In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

13 Time and Magic—Manipulating Subjective Temporality Thomas Fraps We presume that everyone will agree to the recognition of magic as an art. As a matter of fact, magic embodies both art and science. —Nevil Maskelyne and David Devant, Our Magic The interest of scientists in examining the psychological, perceptual, and cognitive methods developed by magicians can be traced back over a hundred years (Binet, 1894; Jastrow, 1897; Triplett, 1900), predating a now-classic essay on the theory of magic written by two of the most influential magicians of that era (Maskelyne & Devant, 1911), who already acknowledged a possible connection between the art of magic and science. Recently there has been renewed and increased interest in the scientific examination of the methods employed by magicians to achieve their apparently impossible feats and illusions (e.g., Parris et al., 2009; Kuhn, Amlani, & Rensink, 2008a; Macknik et al., 2008). This interest of cognitive scientists stems from the fact that conjuring illusions are created not only by expert sleight of hand, special gimmicks, and secret mechanical devices, but primarily by the magician’s ability to control attention and awareness as well as manipulate higher cognitive functions, such as reasoning and decision making, in order to hide the actual method of the trick (Fraps, 1998; Fraps, 2006; Lamont & Wiseman, 1999; Kuhn, Amlani, & Rensink 2008a, Gregory, 1982). The application of these psychological principles during the performance of a magic trick is generally subsumed under the term misdirection, which is a pervasive topic in the theoretical conjuring literature (e.g., Fitzkee, 1945; Galloway, 1969; Tamariz, 1988; Sharpe, 1988; Minch & Elmsley, 1991; Minch & Wonder, 1996; Lamont & Wiseman, 1999; Ganson, 2001; Ortiz, 2006). While there are certain clearly defined rules and principles of misdirection, a consensus among magicians or a specific definition currently does not exist (Lamont et al., 2010). This is mainly because of the multifaceted and dynamic nature of misdirection, which is not performed by one specific method. There are many different layers of misdirection, often applied simultaneously, with the exact mixture of the various strategies being highly dependent on the performer and context, such as size of the audience, style of magic, or overall setting of the performance (e.g., stage or close-up, live or on video). For example, a 264 Thomas Fraps seemingly random, but in fact carefully planned, arrangement of props can set the frame for a precisely timed choreography using body language (hand or arm movements) and direction of gaze to nonverbally guide attention via social cues (Lamont & Wiseman, 1999; Kuhn et al., 2008b) and via language to influence top-down perceptual mechanisms as well as higher cognitive functions. The effective application of misdirection can only be learned through years of actual performing experience (“in vivo”) and is very dynamic in nature, since it depends on interaction with an audience (Minch & Wonder, 1996, 18). Furthermore, the exact form of applied misdirection has to be adapted for each trick individually, integrating all layers into a cohesive performance that appears natural. For example, Minch and Elmsley (1991, 15) note: “You should misdirect not only from something that would otherwise be detected, but also from awkwardness, from anything that might raise suspicion.” Most importantly, the use of misdirection itself should never be detected or recognized as such: “Magicians seek to direct attention without resorting to crude distractions, as the audience should not be aware that their attention is being directed“ (Lamont et al., 2010, 17). Thus successful misdirection should not only hide the method(s) of a trick but also itself, so that the very process becomes invisible to the observer. The first experimental studies examining misdirection in a magic trick used eye-tracking analysis of subjects watching either live performances or short video clips of magic tricks that primarily used gaze direction as a means of physical misdirection (Kuhn & Tatler, 2005; Kuhn & Land, 2006; Kuhn, Tatler, Findlay, & Cole, 2008b. These studies have provided a novel approach to examine the influence of social cues (gaze direction) on attention and offer a novel paradigm to investigate inattentional blindness (Mack & Rock, 1998; Simons & Chabris, 1999; Kuhn & Tatler, 2011; Kuhn & Findlay, 2010; Memmert, 2010; Memmert & Furley, 2010; Moran & Brady, 2010). 13.1 Time Misdirection In addition to physical misdirection, there is yet another, less intuitive, albeit equally strong principle of misdirection that is related to subjective time perception and described by magicians as “time misdirection.” This form of misdirection has to date not been explored scientifically, so what follows are mostly hypotheses and speculations that attempt to explain the basic concept...

Share