Talk:Mentalism

Section on Techniques?

I think it would be useful to include a section on techniques that mentalists use to practice their craft. I know it involves memory and cold reading but there must be more information out there on this subject. Since mentalists are open about the fact that they do not have psychic powers and there are techniques involved, I think it would be valuable to include some information on this. 63.143.219.45 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Magicians and mentalists study and explore the art of deception always looking for new methods and updating older ones. We enjoy baffling and astonishing each other. We do not desire to FOOL people! Our goal is to entertain and instill wonder! Mentalists I have contacted possess little knowledge, or would rather not even know about, the unusual links that can occur in Folie a deux. Miistermagico (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead

It's completely bs. Mentalism is a form of entertainment based on cold reading/suggestion. It has nothing to go with weird magical powers. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC) @SafetyMentalst on Twitter Alleged Mentalast ..

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mentalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150426185334/http://www.sorcerers-apprentice.co.uk/karma.htm to http://www.sorcerers-apprentice.co.uk/karma.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Defence

'I've got a corrupt solution; and the remedy's hard.'.

Cost-benefit efficacy is improved by considering helping people with tinnitus.

This is related to the invention of medical magic via conundrum; with the question; 'Is a trick with the eyes white or black magic?'.

This could be a grand new endeavour for humanity.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rmshaw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Verification tag

In recent months, I've gone down a mentalism rabbit hole - reading and watching all about it. They really are incredible! Will do what I can here to improve the article and remove the tag here. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Techniques section ethics?

Hello Wikipedians,

Reading over this article after having previously read it in the past I am shocked by the number of techniques described and the level of detail in which they are described. The mentioning of specific techniques (center tears, acidus novus, nail writing, pre show, dual realities, gimmick and such), while describing true parts of mentalist performance, frankly give too much away. If any person with a casual interest in this genre of entertainment were to read through the article as it currently is, they would quite possibly spoil the vast majority of effects they watch in the future. This hardly seems fair to the reader, and it definitely does not seem fair to the performer. Many of the techniques mentioned are protected secrets created by people whose livelihoods currently rely on the sale of such secrets. I believe it is enough to say that sleight of hand, suggestion, misdirection, and cold reading are the principle techniques of mentalism, as those techniques principally envelope all the others written without an unethical and exposing level of detail. Xobr21037 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There is wide public misunderstanding about how mentalism works, deliberately created by performers falsely attributing their effects to use of psychology, hypnotism etc. It is in the public interest that an authoritative source like Wikipedia should correct this misattribution and give a true picture. However, I would support a spoiler alert. 95.246.75.144 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an authoritave source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And we don't alert for "spoilers", ever. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

If spoiler alerts are not permitted, so be it. An encyclopedia should be attempting to present a complete and accurate account of factual reality. It should not sidestep around factual reality on the ground that some people might be more entertained by not knowing. 95.246.75.144 (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I understand this is page is not meant to be the final word on mentalism, it is meant to be an introduction, an overview of something. If someone wants to do a deep dive that is up them, that is what references are for. Also, I don't think there is a big misunderstanding, I would be surprised if there were more than a small amount of people who seriously believe you can tell what someone is thinking based on micro expressions in eyebrows. It is all theater. If there was some grave large public crisis then I might be worried, but I have yet to see someone who, after a couple of hours to cool down after the show, did not sink back to reality and recognize it was all smoke and mirrors. Xobr21037 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

When consider the descriptions of techniques we also have to take into account the ethics of trade secrets. If a painter had discovered a specific way of creating a specific type of painting, something they held close and developed for years on their own, it would be (at least in my worldview) rather unethical to expose said technique to the world without the permission of said creator. This page has at times described techniques that took years to develop by people who labored over them, specifically in ways to keep them secrets so that they may be used for the entertainment and enjoyment of others. I fully support the debunking of people like Uri Geller, but when you have a mentalist, who openly says they're just doing some fun tricks (maybe with a presentation that implies psychology for the sake of texture), I don't see the harm in letting them keep the specifics of their technique secret as long as we know there is a technique. Xobr21037 (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

considering* Xobr21037 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Also as a note, I do share some level of concern with the other thoughts on this page. Knowledge about the craft should be freely available and spoilers are just another form of information. Considering this, I think the page is fine as it is at the time of this writing. There is enough on the page to disprove any notions of pure psychology as the cause, while also providing links to the 13 steps and other sources if the reader would like to do a deep dive on technique. Anyone who reads this page would come away understanding it is all tricks, and they would have the resources to look further and develop their own craft or research technique if they wished. Please someone message me if this is not a reasonable compromise. Xobr21037 (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Please give your view on disputed text

I invite other editors interested in this topic to give their objective opinion on a dispute between me and editor Xobr21037.

I first read the ‘Mentalism’ article some months ago, and it was immediately apparent to me that it was extremely misleading. The general line taken at that time was that mentalism and mind-reading effects are achieved by psychological phenomena such as reading body language, audience suggestibility, neuro-linguistic programming, etc etc. These phenomena are real, but they are not reliable enough to form the basis of a mentalism performance. As a part-time professional mentalist performer myself, I know that these are fake explanations aimed at distracting the audience from the mentalist’s real method. They are equivalent to explaining that the rabbit has appeared out of the hat because of the magician’s skill with his magic wand. Mentalist performers often adopt these psychological phenomena as explanations for how they achieve their effects, but in reality the effects are achieved by tricks involving physical dexterity (sleight of hand), magicians’ gimmicks, and (increasingly nowadays) electronics. The fake psychological explanations are themselves examples of misdirection. The authors of the original text of the ‘Mentalism’ article had either fallen for that misdirection, or were themselves mentalism performers seeking to perpetuate it.

This is a significant moral and epistemological issue. When an audience watches a magic show, no matter how excellent the magician’s skill is, the audience is never in any doubt that the effects are achieved by conjuring tricks. No one thinks the magician has real magical powers. But mentalism is different. Because mentalists allude to psychological phenomena which actually do exist, audiences are left in doubt as to whether the mentalism effects they are seeing are “real” - genuinely created by the application of scientific principles - or magic tricks. Many mentalists, including famous performers like Derren Brown, Uri Geller and Oz Perlman, “play it for real”; they foster this false understanding, or at least do nothing to correct it. They remain in character off-stage as well as on. Members of the audience leave the performance believing they have seen a miracle of science, rather than a conjuring trick. An extreme example of this occurred a few years ago, when a televised mentalism performance by Derren Brown was classified by the BBC as a science programme. Only vocal objections by a journalist led him to admit that it should classified as entertainment rather than science. I would argue that this is borderline dishonest, and contrary to the public interest.

Of course, some members of the public may prefer to retain the sense of wonder about mentalism effects, and not to know how they are done or where the dividing line is between science and conjuring/entertainment. That is fine, of course. But for those who do want to know the truth about mentalism, in my view Wikipedia ought to provide it.

To that end, I composed the text below, which sets out how some common mentalism effects are achieved. I have not attached here the citations, but to be clear, all of this content is attested to by published books which are available for purchase by the general public. None of the material is secret - anyone who is sufficiently interested can access it - and none of it is the subject of copyright or any other intellectual property right which prevents its being shared.

As mentioned, my addition of this material has been disputed by editor Xobr21037, and he has repeatedly deleted the text in its entirety. He agrees that my text is an accurate account of how mentalism effects are achieved, and he also agrees that it is appropriate to dispel the fake “psychology” mentioned above. However, as a mentalism performer himself, he considers my text gives away too many mentalism performance methods. As he puts it: “I cannot standby and have the people I perform for ruin their experience in front of me as 3 minutes of research exposes the fundamental methods I and many other performers use to this day”.

We have tried to find a compromise text, but we have been unable to agree. His version of the text is the current paragraphs entitled “Principle: sleight of hand and other traditional magicians' techniques” to “Misdirection”. I consider them to be deliberately obscure, and not fit for purpose. I accept that my text might to some extent spoil the enjoyment of a mentalism performance by giving the audience clues as to how the tricks are done, but this is no different from a Wikipedia article which summarises the plot of a novel or a film. People are not obliged to read the explanations if they don’t want to know, but the information should be available for those who do want to know; particularly when the issue is the distinction between science and pseudoscience.

Here is my text. You are welcome to comment on it or amend it to achieve a proper balance of the views summarised above.

Principle: sleight of hand and other traditional magicians' techniques

Mentalists typically seek to explain their effects as manifestations of psychology, hypnosis, an ability to influence by subtle verbal cues, an acute sensitivity to body language, etc. These are all genuine phenomena, but they are not sufficiently reliable or impressive to form the basis of a mentalism performance. These are in fact fake explanations - part of the mentalist's misdirection - and the true method being employed is classic magicians' trickery.

Mind-reading using a billet peek

A characteristic feature of "mind-reading" by a mentalist is that the spectator must write the thought down. Various justifications are given for this - in order to enable the spectator to focus on the thought, or in order to show it to other audience members etc. - but the real reason is to enable the mentalist then secretly to access the written-down information. There are various techniques which the mentalist can use. A classic method is the "centre tear". The spectator is asked to commit her thought to writing on a small piece of paper (referred to by mentalists as a "billet"). She is told to write the thought in the centre of the billet, and sometimes a circle or a line will be added by the mentalist onto the billet to make sure she writes in the middle. She is then instructed to fold the billet up so that the writing cannot be seen by the mentalist. The mentalist then takes the billet and tears it into small pieces, which he may then burn or throw away or return to the spectator's hand "for safe-keeping". Secretly, during the tearing process, the mentalist tears out and secretes the centre part of the billet which bears the written thought, and later finds an opportunity to read it covertly. Alternatively the mentalist may covertly peek at the written thought. There are a large number of detailed choreographies used by mentalists to achieve a peek. One popular version - known as the "acidus novus" peek - requires the spectator to write her thought on the bottom right-hand corner of the billet. Typically the mentalist will fill up the other 3 quadrants of the billet with writing so that only the bottom right-hand quadrant is left clear. Once the thought is written and the billet folded, the mentalist will hold the billet up to the light to demonstrate that no writing can be seen through the paper. In the course of this action he is able, unobserved by the audience, to slip his thumb between the folds of the billet and expose a view of the bottom right-hand quadrant. He then gestures with the billet, bringing it at eye-level across his field of vision, and in so-doing is able secretly to peek at the spectator's written thought. This is only one of a number of such peek choreographies. Some involve placing the billet in a gimmicked wallet, which allows the mentalist covertly to see the writing. Others employ sleights of hand derived from card or coin magic.

Mind-reading using electronic means

In addition to these traditional magicians' techniques, there is today a huge range of electronic, computer and other gimmicks available to the mentalist. These include dice which secretly transmit the numbers thrown, decks of cards which secretly transmit the cards chosen, notepads which secretly transmit what has been written etc. Smartphones have added an additional range of possibilities. For example, the mentalist can use concealed NFC tags to covertly download onto a spectator’s phone a fake version of a popular website such as Google Images, which allows him to know an image which the spectator believes has been chosen secretly.

Mind-reading using nail-writers etc.

Where a mind-reading performance does not involve the spectator writing the secret thought down, generally the method employed is that the mentalist purports to predict the secret thought by (apparently) writing an unseen prediction, often behind a clipboard or other hard surface, then he asks the spectator to reveal the thought, and the mentalist at that point quickly and covertly writes or completes his prediction using a nail writer or swami gimmick. These are small devices which allow the mentalist to write unseen with his thumb under cover of a clipboard or in his pocket. Again, these traditional magicians’ devices have now been supplemented by technology. The mentalist can now buy blackboards and whiteboards which are capable of writing (apparently) handwritten messages fed to them remotely, small printers which can print a spectator’s chosen number and feed the printed paper into an (apparently) sealed jar, and a host of other technological gadgets which make it appear that the mentalist predicted the spectator’s thought, when in fact he simply waited for it to be disclosed by the spectator and then created the evidence of his “prediction”.

Pre-show work

Many mentalism effects rely on pre-show work. This involves the mentalist or his assistant interacting with certain members of the audience before the performance begins. This can be in a pre-show reception, or in the auditorium itself as the audience take their seats, or even in the queue outside the performance venue before the performance. Pre-show work can take a number of forms. One type involves the mentalist talking to a spectator whom he will later, during his performance, involve in one of his effects. In this case the mentalist sets up the trick by covertly obtaining information from the spectator which he will later reveal during the performance. The interaction with the spectator may be made to seem like a casual “meet the audience” conversation, with no warning that the spectator is later to be involved in the performance. Alternatively, the mentalist may tell the spectator that he intends to involve her in his show. In that case the pre-show interaction is usually characterised as preparation “to save time during the show” or similar. Either way, the mentalist will use the occasion to obtain information from the spectator covertly for later revelation, either by traditional sleight of hand methods such as a billet peek, or by using electronic gimmickry such as a Parapad. Alternatively, the mentalist may ask the spectator to make a choice (eg a number, a playing card, a selection from a list of items) and to recall that choice when later asked to participate during the performance. Typically the spectator will believe she has a free choice, but in fact it will be a choice forced by the mentalist, This can be done in a number of ways. One popular method is a proprietary device called a Svenpad. This is a notepad in which every second page is imperceptibly shorter. The long pages each have written on them an item from a list of choices (eg film stars, holiday destinations etc), but the short pages each have the same item - the force choice - written on them. When riffled from front to back only the long pages are visible, showing the full range of different choices. But when riffled from back to front only the short pages are visible, each bearing the force selection. Other forcing methods include trick decks of cards, where all the cards are the same. During the performance itself, when the mentalist involves the spectator in his effect, he will usually aim by careful use of language to avoid any mention of the pre-show interaction to the wider audience, either by himself or the chosen spectator. His aim is to suggest that he and the spectator have not previously met. When the spectator’s covertly obtained information or forced choice is revealed, this greatly enhances the effect from the point of view of the wider audience. It will usually seem that the mentalist has elicited a wholly uncommunicated thought from a random audience member. The chosen spectator herself, having participated in the pre-show encounter, perceives a different and less spectacular effect. This is an example of dual reality (discussed below) in mentalism. MariusSterzinger (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to add a bit of context for anyone reading this:

- I am not the only one who deleted this draft from the page. I am one of several editors watching the page that rejected the repeated advances at adding this text (and the original draft before it) to the page through brute force, going back to months before I even became aware of these additions.

- I agree with Marius' desire to educate the public about mentalism's true methodology, something I felt the page had mixed approaches to, and even removed a section on "psychological manipulation" that wasn't accurate or sourced well. In fact, over time I came to even lean a bit more towards what Marius believe should be known, hence why I now helped include pre-show in the techniques section.

- My area of dispute was with the depth at which techniques are discussed. The above proposed text at times exposes methods that are still being sold and developed by professionals today and can be safely said not be in the public domain of mentalism, acidus novus and many of the electronics described being examples. I believe that it is fair to the reader to provide them with a way of understanding the history and techniques of mentalism without betraying contemporary performers. At least in my mind the public should be aware that written pieces of paper are the medium through which most information is obtained, but they don't need a break down of the exact beats of a billet peek. I might compare this to describing the comedy a particular comedian performs without describing their jokes; a complete explanation can be given without ruining the experience or betraying the performer. Such an explanation would serve both the public reader and the performer without having to compromise either.

- Initially I admit I was a little frustrated with blatant exposure, but after reading up on the previous page edits I understood that Marius and I had similar goals and reached out to collaborate in good faith, which he ignored until another failed attempt to force his draft onto the page weeks later. As one might see on his talk page, I wrote multiple drafts incorporating his information, making greater concessions each time (and adding the formatting and citations Marius lacked), eventually creating a version that includes all the information above minus drawn out technical descriptions. Upon seeing this version Marius decided that a layman would not be able to understand it and said he would refer to the “moderators.”

- I believe it is fair to note that the proposed text does not even serve the purpose of informing the layman reader of said techniques. The writing is bulky, and the description of pre-show I wrote that currently shows on the page describes in 3 sentences what Marius is doing in 20+, and without explicit methods I might add. This brevity and clarity make it easier for the reader. Marius' draft includes a description of the Svenpad that both exposes a method while also not even clearly describing how the pad's qualities (the short and long edges) would actually be used in the context of a pre-show force. His writing also includes terminology like "gimmick" that a layman would likely not even understand.

- Within the currently showing version of techniques I embedded links to pages on sleight of hand and billet reading. Considering this, much of the proposed draft is redundant because the techniques themselves have already been dissected with clarity and detail on better fitting pages.

- Whereas other editors kept deleting his repeated attempts to force his draft onto the page, I worked with Marius to incorporate his thoughts onto the page in a proper form that better communicates to the reader. I cannot imagine any layman reading the page and not understanding that mentalism is a performance and not science. I harbor no ill will, I just think that the technique section is good how it is now, as a compromise that is already within Marius’ favor. Xobr21037 (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t wish this to be a personal matter; the important issue is the appropriate level of information for Wikipedia readers. However, I do not think it is fair to suggest that I have been unwilling to compromise or seek consensus. For example, I proposed the following text to Xobr21037, which I felt (and feel) goes a long way to meet his concerns about the exposure of trick methodologies. However, it too was rejected in favour of the current version. It was that rejection which suggested to me that his true preference is to keep the topic deliberately obscure. My proposed text was as follows:

Mind-reading techniques

A characteristic feature of "mind-reading" by a mentalist is that the spectator must write the thought down. Various justifications are given for this - in order to enable the spectator to focus on the thought, or in order to show it to other audience members etc. - but the real reason is to enable the mentalist then secretly to access the written-down information. There are various techniques which the mentalist can use to gain access to the information, including sleights of hands or use of gimmicked props. In addition to these traditional techniques, there is today a huge range of electronic gimmicks available to the mentalist which secretly transmit what has been written etc.

Another technique involves the mentalist purporting to predict and write down the spectator’s secret thought. He then asks the spectator to reveal the thought, and at that point the mentalist covertly writes his prediction using a concealed writing tool.

Again, this traditional magician’s technique has now been supplemented by a wide variety of advanced technology.

Many mentalism effects rely on pre-show work. This involves the mentalist or his assistant interacting with certain members of the audience before the performance begins. This can be in a pre-show reception, or in the auditorium itself as the audience take their seats, or even in the queue outside the performance venue before the performance. Typically the mentalist sets up a trick by covertly obtaining information from the spectator which he will later reveal during the performance. During the performance itself, when the mentalist involves the spectator in his effect, he will usually aim by careful use of language to avoid any mention of the pre-show interaction to the wider audience, either by himself or the chosen spectator. When the spectator’s covertly obtained information or forced choice is revealed, this greatly enhances the effect from the point of view of the wider audience. It will usually seem that the mentalist has elicited a wholly uncommunicated thought from a random audience member. The chosen spectator herself, having participated in the pre-show encounter, perceives a different and less spectacular effect. This is an example of dual reality (discussed below) in mentalism. MariusSterzinger (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Reddit discussion

 : "If you’re interested in information about magic and mentalism being available for those who want it, support the guy Marius (not me btw) on the Mentalism article". Apokrif (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean that's a fair perspective I guess, the question would then be is purpose of the page to teach techniques and instruct readers on developing their skills. I would argue, and maybe I'm wrong here, that the page is meant to describe what Mentalism is for an unfamiliar reader, to give an overview and a description. You could say this is the difference between describing how a musical instrument works and teaching how to play it. To the end of providing knowledge about mentalist technique the page actually lists a fair amount of resources, such as Corinda's 13 steps to Mentalism at the end of the page, which can be found online and is a great place to start for anyone wanting to learn or wanting a better technical understanding. I've also been in the process of trying to find better citations for the techniques section, which ideally once finished would provide great sources for a reader to dig into. If someone did want to learn a tiny bit more about techniques on Wikipedia, there are other pages linked that do a better job, such as the billet reading page linked in the techniques section, that gives a great overview of billet reading and peeks and such. I'm also trying to find a place to insert a link to a page on book tests. I think information about magic and mentalism is readily available to anyone on the internet, I just don't think the purpose of this page is to have every description of every thing, all the information in other drafts can be found through other resources or on other pages.

Where is this Reddit chat so I can see the full context? Xobr21037 (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like no one is interested in this but us, but we have to go through this stage before getting other involved.

I don’t know anything about a Reddit chat. That is nothing to do with me.

In light of the censorship and obfuscation I have encountered here, I have decided I feel sufficiently strongly motivated about the morality of this issue that, irrespective of how it pans out on Wikipedia, I will start my own blog to publicise as much as I can the truth about mentalism techniques. MariusSterzinger (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)