouldn’t work but fifteen would. Get a number in mind”. The performer now addresses a second participant, Performer: “I would like you to focus on the hour hand for me. The only clue I am going to give you is that the time that is important to me happened before 10 am. So think of a number from 1-10 and I want you to envision it as a position on a watch face so if it was 3 you would see the hand here” (Hold your right hand in position 3 from the participant’s perspective). We are aiming to force the second participant to think of the number 7 – 7.37 is the time you are going to force. In this performance you would need to create a small story that compliments why this time is special to you. You don’t have to force the hour, you can simply hold up a billet and write the time on it and say – Performer: “If I wrote a random time on here, for example 7 (go to mouth the rest)… in fact it might be cool if you guessed”. Then went into the force asking them to focus on the minute hand, after proceeding to force the minute say, Performer: “Focus on the hour hand and see the hour clearly. You now have a random time in mind”. Leave a time delay, this gives the time for the audience to forget that you ever mentioned the hour. By then saying when you are ready to reveal the information. Performer: “What time did you create in your mind?” This is where you will turn over the billet to reveal that they were right. This rewrite of this force completely leads me to the first contribution in this week’s volume.

Our first contribution this month is from non-other than Pablo Amira. If you love Pablo’s work check out his other materials – Amirasideas.com

Surreal Book – Pablo Amira Outer Reality A participant is invited into a “thought projection” experiment, using an invisible and surreal book. After all this prop-less madness, the performer is able to reveal verbally his projected thought, which the participant confirms to receive!

Inner Reality This is my close up 1-on-1 version of the classic “37 Force”. Normally I use this “psychological force” technique in stage because obviously they work much better for an audience, but for a small prop-less miracle this approach can work great, with a theme of a “surreal invisible book” that is memorable even if the mystery effect doesn’t work complete correct. The surreal imagine that you will elicit is that the invisible book is only 50 pages long and strangely only the odd pages are numbered. So then you ask the participant to receive your projected number, which is printed on the book. This goes in a similar manner to Pete´s use of watch as natural restriction to the force of the number, but in here we are using a more surrealist image. “So I will project you a 2-digit number and for this we will use this… (Take from your pocket the invisible book). This is an invisible book… and it is weird not only because of that, but because as you can see is only 50 pages long. Well that is not weird, but the weird thing is that as you can see only the odd pages are numbered, right? Page 5…page 11…13…bad luck… Ok, I will project the 2-digit number to you now. Did you receive it? Great. One in many different options… The number that I was projecting you is the number 37. Did you receive that one?” As you can see, I didn’t restrict the odd numbers that starts with an even number (23 for example). Honestly I don’t need it because of the specific script of this piece. You can limit the number to “both digits are odd” but I prefer to take the other route. If you want, you can have a paper in your pocket as prediction who says “I was joking, it was 37”, so you can have an invisible out if you need it.

Of course, this can go wrong. If you have a negative reply from the participant, just ask for the number and move on. Re-frame the experience as a “calibration exercise” and perform a surefire piece of Mentalism. As you can understand, projecting a thought is difficult and even this “failure” can give you more credibility as performer. If you think about it, you have a “win-win” situation if you want. Just use the correct frame of mind and use everything in your favor.

Methodological Cancellation of Psy Forces For deepen the mystery of your effects, it is necessary in my perspective of Mentalism to cancel the method that you are using in a direct or indirect manner. In “Psy Forces” we are using the archetypical type of response that anyone will have in normal conditions of social pressure and all the psychological factors that are needed. So how can you cancel that? Well, in your own script you can use that same simple idea and mention it directly! “Well, I just project a color to all of you now and I assume that for psychological reasons of priming everyone will tend to think in yellow because the walls in the theatre are yellow, but I wanted to do something different and send the color RED. Please raise your hand if you receive that color in your mind” So basically, in a simplistic manner you mention the method but name other “common” answer. As other example, imagine that onstage you have a covered canvas and you ask a participant to just name a famous painting, and your participant names the “Mona Lisa”: “Interesting. Recently a study was conducted and 86% of people mention “The Last Supper” as the first quick answer for this question, but for some reason you mention the “Mona Lisa”…” Then you can go to the classic stage effect in which you force a puzzle piece and make it match with your secret painting, which was the “Mona Lisa”, so in this manner the effect goes to new levels of mystery. This is re-framing during the recapitulation can create a true stunner for your audience.

Pete’s added commentary This is simple and elegant, I love the idea of using an invisible book! This is exactly what I stress when I pipe on about finding something that is naturally restrictive. I have a couple of subtleties that jumped into my mind when reading this and in the end I ended up creating a routine surrounding it (I hope you love my take on this routine). Performer: “We are going to try a routine in mental telepathy, the idea is simple I am going to choose two of you to partake in an experiment. This experiment involves a magazine”.

The performer addresses the first participant, Performer: “How many pages roughly are in a magazine?” [This is the first change I have made in this routine, by asking for the amount of pages in a magazine it is always going to be roughly 50 pages. If the participant states 40 simply say “let’s give you more choice, why don’t we say 50?” you can apply this line to any number under 50. If the participant says – 60, the force will still work perfectly. If the participant says above 60 for example - 75, simply say, Performer: “Perfect the last 20 or so pages in a magazine are generally puzzles or advertisements and before that texts and photographs right. So in your magazine there are at least 50 pages of text and photos that is the area we are going to focus on in this experiment”. If the participant says something ridiculous like 100 (which I don’t think will happen) simply say, Performer: “Obviously a magazine generally has photographs, puzzles and recipes inside – these are the fluff that make up a good portion of a magazine. I once read a quote that said ‘a good 50 percent of a magazine consists of ridiculous size fonts, pictures, recipes and advertisements’ so in your case I guess that means that if we removed the fluff, there is roughly 50 pages of solid text and that is the area I want to focus on. Either way it really doesn’t matter what the participant says as you will always end up with 50 pages BUT they made the choice and it is the first step in the creative process.] The performer turns to the second participant – What is the name of the magazine? Participant: “The magazine of magazines”. The performer turns to the first participant and says, Performer: “just quickly choose left or right?’ Participant: “Right”. Performer: “In a magazine the odd pages usually fall on the right hand page, in a moment when you flick through the magazine you will imagine that only the odd pages are highlighted, pages like 5, 11, and 13 for example. [If the participant says left you simply respond with – Performer: “In a magazine the odd pages usually fall on the left hand page, in a moment when you flick through the magazine you will imagine that only the odd pages are highlighted, pages like 5, 11, and 13 for example

I want you to imagine when flicking through stopping a page number that’s two digits, keep it interesting by making it two different digits”. As you can see this is the exact same script I just changed the word right for the word left – A participant doesn’t know which side odds and evens fall on in a magazine – Hell I don’t!] The performer addresses participant two. [NOTE TO READER – I have purposefully left this small amount of script/ section out, this is where you will apply any of the quick psychological forces from within this volume. Let’s pretend it is the ‘Paris force’.] Performer: “Think of a place for me”. Participant: “Paris”. The performer turns back to participant one, Performer: “What was the page number?” Participant: “Page 37”. Performer: “So page 37 in the magazine of magazines is an article about the Eiffel tower?” Participants in unison: “Yes”. The performer points to a matchbox that has been sat on the table the entire time and inside is the page of a magazine – Page 37 with a picture and article about the Eiffel tower! Note to reader*** If you can make a convincing magazine page, I would recommend this ending – If not then a simple written prediction will suffice!

The next contribution in this volume is from a scholar and friend of mine – Mij. When he performed this for me in Holland, I instantly fell in love with it – This was some months back. I knew I would be writing this volume at some point in the series and asked him all the way back then if he was interested in adding the routine to this volume when it came about. I am so happy to present this and be able to have it in this volume – I know you will love it.

The Wonderland Principle - Mijrin Al Hajri Force anything, anytime, anywhere using only your words - MIJRIN AL HAJRI I first come across a method for forcing anything at any moment in Chris Philpott's book Intimate Mysteries where he would have one spectator guess the thought of another. Although I was inspired by Chris' thinking I did not feel comfortable using his method, among other things it was not prop-less. I wanted to achieve the same effect without the need for a second spectator, billets or anything written down, not that there is anything wrong with using billets or other spectators to achieve an effect. After understanding Chris' method I decided to develop my own. My own method which uses no props, nothing written down and no stooges of any kind. So I began deconstructed his idea and began on my own method, The Wonderland Principle. The Wonderland Principle is a combination of 3 key principles. Restricting without seeming restrictive, equivoque and constant contextualization principle which I have created for this method. Restricting without seeming restrictive is basically aiming increase the odds of you getting a hit based on the nature of an object. Take a regular 6 sided die for example, when you throw it you are guaranteed a number from 1 – 6 to appear. You cannot ever have an outcome outside those parameters. Same applies for playing cards and the same will happen for this method. Equivoque, a classic of magic and mentalism is flipped onto its head so that the spectator equivoques themselves though the context of a narrative which they help write. In Psychological Subtleties 2, Banachek devoted a whole chapter to discuss the relevance of context within any psychological force. I must agree with him that to insure a psychological force to hit, or at least give you the best rate of success you need to have the appropriate context. This is what the wonderland principle forces the spectator to do, keep contextualizing themselves into a box via a self-equivoque. For the equivoque we allow the spectator to make seemingly important decisions which in reality are the same because either decision will lead them to the same conclusion. Below is the script I use for my own force of a butterfly. I would like to you remember your

decisions and when you are done reading the script please go over it once more but this time I would like you to make the choices you didn’t make the first time around. Tell me (spectator's name), do you do any sort of creative writing (Spectator answer's) Great! I think you are the perfect person for this then. You and I are going to write a story together but you are going to make the major decisions in this story. Imagine for a moment a women, she is young with brown hair, what name would you like to give her? (Spectator's Answer) So, Grace is stood outside her front door and she has her hand on the door handle and she hesitates a moment, she now has to make a choice, does she go into the house or does she walk away from it? (A) - She walks into the house. She walks into the house and as she does you can see all the bright colors and furniture. As she walks all over the house she reaches the back of the house and steps into her back garden, to the left she has a tree and to the right she a bunch of potted plants. Which does she gravitate toward? (Spectator answers) (Left- Toward the tree) As she walks up to the tree she only just realized how many flowers are on it and narrowly avoids a bee, but out of the corner of her eye she sees a small but beautiful creature and catches it gently in her hand. Which insect is it? (Right- Toward the potted plants) As she walks down to the plants she only just realized how many flowers are on them and narrowly avoids a bee, but out of the corner of her eye she sees a small but beautiful creature and catches it gently in her hand. Which insect is it? (B) - She walks away from it. As she walks away from her house she starts walking and after a while she reaches a dirt road. Soon after she is greeted with a fork in the road and she has the option to either go left towards a field or go right and go into a forest area. Where does she go? (Left – Goes to the field) As she enters the field she notices a large flowering bush and she approaches it, as she does she narrowly avoids stepping on a bee and catches a glimpse on a beautiful creature and she catches it with great care not to harm this fragile being. What does she catch? (Right – Goes to the forest) As she enters the forest she notices a large flowering bush and she approaches it, as she does she narrowly avoids stepping on a bee and catches a glimpse on a beautiful creature and she catches it with great care not to harm this fragile being. What does she catch? Now that you have finished reading the script once please read it again and don’t make the same decisions that you did last time.

As you can see clearly you have been lead to think of a butterfly each time through a possess of continuing contextualization which restricts your choices each time. This is The Wonderland Principle in action. Now that you have one working effect for this principle let us have a look at how you can make this principle your own. You must start with the thing you would you would like to force, Let us use a rose as an example. I find that a rose is one of the best things to force as it has so many applications. After teaching you how to force a rose I will teach you a routine called 'Beauty in negative spaces' How can we describe a rose? This is an important question because the answers will form the skeleton for your force. We can describe one as thus, vibrant, beautiful and timeless. In popular culture we have 2 great pieces of children's literature and film which include roses, Beauty and The Beast and The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland these 5 pieces of information can help us to contextualize our script, which will help up force the rose. So here is how the force might look in a narrative script. Tell me (spectator's name), do you do any sort of creative writing (Spectator answer's) Great! I think you are the perfect person for this then. You and I are going to write a story together but you are going to make the major decisions in this story. Imagine for a moment a women, she is young with blonde hair, what name would you like to give her? (Spectator's Answer) So, Grace wakes up at the center of a maze, after she fully wakens she comes across what appears to be a way leading out of the maze and she has to come to the decision to take the path leading to the left or a patch leading to the right, uncertain which way to go she ponders a moment and waits for guidance. Does she go left or right? (Spectator answers) - note that this answer is an important. So she goes left/ right after walking for a moment she notices a glass vile in her dress pocket, strange she thinks. Suddenly she hears two voices behind a flower wall. Does she decide to approach the voices or does she play it safe and walk away from them? (A) Walks away from them. Okay so as she sneakily walks away from them taking every left and right turn she could possibly take, she stumbles upon what appears to be the exit, she is nearly home free. She sprints towards the exit and as she does her dress hers snagged along a flowered bush. She ignores it and keeps running, she finally leaves the maze and as she does she looks back and sees the exit close itself up. She looks wondrously at the vile, it now has a flower from that bush in to, and she recognizes the flower. Which one is it? (B) Walks toward them. She approaches the voices and as she does she steps on a twig the voices notice this and in fear she starts running way from them taking every left and right turn she could possibly take she stumbles upon what appears to be the exit, she is nearly home free.

She sprints towards the exit and as she does her dress hers snagged along a flowered bush. She ignores it and keeps running, she finally leaves the maze and as she does, she looks back at the voices who turn out to be guards she sees the exit close itself up. She looks wondrously at the vile, it now has a flower from that bush in to, and she recognizes the flower. Which one is it? Note that in the rose force and the butterfly force you never use obvious or subjective words such as 'romantic' in the case of roses. This is done deliberately because everyone has their own idea of romance and what flowers are romantic. I myself have had relationships where the woman I was seeing thought that sunflowers are romantic. You will need to use objective adjectives to describe anything you want to force so that they get guided in the right way and to the right place. I would like you to now to take some time out of reading this chapter and relax, digest the information, although I know that we as magicians have this annoying urge to devour any and all material we can get our hands on. When you get back and have had a tea, coffee or whatever your preference of drink I would like you to do two things. Firstly I would like you to think of a narrative that you could use to force the drink you have just consumed. Secondly I would like you to force the country that you would most like to visit. These two exercises should give you plenty of practice in how to force outcomes using this principle. Now to the gritty details of this principle. We all know that psychological forces are not always reliable and usually we need some 'outs' or extras to the method to increase our chances to get a hit on the force. I will share now a few things to increase your rate of success and after that I will give out an out for this effect which could also serve as an additional hit once your finish the effect to insure that you can make the most of the principle. For this we will be using the butterfly as an example. Depending on who you are performing this effect to you will need to change your approach slightly including what object you may need to force. When you are performing no doubt you will know who is a more compliant spectator and who is less enthused about your mentalism. If you find out who is who then perform this effect to a compliant spectator as they will try to be helpful in the performance and they themselves would not want to be the cause of the trick messing up. These types of people are easier to push to make the 'right' choice. Secondly if you are trying to force a butterfly with the method outlined above then it is usually a good move to pick a masculine man to perform this effect to. As a rule of thumb the more masculine the man the more they feminize the woman in the narrative and will be more likely to pick something 'girly' like a butterfly or a lady bug. Choose your spectator carefully. Alternatively what you could do if you were not too confidant with having them name an insect outright at the end you can list off 4 options with the force one being among them and instead using The Subtle Verbal Force from Psychological Subtleties. Or if you have Peter Turner's When In Rome book then you could also use his 'Not Ed Marlo's Snap Change' which I will not share here as it is not my idea to share.

We have two outs that we can employ with this too. These are incase all else fails. The first are readings and the second is saving hits for later. I am sure that if you have subscribed to this PDF course you also know of Peter's Readings PDF you could use any of the readings in there into this as an out, OR as a way of enhancing a hit when you get one. If your force hits you can then build on the decisions they have made in this narrative so that you can move from a cold reading into a warm readings. For example you could say that if they pick the outdoors rather than indoor at the beginning you could tell them that they have recently been thinking of going on a trip for roughly a week. Somewhere outside their city or town that they are living in. If they choose to go indoors then you could tell them that they have been under stress recently and that they have also been working harder than they would usually be and this has gotten to them. Essentially this method, even if it misses the hit also doubles as a means of gaining a warm reading. I once had a woman pick a caterpillar (while my prediction of a butterfly was in her hands, unopened) and I gave her a reading which ended with me telling her that like a caterpillar hardships and patients will lead her to grow as a person and find an answer to the problems in the future, which would be symbolic of a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly, which lead her to believe the reading was more accurate when and that I could really read minds when she saw a butterfly in her hands. Readings are powerful tools when combined with psychological forces, even if they fail. Saving hits is a great way to get yourself out of a jam quickly and aside from giving readings I have yet to find a better out to those instances when I fail to hit a psychological force. Saving hits is basically gaining relevant information, things like Pin codes, names and birthdays, and instead of revealing this information right away you save it for when your psychological fail. So when you use the wonderland principle, if you miss your force for whatever reason you can then give a short reading and go for a solid hit on the information that. When they come to recall the moment it would look all you have done is hit relevant information to them. Finally, in the spirit of these volumes I would like to share with you all a piece of advice I had to search long for, that advice is simply this: Do not frame your psychological forces as a test of your ability to predict or manipulate your audiences, and never present what you’re doing as such. Instead I would advise you to frame performances of these things as coincidence. By not framing your tricks as a prediction or a worse yet, a test of your skills in manipulation you actually increase your chances to hit a psychological force, this is because nobody is either trying to outsmart you or too confidant in your abilities that their choices matter. If you take anything away from this chapter please take my advice on this. Best wishes. Mij Ps: If you have any questions about the wonderland principle please write to me via Facebook, full name is Mijrin Al hajri. I am friends with Peter too, if that helps. Please let me know what you manage to force and how you have adapted my small creation into your own work.

Recommended reading: ECROF by Ross Tayler Intimate Mysteries by Chris Philpott, in particular ‘F,A,A,A’ When In Rome by Peter Turner, in particular ‘Not Ed Marlo’s Snap Change’ Readings PDF by Peter Turner Psychological Subtleties by Banachek, in Particular ‘Subtle Verbal Force’ Psychological Subtleties 2 by Banachek, in Particular ‘Context, Context, Context’

Pete’s added commentary Any routine that involves a journey or a story I love! I am not going to add anything to this routine as I feel that it is great as it is, I saw this performed live and Mij’s cool calm collected way of delivering it I love. This routine is the force of an insect, but it can be applied to so much more. I have seen Mij’s other applications for this and I can tell you they are epic. What I will add is a routine of my own, this is direct clean and something that I promise you I work every single time I perform close up. The hit rate is 100% I have never missed with this and I am so comfortable with this now it has become like an extension of myself. The reason I love it, is that it is so quick and simple and very rarely do I have to revert to equivoque (which ensures a guaranteed outcome anyway). You will see why it fits nicely here after you have read the effect description.

Effect The performer is sat with a group of participants and proposes to try an experiment to demonstrate his abilities as a sales man. He addresses the group, Performer: “When we like something for example a band or treat ourselves to a product from any variety of plateaus we need to accept that for the most part that it wasn’t really our own choice. Even though it is us consciously making the effort to listen to said band or buy said product we have ultimately been led in a very clever way to that destination” The performer writes something on a piece of card and places it in the shape of a tent face down on the table. Performer: “I would like to show you how easy it is to be sold the idea of a product. For this I am not actually going to use products as I feel that the choice is limited but rather a series of random categories and choices from said categories to highlight my point”. The performer addresses participant one,

Performer: “Would you say you have a better short term or long term memory?” Participant: “Short term”. Performer: “Okay, I am going to name a series of categories and I just want you to remember them, Places, insects, times, names, numbers, letters or brands. Name one of the categories back to me”. Participant: “Insects” Performer: “Ok, name a creepy crawler or bug like an ant?” Participant: “Spider” Performer: “That is an entirely free choice right?” Participant: “Yeah”. Performer: “Had you of chosen places you could have been in Bradford, Germany, Leeds or Spain. Numbers could have been any number, letters could have been any letter, brands could have been any brand and times could have been any anniversary, time or date. You said insect and you said spider. Turn over to see what I wrote”. The participant turns over the piece of card to see the word ‘Spider’ boldly printed upon the face of the business card!

Breakdown I know, I know that a spider is not technically an insect but I do reframe and say creepy crawly (crawler for American audiences) and this is what is usually picked! The way I have described it in the effect section above is usually how it plays out exactly to the letter. There are a few things to ensure that the routine does play out as described in the effect section. I have found this routine is much better with females (but works just as nicely with males). The first subtlety is when I list the objects I do a few things to ensure a higher rating of success – The first is ‘Potent placement’. This is essentially placing art of placing the force article in a position that is the most potent. An example of this is if you place five objects on a table and ask a participant to select one there is a higher chance of the participant choosing the one in position two or four. This defies probability, probability suggests that each item or object has the same chance of being chosen mathematically – Which is simply untrue. The outside objects are rarely chosen.

It is the same in the listing of these categories, I purposefully place spider in the second position ensuring that I say ‘Insects’ articulately. I also apply other subtleties when reciting the list, as a side note when I am reciting the list I count on my fingers Performer: “Places, insects (articulately), times, names, numbers (I say these three – times, names, numbers faster than I said the first two. I say them without a beat in-between and when I say numbers I nod like I want the participant to choose this) Letters or Brands (as I say brands I snap my fingers)”. The psychology is that all of these factors will play a huge roll in leading them to insect. After reciting the list I say, Performer: “Name one for me”. This is a cleverly constructed line, as they are about make their choice hold up your thumb like you are about to create a list. If they name insect first awesome! You will find this is the most frequent outcome. Simply proceed with – “That’s a free choice right?” If they do not simply say “and another” and at this point hold up your second finger, then proceed to see how many they remember and you have no need to say “and another” as you just need to hold up a third finger and that will be all you will need in order to implicitly suggest that you want them to name a third one. When the list is complete simply use equivoque to get down to insect. If the participant does not recite insect back to you (as though they have forgotten) that is also great, as you simply say. Performer: “In a moment we are going to make a choice before we do close your eyes, there is nothing that can influence you visually”. This is where I recite the list and then say “Name one to me”. The chances are because they forget insect the first time around that is going to be the first one that they name to me the second time around and I quickly respond with “that’s a free choice right?” If not, I let them recite the list and then say, “We are going to make a choice and this is by process of elimination I want to tell you that early”. If they name ‘insects’ first great, move straight on. If not no problems you utilize equivoque to get down to insects. Once they are at the insect category simply say – Performer: “Name a creepy crawler or bug for me like an ant”.

This is where they make a choice, if they go straight for spider perfect if not ask them to name a few so they have a list like before to choose from and then use equivoque to get them to choose. A female will almost always go for spider first – I don’t know why and it is great in the equivoque process as when you ask them to imagine taking some away in their hands for whatever reason if they are scared of them they won’t even want to imagine touching them and will leave them! Which means you comfortably know they will leave spider till last (most of the time). I rarely have to resort to equivoque, I have in the past talked at lengths about equivoque and the ways it can be applied in a situation like this. This is a very simple routine and the premise I think is a lovely one. Try this, I think you will be shocked at the results. This next contribution is from a friend of mine from Ireland, this is his first contribution to this series and I hope it is not his last.

Red Triangle – Seamus Maguire Items required: Pair of hands and a red marker/pen. Uses: As an opener in a close up set Premise: Influence, strange coincidence Warning – relies on a psychological force…

Effect: The performer tells the spectator that within the ancient brotherhood there exists a simple test to determine if someone can HANDle the knowledge to be passed down from generation to generation or as they called it PALM to PALM. Maybe we could give it a TRY, I don’t actually believe in any of this but it does sound kind of cool. The performer says to the spectator to close their eyes for a second and to without thinking, name a simple colour, like Blue. The spectator says Red. The participant is directed to open their eyes and name a geometrical shape like a circle for example. The spectator says a triangle. The performer proclaims that their choices are ‘interesting’ and slightly hesitates looking down at both his closed fists, he turns his left hand face up. On the performer’s palm lies a red triangle. The spectator will eye up the still closed right palm with a cringe worthy look on their face as though to suggest that there might something different drawn inside that palm. Ask them if they are wondering what is on the right palm, of course they are curious. The performer opens it to reveal another red triangle.

I guarantee this will get you a good laugh followed by some funny looks!

Pete’s added commentary This routine even though simple has a really beautiful moment that exists within it, it has a really strange double kicker. The reason it is so strange is that you are using the same piece of information twice to get two reactions. I have seen this in the past in contexts that to me don’t usually make sense – For example forcing a playing card upon someone, taking a minute to read the participant and then guessing the card. After guessing the card then bringing out a prediction to show that you knew the card all along. This gets two reactions but is illogical, the entire reading process is a waste of time if it was predicted in advance. This routine is different, it has a double kicker that is logical from all perspectives. This routine utilizes another clever aspect that is also interesting, the idea of ‘reverse restricting’ – I just made that up but that title aptly fits. Normally you would name out loud an object or a number in a series to restrict the participant from choosing that object or number. This is the same but different in the sense that most people think of red and then change to blue last second (red is the most frequently chosen, blue in second). By dismissing the blue instead of the red, its clever as it reverts the participant back to their original choice of the red and ensures a higher percentage hit rate – Hence me calling it reverse restricting. It is very clever psychologically. Another quick contribution that fits beautifully in kin with this performance is an addition by Morgan Strebler. You will see how this fits perfectly.

Sticky – Morgan Strebler A spectator is asked to draw a picture on a piece of paper. You wave your hand over the paper, and the picture that the audience member had drawn appears on your palm. There are no plants or stooges involved, just Mentalism at its purest. I have been performing this effect for quite some time. The reactions that it generates are amazing. I just recently performed this effect for my upcoming TV special. It takes 30 seconds to set up and you are ready to go!

Power of Suggestion Suggestion is the psychological process by which one person guides the thoughts or behavior of another. The power of suggestion is all around us, and takes many forms: peer pressure (studies have shown that people tend to give the wrong answer when they hear someone else say it, even if they know it to be incorrect), the placebo effect (a patient is given a placebo and is told it is medication, and their body reacts as if the drug is real), and suggestive statements (which is what "Sticky" relies upon).

A statement that relies on suggestion must be: expressed in simple form, be confidently delivered, and repeated to be effective. Simple statements work better than complex ones. A confident statement will be accepted over a weak delivery (this principal is used by successful sales professionals in all fields). Repetition drives the message home (think of how often you see the same billboards/commercials). Suggestive statements work when delivered correctly because your mind must subconsciously review each word to decipher the grammar. When the subconscious grasps a concept, it acts upon that concept. When "Sticky" is delivered correctly, the effect will guarantee to be successful and deliver a stunned reaction.

Set up The setup for Sticky is very simple you draw a stick figure on one hand, and a car on the other. There are several elements to the effect that make Sticky successful. The first is the script, which will be detailed immediately following this section. It has very strong psychological wording. If for some reason the suggestion doesn't work, there is a simple out which makes the effect foolproof.

Script The script is the essence of the effect. You MUST memorize it, practice it, and deliver it with confidence. “I want to try an experiment that will help me better understand the way you think. I’m not artist by any means, but in a moment I’m going to have you draw a very simple picture. Do you remember as a child drawing pictures of houses? Well I want you to draw something simple like that, but don’t draw a house, because I just said a house. Think of a simple figure and stick with it. Do you have a figure in mind? Good, stick with it. Now I want you to draw the picture that you were thinking of on this piece of paper.” The reason this script works is because it’s filled with a TON of suggestion. I will break down the subtleties in the following paragraphs. The first suggestion point is when you ask the spectator to remember drawing pictures of houses as a child. Typically, those pictures always included 3 things: the house, the car, and drawings of the family (usually in stick figure format). This narrows the possibilities down immensely when you ask them to choose a figure. The second and most important suggestion point comes when you tell them to choose a figure and stick with it. Notice the words "stick" and "figure". This is then repeated when you ask them if they have selected their figure, and once they have, tell them again to stick with it. The repetition reinforces the selection. Plan A is for the spectator to choose the "suggested" choice of a stick figure, which will occur a large percentage of the time. See Figure 3 & 4

Plan B is for the spectator to choose the car, which is the most likely alternative. See Figure 5. Plan C is the "out”. I use Wayne Houchin’s Stigmata to have the spectators drawing appear on my arm. If you are not familiar with his DVD, it can be picked up from Wayne directly or at your local magic dealer.

Figure 3: Waving Hand Over Spectator’s Stick Figure Drawing

Figure 4: Revealing to Spectator the Prediction

Figure 5: Waving of Hand over Spectator’s Car Drawing

Pete’s added commentary This is effect is simple and effective, it is a perfect opener to any close up set. There is not much to add to this routine, it is elegant and straight forward.

The next routine is contributed by Rus Andrews, for those who don’t know Rus I recommend checking out his material, he has some interesting ideas that I know you will love. This next routine is a routine that was part of Rus’ working set and after reading back over this Rus got nostalgic and claimed that he is thinking about implementing it back into his set because of the fun he has performing it.

PSYCHOLOGICAL FORCE – Rus Andrews The first psychological force and the most used method I use is for the 5 of hearts, in all the years I having been performing this, this has to be the most successful force I use. This force relies heavily on body language as a form of visual aid. Start by stating that you are going to ask them to think of a random playing card, but not just any card? You will now use a verbal force followed by physical actions to plant the 5 of hearts. Start by asking them to think of a bright vivid card? (This meaning red) You now ask them to think of a card that is quite personal to themselves? (As you ask this you casually tap your chest pushing the idea of a heart) You now ask them to think of a card with a slightly odd number? (As you ask this you flash all five fingers in an open hand gesture pushing the number 5) With these 3 instructions and the gestures used the spectator should arrive at the 5 of hearts. When using this force, the instructions should be used in one flowing script. See video below for a live performance and how the force should look and sound. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpLeftw6SWA

ROUTINE The routine for Psychological one should be presented in a nice flowing manner as this will help with the psychological force you are about to push on the spectator. Psychological forces are NOT 100% therefore I offer an out if the incorrect card is named that will give just as strong a reaction. For Visual aid please see the attached link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpLeftw6SWA Start by introducing yourself and ask if they wouldn’t mind trying little psychological experiment using playing cards?

Once they confirm this is okay hand them a boxed deck of cards and mention that you are going to ask them to think of any playing card, but not just any card? Use an open hand gesture whilst explaining this as this push’s the 5 You will now use a verbal force followed by physical actions to plant the 5 of hearts. Start by asking them to think of a bright vivid card? (This meaning red) You now ask them to think of a card that is quite personal to themselves? (As you ask this you casually tap your chest pushing the idea of a heart) You now ask them to think of a card with a slightly odd number? (As you ask this you flash all five fingers in an open hand gesture pushing the number 5) With these 3 instructions and the gestures used the spectator should arrive at the 5 of hearts. If you keep a good watch of their eyes you will see the moment they have a card in mind, at this point I quickly state to keep that thought…. This will stop them from changing their mind to another card. So there you have the best outcome for psychological one that I use on a regular basis, I have achieved some of the strongest reactions I have ever had from this effect, makes you feel like JEDI for a small moment in time.

OUT For an effect such as this and the fact that it’s a psychological force, all performers will know that this is not 100%, I know from my own experiences, so I devised a simple yet very effective OUT that stills achieves a very strong reaction, there is a little bit of work required but it takes a second to do and once you get to the revelation you will still feel like a JEDI MASTER. Okay so the situation is they have named the 5 of clubs for example and the counted down card has been put aside, after they have named the 5 of clubs, I casually say “ that’s interesting, any reason why you thought of that card” Asking this question will by you ample time to do the following, pick up the deck and casually go through the cards at the same time as asking the above question, there is no heat on this as all attention is on the tabled card so don’t panic, the action of going through the cards allowing the spectator to see the faces go past gives the impression that you are showing them they could have named any card, in reality you are scanning for the 5 of clubs. Once the 5 is located you can either CULL this to the top of the deck or just casually cut the cards in your hands bringing the 5 of clubs to the top of the deck.

As soon as this is done obtain a small break under the top card and draw attention back to the tabled card. Pick up the tabled card and place this on top of the deck and execute a DOUBLE LIFT, thus showing the 5 of clubs, as soon as the spectator reacts perform a KM MOVE to remove the 5 of clubs and end clean. A quick explanation of the KM is to turn the double back over pulling the 5 of clubs out as you wrist kill the deck/turn the deck. For a more in depth explanations please see Royal Road to Card Magic or any other Books regarding sleights’. The OUT can also be used as an impromptu version that can be used with a borrowed deck, although this is not new in method and there are many variations of this type of effect.

CREDITS AND THANKYOU’S Thank you to you the reader, firstly for supporting my work, this was not something I was going to release to just anyone, and after many emails from mentalist’s and performers wanting an eBook format of the original psychological one I thought I would make this happen. This is how NUMBERS was meant to be performed when I first created the effect, and I feel this is NUMBERS in its most powerful form. Special thanks to: Paul Hallas Derren Brown Daniel Madison J Prager Jamie Allan Marc Paul Special thanks to my fiancé and children for putting up with all my late night gibbering of madness.

Pete’s added commentary I know we have already looked at the playing card forces volume but I thought this would be a nice place as we can use ‘Piggy backing’/ ‘Thought Linkage’ to get to a random object using a playing card force – Therein taking it away from a playing card and that is the reason I think this fits so nicely here. We know in this case that we are forcing the 5 of hearts – This addition to the force is not for the faint hearted but I have had great success with it and it is fun. I have purposefully tried to not make the suit relevant so this will give you double the chance

and also the number is also not totally essential. Read the force you will understand what I mean. We are going to be forcing a mobile phone (though this could really be any object with a little change to the scripting). Performer: “You have one playing card in mind, chosen at complete random. From that playing card I would like to create a random thought, an object. If I asked you to just name an object out loud the likeliness is that if I guessed it you would simply put it down to everyone must think of the same object. By creating this object piece by piece based off of the card you are thinking of there is no way I could know the colour, suit or value and therefore this really is random. So think of the color of your playing card, remember we are building this object piece by piece. If you are thinking of a red card it will be something we use every day and a black card will be something we hardly use at all. The number cards will be something that is hand held, the picture cards something that is too big to hold. If it is a low number, a number from one to five we will go with something technological, if it is 6 -10 make it non-technological. Do you have something in mind? Of course this is going to be a mobile phone if the force has hit. If you wanted to go down the mental magic route, you could have the five of hearts saved as the screensaver on your phone and when you reveal that they were thinking of a phone when you ask them the card reveal it as the screensaver. If you wanted to be slightly less bold you could you could state if it is even it is going to be none technological and an odd number technological – This way you are totally sure that they will pick something that is an electronic device. I personally think this is overkill but there is no harm in using this should you feel intimidated by the idea of going balls out with this force. The main principle that I want to discuss here is ‘Thought linkage’ how many other surefire forces can you create that you can tie in a binary to another object, item or thing? This is good with mathematical type forces – Because you can take it away from the numbers and you always have a piece of information to use as the base for something else later.

This contribution is provided by someone that has been a figure in the mentalism community for some time. He is a man that has chosen to stay in the background/ underground but he has all the potential to do whatever he wishes as he is a really Smart cat. If you are not familiar with his work he has some really intersting ideas, plots and principles… Look him up. Me and Jose met in Vegas a couple of years back, we jumped into a Dodge charger with Loki Cross and Morgan Strebler and drove 300 miles out of vegas into the dessert to explore área 51. It was a crazy experience and just one memory to add to some of the stranger experiences in my life. Enjoy this man’s contribution.

Celebrity Deathmatch – Jose Prager I have noticed that whenever you ask a participant to think of a celebrity the vast majority of participants will think of a celebrity that is still alive today. This is something that when I first started performing this effect was a common occurrence and it wasn’t until later I realized that this could be used as part of the method. This statistical analysis coupled with a clever script enables us to force a celebrity. Most psychological forces tend to be none entertaining and the process illogical. I have tried to make this process logical, interesting and apparently fair… You will realize why I say ‘apparently’ later. Address your participant, Performer: “When asked to think of a celebrity most people will think of Justin Bieber or Kim Kardashian, the brain tends to latch onto people that are currently in the limelight. I want to make this more interesting and more random, the best way I can think of doing this is to shake things up a bit. Think of a celebrity for me and tell me when you have one in mind". Participant: "I have one". Performer: "I did say I was going to shake things up, If you are thinking of a male celebrity I want you to change to a female celebrity, I don't want you to give me any clues as to whether you have changed or not". Participant: "Okay". Performer: "If you are thinking of a celebrity who is alive, change it for a dead one, if not do nothing. Remember try not to give anything away. You have one in mind right?" Participant: "I do". Performer: "Is there anyway I could have known any choice that you would have made during any of this process?" Participant: "Of course not".

Performer: "Concentrate on your celebrity’s name". By utilizing the previous lines of script we have forced the participant to think of about 4 or 5 celebrities among the thousands of celebrities out there. To reduce this down to one celebrity it’s just a matter of fishing for the first letter and when we learn the first letter it makes it possible to deduce the whole name. We are going to make the fishing an invisible process by asking the participant to concentrate on the first letter of the name, after a few seconds of 'reading' the participant we are going to pretend to write the first letter on a piece of card. In actuality, instead of writing the first letter scratch the paper with your nail scribbling to the participant it will sound like you have written the first letter. This ruse is an old ruse, an oldie but a goodie. Ask the participant for the first letter, this is where you will remember the first letter (it is imperative to the effect). This letter will indicate what name the participant is thinking of - This is becuase there is a restriced amount of female celebrities that have passed away that will instantly spring to mind. Here is a list of the celebrities that crop up the most frequently.

A you would know it’s Amy Winehouse.

M you would know it’s Marilyn Monroe.

W you would know it’s Whitney Houston.

J you would know it’s Joan Rivers.

Because you know the first letter, ask the participant to focus on the second letter. When they are thinking of the second letter go back to the paper and write the first and second letter simultaniously - This is where you would show the piece of paper to another member of the group, whilst saying Performer: "This is what I believe the second letter is". This is subtle but implicit that you had wrote a letter the first time, as you are displaying two letters to the member of the group without having asked the participant for the confirmation of what the second letter is.

Of course now you must pretend you are reading the participant and the next thing you would proceed to do is write down the full celebrities name and then move to the reveal.

Pete’s added commentary One thing you will notice about this routine is that it an interesting variant on a living and dead test. A safe living and dead test because the participant is not thinking of someone that is close to them that has passed and therefore you are not evoking negative emotions. Bob Cassidy was the first person I ever heard suggest to use celebrities in a living and dead test, I think in this scenario it is completely coincidental but great minds think alike. The first thing to take into account when reading this routine is the ‘reverse restriction’ – The idea of making something feel more fair by asking the participant to change their mind yet actually restricting them to a smaller number of choices. The logic is a really interesting one in this routine, there are only a few things that I would add/ change to make this really pop! The routine will work incredibly as described and these additional ideas are only a matter of artistic difference. Performer: “If I were to ask you what is your biggest source of inspiration the likeliness is that would likely think of a person. Whether that person is someone close to your heart or a person that you have never met but appreciate for a multitude of reasons. I feel though on a subconscious level the answer to that question runs a lot deeper than that. So deep, that for me it is one of the most private questions that a person could ever ask me. It’s as private to me as your pin code might be to you. It leads me to a question that has bothered me for some time. If we hold a piece of information that dear to us, how do we keep it private? I mean, if we keep something in our head and never verbalize it out loud does that ensure it stays private?” Participant: “I would like to think so”. Performer: “I would never be as rude as to share your deepest most private thoughts, but I would like to show you just how fragile a thought can be. I want to ensure this is something that is not going to be imposing… I know think of a celebrity”. Participant: “Ok”. Performer: “Obviously you could be thinking of anyone of a variety of celebrities, so let’s make this more random, if you are thinking of a male celebrity change to a female. If it is a female celebrity change it for a male”.

Note to reader*** Males will always think of male celebrities, there are a hell of a lot more male celebrities than there are females anyway. If I am performing for a male I will always offer the “If it is a female change to a male line” as I guarantee they won’t need to take it. If you are clever with the way that you pace the asking them to change process, they will likely indicate via a clear yes or affirmation that they have done what you have asked them to do anyway. What I mean by that is – If you ask someone to think of a random number for example they will usually nod or affirm that they have done as you have asked. This is no different, if you slow down the way you direct them as thus. If you are thinking of a male celebrity, change it to a female celebrity (pause very slightly) if you notice their eyes start to look of for information OR you instantly get a yes confirming they have done what you want, you know that they were thinking of a male to start with. After seeing them look off for information (cognitively) I wait till I am sure they are ready to commit and then I follow with the “If it is a female change to a male” This prevents the participant from just sticking with the male name that they started with because they couldn’t focus on the name of a female celebrity. If I am performing on a female things are slightly chancier as females know more female actors than your average male participant will. I would wager on the fact that a female will most of the time think of a female celebrity, but this is something that I would have to experiment with via performing this routine for a period of time. If I was performing for a female I might be tempted to gloss over it like this – Performer: “If you are thinking of a male celebrity, change to a female (slight pause), if it is a living celebrity change to someone who has passed and if they have passed change it to someone living. This should really shake things up and make it random”. This is where I would follow apply this line from the performance – Performer: “The reason I had you shake things up and change your mind, is because when put under pressure most people can only think of celebrities that are in the lime light such as Justin Bieber or Kim Kardashian. This ensures that I don’t know if the celebrity is male, female, living, dead, past or future relevant”. Note to reader*** The reason I apply the line about Justin Bieber and Kim Kardashian here is to create a logical justification for having the participant change their mind whilst simultaneously making it seem like their thought has become more impossible to guess. This is where we need to whittle down the names in order to deduce what name the participant is thinking of. Looking at the names, the first thing that I find interesting is the length of the 4 names. Whitney/ Marilyn Amy/ Joan The top names you will notice that there are two long names and two short names. If you apply Michael Murray’s Cups principle at this point in the routine you will reduce the names down to two without ever having to ask the participant think of the first letter.

Performer: “Can you think of the exact amount of letters in the celebrity’s first name?” If the participant responds with an instant yes, then you know it is one of the shorter names. If you notice that the participant starts to think about it, you know it is one of the longer names. I would wait a second and instead of waiting for the participant to try and figure out the amount of letters I would stop them short and say, “In fact don’t worry about it, just look at me”. Now you have reduced the names down to one of two names, you can use the ‘Hidden in plain sight’ principle discussed earlier to get straight down to one. If you wanted to stay purely psychological you can apply the ‘Wash principle’ or Derren’s ‘repeat it in your mind’ principle. It is very easy once you get down to two names to reduce it to one. -

Continue performance.

The performer writes down what name he believes the participant is thinking of and slides it towards the participant. Performer: “Out of interest, what is the name of the celebrity that you are thinking of?” Participant: “Amy Winehouse”. The performer gestures toward the card. The participant turns it over and freaks out. When the mood of the room has calmed down, the performer then addresses the participant. Performer: “I am still left with one unanswered question, how is it possible to keep our most private thoughts just that… Private?”

I am really proud to introduce another new routine that has not been released to the community as of yet. I am a big fan of Sean Waters, I recently read back through some of his routines as Sean had sent me his books some time ago. Man I felt so bad for leaving it so long, his books were wonderful. I hold them up there with some of the best I have ever read! He is too clever for his own good, that plus he knows how to weave a cracking story! If you don’t love this – You are crazy.

CORRIDOR – Sean Waters EFFECT: The performer serves as the architect for an imagined experience that results in reality bearing witness to an entirely mental journey. In other words, the value of a card is written down and in spite of total freedom on the participant’s choices the imagined card is the one written down. There are no switches or moving parts.

HISTORY: I cannot know remember, but this may be the result of nearly fifteen years of performance, revision and experimentation of my effect, first published as “Avalon” (Ponderings, 2007). This routine, as you will read in a moment, involves a strange coincidence that creates the context for the method to work. The methodology of this piece, which I consider among the most powerful I can do with a real or imagined deck of cards, has been reduced to its most meaningful essence. No cards are needed and it is wonderfully minimal. All you need is this structure and your skill as a presenter and if you like, a pen and paper. This routine could not exist without Kenton Knepper’s wonderful “Kollosal Killer” and much of the thinking absorbed from Rick Maue’s “Terasabos”. These elements will be discussed at greater length later, but suffice it to say that I am indebted to them both. This routine nearly perfectly reflects what I consider an ideal; high involvement on the part of the participant and a minds-only methodology.

PERFORMANCE: “Life can be mysterious, and the truth can be stranger than fiction. Let me share a few interesting things that happened to me. On one occasion, I was traveling and decided to stop in a town for a cup of tea and stepped in line at the café’. A moment later, a man whom I had never met walked up to me and had a curious look about him and asked me if my name was Sean. To my knowledge, I had not met this gentleman, nor spoken to him. Regardless, he said he was glad I was early. I explained to him that I did not know that I was expected and that I had just stopped for a break. He apologized and mentioned that he was meeting someone, for the first time, at that café’ and I just looked like “A Sean”. I was just not the Sean he was looking for.” “Another occasion, I stopped somewhere in a city several hours from home to check a few emails. A good friend I had not seen in a few months walked in. I stopped him and asked him how he was. He mentioned that he was finding a cool place to relax since he could not

reach anyone on the phone to give him a ride. He was trying to get a ride to the hospital which she worked to pick up his wife’s car. Of course, I told him it would be my pleasure. While two hours from home an unplanned stop enabled me to help my friend; strange synchronicity.” “We constantly make decisions that seem to be in inconsequential on the surface like, if I asked you whether you choose Monday or Thursday, what would you say?” She answers. ”Thursday”. “If I asked you 11 A.M. or 10 PM, what would you choose?” She answers, “10 P.M.” “Finally, if I asked you Crimson Suite or Ebony Room, what would you take?” She answers, “Crimson Suite”. “It is amazing how these can seem random at the time, but later have so much significance. One of my favorite things about being a performer is that I get to give the gift of these experiences for other people. In fact, I would like to do this for you.” The performer writes something on a napkin nearby. “Some time ago, I went on a trip to New York City with my wife. We stayed in a fabulous boutique hotel in the midtown area. This was a beautiful, but smaller hotel. It felt like our own secret hotel treasure; it was called the Avalon. We prided ourselves in finding this perfect hotel, and the fact that it was somewhat unheard of. After arriving at the hotel, we checked in and were entranced by the beautiful European marble and perfectly polished cold brass. The lobby had ornate Corinthian columns and every detail had been attended with delicate care. The suede furniture was soft and lush. It was breath-taking. We proceeded to the elevator and the doorman pressed the button to our floor. We enjoyed classical music as we slowly ascended to our floor. We felt the gravity pull against us and our feet felt like lead. As I stepped off the elevator, I slowly walked down the hallway. Then I found our room and I began to open our door, we were absolutely amazed to discover one of our closest friends coming out of the room NEXT DOOR. It was an eerie feeling as we realized the utter impossibility of what had happened. It was truly uncanny. We stood there stunned." “The wonder of this experience is what I would like share to share with you. I will use a deck of cards as a metaphor for the hotel.” “Imagine yourself stepping out of the elevator and walking down the hallway. In this hotel there were only doors on the left. Can you imagine a number on each door, Like 1, then 2, etc. For the deck of cards metaphor to work, an Ace would be the number one, and so on.” The performer can see that she is engrossed in her visualization. “Great, take a few steps…

Now turn your head to the left and see the number on that door. Can you see it?” She says she does. “Now continue on. Any time you like, please stop in your mind and turn and look at the number on the door.” She does, but says nothing out loud. ”Okay” he replies with a smile. “Earlier I asked you to decide on Crimson Suite or Ebony Room. I can’t recall what you decided, but if you chose Crimson Suite, think of, but DO NOT SAY OUT LOUD either the diamonds or hearts, whatever feels right to you. It Ebony room think of Spades or Clubs?” “Now, please name the number and the suit?” She says “6 of Hearts” The performer motions for her to turn over the napkin and see what’s written.” It reads “6 of Hearts” and she is obviously overwhelmed by the experience.

METHOD: This is an outgrowth of, and obsession with, perfecting my Avalon effect published in my ebook, Ponderings (2007). I have performed numerous versions of this effect and this is the result of my desire to create a minimalist minds-only version. Any pen or paper can be used and nothing else is needed but your ability to tell a story. Let me say that the questions I ask very from situation to situation as does the exact way that I communicate it, but it always includes seemingly free choices of color, suit and number. Layered methods are used together to produce the desired outcome.

COLOR While the color choice is free, it is handled with a bit of subtle time misdirection and distortion. They will be making a decision about which color, before they realize that they have. This is done by disguising the decision by talking about the type of room they would choose, “Crimson Suite (I will sometimes say “Scarlet”) or “Ebony Room”. Most people will think of Scarlet/Crimson. This means they will later have to choose a red suit. If they say “Ebony Room” then they will later have to think of a black suit. After this question is answered, the prediction is written. Since this question is posed before the official presentation begins, it will seem later as if the prediction was written down prior to the beginning of the effect. This is an effective ruse.

SUITS The suits will be shown to be correct with an old dodge. To utilize this ruse, the prediction will be written like this: “6 of Diamonds Hearts”. This will be read as correct for the HEARTS choice, which is overwhelmingly the selection. Otherwise, the First Instinct Ruse

of having written DIAMONDS and then scratching it out will be perceived as correct. If they choose the “Ebony Room” then the prediction would be written as “6 of Clubs Spades”, which covers CLUBS and SPADES. The timing of writing the prediction allows the performer to write the prediction for the correct color and suit outcomes. Thus all four suits are covered, prior to the effect actually having begun.

VALUES/NUMBER The number 6 is proven correct through psychological leading and an ambiguous prediction. The root of this can be found in the strange love child of Kenton Knepper and Rick Maue. If we start with the 3,6,9 values as potential room number targets, we need to influence our participant to stop in her mind at 5,6 or 7 for the prediction to seem correct. To do this, we need to help them eliminate 3 and 9. 9 is easy to eliminate because it is too tedious to keep walking down the imaginary hallway to the 9th room. Boring, thus a non-choice. Eliminating 3 took a little more ingenuity. An Eureka Moment was inspired by Rick Maue. He uses a subtle psychological tainting to eliminate the first cup in his fabulous effect Terasabos. While different, it is of a similar ilk. To eliminate 3, I simply have the participant take a few steps in her imagined hallway and then look to her left. Likely she will already be at the third door (but she does not say). When I ask her to continue on, she will have to pass that door, thus eliminating any values near 3. As she continues, it will feel right to stop at the 6th or 7th door. These are the typical outcomes but 5 is covered as well. 5, 6 or 7 will always be perceived as correct since the premise of the metaphor was about being next door. Thus if she lands on the 5th or 7th doors the prediction will seem to prove that you are NEXT DOOR. When the performer shows this prediction, it will seem that it is HIS OWN room. If she lands on the 6th, your prediction will seem to be predicting her outcome. Either way, everything is copacetic. One slight adjustment is that if she days 6, I let her turn over the prediction. If it is 5 or 7, I say “I am right next door” and then turn over the paper to prove that my room is next to hers. This is just a bit of handling that helps sell the outcomes.

NO SPOKEN ANSWERS METHOD: Often, when I feel like it. I simply write the prediction, “6 of diamonds hearts” and begin. In these cases, I risk being wrong on the color/suit (if they choose: Ebony/Black), but I gain the ability to have my participant answer questions only in her mind. I do this quite often since Red overwhelmingly the outcome of the color choice. It is extremely nice to perform Corridor this way. Do it. I command you

Credits: Kenton Knepper, Kollosal Killer Rick Maue, Terasabos Me, Avalon

Pete’s added commentary I am going to keep this short and sweet, there really is nothing I can add to this routine, I like it just the way it is – So I would like to talk about something outside of this routine. One thing that I want you to take away from this volume is the ability to envision what could be when you read routines provided by other creators. When you read this routine it is framed around playing cards, but it needn’t be. Anything that goes up in increments will work, the story is that good that the beauty of this routine is that the method is the presentation – Which is rare for an effect. It is very easy to read effects that are provided by creators as they are presented and simply decide that you don’t like the creator based on his inventions. Read the effect again, don’t worry if it isn’t the way you would perform the effect THINK about how you would. Think about the methods and principles, where else could YOU apply them? Maybe you don’t like the method BUT you like the premise/ presentation, what effects do you like that this premise/ presentation would work around? All of a sudden new worlds of material start to unfold and you begin to see things in a fresh way. Dig out all of them old books that you dismissed and re-read them! You might just surprise yourself.

The next effect is by a strange cat. He will probably be grinning ear to at the fact that I called him strange – He revels in it. One memory I have of this man is blackpool magic convention a couple of years ago. He claimed that he could make all of the clouds in the sky form together and then make it rain on a sunny day (or something to that tune). Instead of keeping it between our little group - he set himself an impossible challenge and took everyone that would listen in the Ruskin outside. His balls must be massive as he has certainly made some BOLD claims and that is coming from me – I consider myself a risk taker. Anyway everyone who stood outside thought that this man was a crack pot… But that is the reaction he wanted, everyone at Blackpool was talking about him and he didn’t even need to lift a finger. I have had phone calls with this guy and he tells me he has been hunting mythological creatures in Austria tried to convince me he has seen big foot and it wouldn’t surprise me if he told me he was the love child of the Jersey Devil and Chupacabre. I love his child like imagination, his don’t give a fuck attitude and the fact he is just entertaining to listen to. Hes become a friend of mine and if I ever need cheering up I just call him and let him talk.

The Memory of Trees – Art Vanderlay Reveal someone’s memory. Nothing written down at any time and no props used whatsoever.

Effect “Memories are the strongest things to work with when attempting any form of telepathy.” begins the performer. “They hold so much emotion, pain, joy, sadness and hope. They can often overload a psychic to the point where multiple memories are ingested into their mind. They experience all of the memories at once, seeing, breathing and living each one all at the same time eventually leading to the destruction of their sanity. To ensure that we perform this under safe conditions, we will use a set of common memories that don’t invoke too much emotion in them. In a moment will start to name a few common memories, at some point you just think of one that you can relate to. Ensure it is something that you don’t mind revealing and please try to focus on just that one memory.” The spectator confirms they will follow your instructions. “Ok, please think of one of these memories that you can relate to: getting your favourite toy for Christmas, failing your exams at school, building a tree house with friends, falling out of a climbing tree, going to a Christening, attending a wake, going on honeymoon and having a car accident. Do you have a specific memory to focus on?” The spectator confirms that they do. “Please imagine you are back in this memory for me. Close your eyes and see the colours of the world around you. I want you to be able to feel the wind, taste the air, feel the

ground. See the memory as if it was happening right now. Take my hand, hold it tight and imagine your memory passing through your consciousness to mine. Focus as hard as you can on passing this memory through you to me. I’m starting to get some flashes of what this might be. Some emotions are coming through. This isn’t a sad memory is it?” The spectator replies that it is a happy memory. “I thought so, the flashes are coming through very bright and strong which tell me this is a happy memory. I could be wrong here but I also get the sensation that this memory features a lot of the outdoors, in fact the main aspect is outdoors correct?” The spectator confirms this to be true. “You wouldn’t happen to be over the age of 21 in this memory would you?” The spectator also confirms this to be true. “Yes in fact this memory is very special to you. There is someone else with you too. In fact this is a life changing experience isn’t it! There is a location involved isn’t there! Please write down the location on this card and seal it into the envelope. This will focus your thoughts on the location more than anything else now so hopefully I will try to pick up on that. This is a warm location, somewhere overseas, there is romance involved here, and also water and islands. Are you thinking about your honeymoon in Thailand?” The spectator falls off her chair in shock.

Method Remember the old number trick that you used to see on the back of cereal boxes and that came with almost every magic trick set? You had four cards with numbers scattered all over them, the spectator was asked to think of a number and hand you the cards that didn’t have their number on them. By simply adding the numbers that were in the corners of your cards, the total would be the same as their thought of number. It was a cute little effect but worthless in a real world environment. Many people have come up with fantastic solutions using the same principle. There is a fantastic binary effect in Practical Mental Effects if you know where to look. This effect was inspired by Kioku by Outlaw Effects. I used the original for years until I decided I wanted a prop free set to work with. In this effect, instead of having numerically valued cards, I have numerically valued statements & memories. This might sound daunting but I assure you it is not. The memories have been carefully selected so that 9/10 times you will be able to reveal the memory of someone.

I say 9/10 times due to the fact that everyone’s memories are different and what happened to someone when they were young may have happened to another person when they were older and so on. First you will need to memorise the memories and assign each one to a number from zero to seven. This is not hard as you will soon see. Below are the memories along with their numerical value. Next to the memory is how I remember it all due to how parts of the memory peg rhyme with the number: – Getting your favourite toy for Christmas – Zero rhymes with the classic line “Ho Ho Ho” – Failing your exams at school – Imagine taking a test one more time – Building a tree house with friends – Imagine a 2x4 piece of wood to build the tree house – Falling out of a climbing tree – Three sounds like tree – Going to a Christening – Imagine the doors of a Church – Going to a relatives funeral – The person is no longer alive 6 – Going on a honeymoon – Which is when all the sex happens 7 – Having a car accident – Almost going to Heaven The next thing to memorise is the numerical values of the fishing statements you make: – This isn’t a sad memory is it? – This memory features a lot of the outdoors, in fact the main aspect is outdoors correct? 4 – You wouldn’t happen to be over the age of 21 in this memory would you? For every positive response you get you ADD the numerical value of that statement. If you get a negative response then you do nothing and simply move on to the next statement For example, if someone was thinking of falling out of a climbing tree, they would respond YES to it being a sad memory, YES to it being outside and NO to them being old at the time. Looking at the values above, we would add 1 & 2 to get 3. The memory associated with the number 3 is falling out of a climbing tree. Whatever number you have after the three fishing statements will be the memory the spectator is thinking of. As I have mentioned before, you may find some exceptions to the rule. Some people have different experiences than others but the majority of the time you will be correct. You may have to change a memory or two if you feel they do not work for you. What follows is how the memories HAVE to be set out.

– Happy, Inside, Young – Sad, Inside, Young – Happy, Outside, Young – Sad, Outside, Young – Happy, Inside, Old – Sad, Inside, Old – Happy, Outside, Old – Sad, Outside, Old The order of emotions, locations & ages are used instead of colours, length of words, yes & no responses etc… that have often been used with binary methods in the past. I have attempted this with 16 memories however attempting to get 16 different memories that can be separated into 4 different aspects to then be swapped around using a binary method is almost impossible. You could if you wanted, print off the memories onto a “Memory Testing Card” and have the spectator look at one of the memories on the card however I prefer the prop free version since there is nothing used but the two minds of spectator and performer.

Credits Rick Roth – For his original Kioku effect available at www.outlaweffect.com Leo Boudreau – For his immense work in binary

Conclusion We have arrived at the end of this month’s volume! A couple of volumes have been difficult to write in this series but this has been by far the most difficult. The reason it was so difficult is because with the other volumes I could write about the premise and how I created it or go into detail as to why specific aspects of a routine worked mechanically. With this volume it was pretty much script based – What was said outlining the performance was pretty much the entirety of the routine as a whole and method. Therefore each section when writing felt relatively small and thus I tried to ensure it was packed with a lot of subtleties and principles. I attempted to make if feel like each of the other volumes in this series. I hope this has given you food for thought. With little or no effort at all it is very easy to perform these type of effects in any scenario and not have to worry about failure. I look forward to sharing next month’s episode. Thank you for reading,

Pete x

The end