Vol#7 Psychological forces

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
different forces using similar psychological techniques over a
range of plateaus.
 One of the staple
staple books in mentalism (in fact
fact staple series) is the psychological
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
g limpse 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
g ame 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
T hat 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
psychological forces after watching Derren Brown’s
 television series’
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
participant’s and
HIT!
 You hear me? …
 … NOT ONE FUCKING
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
k new
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
 , it wasn’t the force that was
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
ev er 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
j ust 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?
went?
 The first time you attempted to walk, did you just stand up and start walking?
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
the y 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
are not ‘Takeaway mentalism’.
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
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.
 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.

 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.

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.

 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.
 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.
 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!

 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 fac t 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 thi nk 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 justificat ion 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) tryin g 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.

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 complete ly
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 g uiding
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.

 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. –

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 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!

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.
 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.

 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.
 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
bee n 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!

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
section above
above is
is usually how it plays out exactly
 to the letter.
 There are a few things to ensure that the routine
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
rating
of success – The first is ‘Potent placement’. This is essentially
essentially placing
placing art
art of placing
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.
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 -
(articulately), times, names, numbers (I say these three – times,
Performer: “Places, insects (articulately),
 names, numbers faster than I said the
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 ccleverly
leverly constructed line, as they are about make their choice hold up your thumb
like you are about to create a list. If they
the y name insect first awesome! You will find this
 is the most frequent outcome. Simply proceed
proceed with –
 “That’s a free choice
choice right?”
If they do not simply
simply say “and another” and at this point hold up your second finger, then
proceed to see how many they remember and
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
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.
“In a moment we are
Performer: “In a are going to make a choice before we do close
close your eyes, there
 is nothing that can influence
influence you visually”.
visually”.
 This is where I recite
recite the list and
and then say “Name
“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?”
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
to tell you that
that early”.
If they name ‘insects’ first great, move straight on. If not no
n o problems you utilize equivoque
 to get down to insects.
 Once they are at the insect
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
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
k now 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
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
is not his last.

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…

 The performer
performer tells
tells the spectator that within the ancient brotherhood there exists a simple
simple
 test to determine if someone can HANDle the knowledge to be passed down fromf rom 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
that their choices are ‘interesting’ and slightly hesitates loo king
 king
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
sug gest 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
reveal another red triangle.
triangle.
 I guarantee this will get you a good laugh followed by some funny looks!

 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.
–  For example
I have seen this in the past in contexts that to me don’t usually make sense – For
forcing a playing card upon someone, taking a minute to read the participant and then
 guessing the card. After guessing the card then bringing
bringing out a prediction
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
logical from all perspectives.
perspectives.
 This routine utilizes another clever aspect that is also interesting, the idea of
o f ‘reverse
restricting’
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
their original
original choice
choice of the red
red and ensures a higher
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.
perfectly.

A spectator is asked to draw

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

 Suggestion is the psychological process by which one person guides the thoughts
thoughts or
 behavior of another. The power
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
sug gestive 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.

 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.

 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

 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.
 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.

Rick Roth – For his original Kioku effect available at www.outlaweffect.com

Leo Boudreau – For his immense work in binary
 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,