Celebracadabra

Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Both, what evidence or source suggests that advertising is design to appeal to instant gratification and that this is somehow inherently genetic to us. (I would be interested to see how you consider the basic premises of EQ and how it relates to the notion of instant gratification.)

I'll have to dig up my books again, as I've put this together over the last... I'd say five years.

My personal reasoning as to why instant gratification is a genetic inclination comes from my involvement with animals, and specifically with greyhound rescue work.

Greyhounds are not exceptionally intelligent dogs and quite clearly lack the capacity for abstract thought. So what does an animal like that do? It lives in the moment. It has very little in the way of foresight and operates almost entirely off of instinct and conditioning.

Since humans are really just animals with a capacity for abstract thought, I got to thinking that we've only been around for approximately 10,000 years or so. Conversely, primates in some shape or form have been around for an exponentially greater time, and mammals proper even longer than that. With all that in mind, and given my own casual research into psychology, I strongly believe that many of our actions today are strongly influenced by our genetic programming that has been developed over millions of years. Civilization may have made certain aspects of this programming obsolete (debatably), but we still retain the core programming.

Now think about what it was like for early hominids. Food was scarce. It was limited to whatever you could scrounge up or kill. Protection from the elements was a huge issue. Being wounded was typically the beginning of the end.

Since you were effectively living on borrowed time, you had to get a lot done in a short span in order to fulfill your two primary instincts: survive and replicate. The most effective way to do that at the time was to go for the instant gratification.

Eat now. You might not have the chance later.

Don't fight that thing. If it doesn't kill you, it will wound you. Kill something that requires less work and won't end your life.

Mate now. You can't guarantee a second chance.

Because of those sorts of conditions, people instinctively go for instant gratification. In modern times, the way we've organized our society and provided ourselves with protection, longevity, and wealth, we see that long-term planning and delayed gratification yields a higher benefit. But what do most people do? They still seek instant gratification. Even people who are good at long-term planning still feel the temptation because that's the way our DNA has been wired.

Advertisers understand this. For the longest time, ads have been based on manipulation instead of information. They give you information in order to allay your concerns, suspicions and reservations, but they use manipulation to reel you in and close the sale.

For example, look at the diet and exercise industry. Look at the kind of promises they make. Bowflex promises you a better body in 60 days and shows you pictures of Conan the Personal Trainer. The so called Hollywood Celebrity Diet (I think?) promised to make you lose weight in one week.

Instant gratification both. Naturally, Bowflex doesn't tell you to diet as well and that you probably don't have the genetics to look like Beefcake Van Pectorals on the commercials there. And the Hollywood Diet people neglect to mention that their diet is really just a fast and the weight you lose is scalar.

But people still buy it because they want instant results. They want it enough to forget to ask questions and just go ahead and try it.

The industry standard is now to appeal to instant gratification because that flicks on a light bulb in our brains and causes a little voice to say, "That! Take that! You'll get the reward faster with that!"

A lot of people think this is wrong, frankly I don't care. No one's going to change the industry anymore than they're going to change their genetic code. It's technically not false advertising, and if you're smart you'll think twice before clicking on "Proceed to Cart" anyway.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
So, what you are saying, is your own personal reflection has led you to this conclusion - not any established fact or research in either advertising or human behavior/evolution/genetics?

If your premise on genetics were true, we would never have evolved socially beyond the instant gratification stage. There is no evidence that I know of that establishes instant gratification as being genetic - in fact, so many of the behaviors we exhibit suggest otherwise. Likewise, the existence of civilization as a "thing" is anti-instant gratification.

Your conclusions are based on guess work and hopeful thinking.

Brad
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
First of all, I wouldn't call it hopeful thinking. It's not like I want the world to give greater reward to instant gratification.

Second, I'm not claiming to be a scientist, however this is the theory I've put together after corroborating various studies I've read with my own observations and the theories of others. I'm trying to dig up my old books so I can list the sources.

As to the suggestion that civilization itself counters my theory, no it doesn't. With the capacity for abstract thought, humans gain the ability to second-guess their own instincts. If we were total slaves to our genetics, then every guy in the world would be a date rapist. But you and I both know it doesn't work that way.
 
Dec 17, 2007
1,291
2
32
Melbourne, Australia
Ugh.. the one thing that is annoying me is the free trick thing. I have a feeling some essential things will become common knowledge soon. Doesn't Brad feel a LITTLE bit bad?

*awaits to be ripped to shreds by Steerpike*
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
If we were total slaves to our genetics, then every guy in the world would be a date rapist. But you and I both know it doesn't work that way.

So, you are saying are genetic instinct is to rape?

I hate to be off topic, but if you are going to make outlandish claims like this, you really need to back them up.

Brad
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
I have a feeling some essential things will become common knowledge soon.

What fuels these doomsday prophecies? As soon as a magician hears that a layman is learning a trick, they don't bother to gather the facts. Instead they reach for a sword to commit ritual sepukku.

So, you are saying are genetic instinct is to rape?

I hate to be off topic, but if you are going to make outlandish claims like this, you really need to back them up.

Brad

I had hoped you would have seen I was using hyperbole to add a little levity, but now that I look back on it I realize it was a bad joke delivered poorly.
 
Sep 1, 2007
479
0
Philadelphia, PA
Ugh.. the one thing that is annoying me is the free trick thing. I have a feeling some essential things will become common knowledge soon. Doesn't Brad feel a LITTLE bit bad?

*awaits to be ripped to shreds by Steerpike*

Are you seriously worried about key cards being revealed as part of a trick? Are you worried about a DL being revealed? I haven't seen the other free tricks but if a presentation is so shallow that a key card or DL is easily identified then it isn't the method that it is the problem.

--Jim
 
Aug 31, 2007
163
0
Just because someone can't catch your double lift doesn't mean that you should tell laypeople exactly what a double lift is. You should know by now that even if you aren't doing a double lift but the spectator speculates* that you are (because they are aware of the DL concept), your magic can only suffer.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Just because someone can't catch your double lift doesn't mean that you should tell laypeople exactly what a double lift is. You should know by now that even if you aren't doing a double lift but the spectator speculates* that you are (because they are aware of the DL concept), your magic can only suffer.

Most people are aware of the concept of a finger palm but I still do it all the time.
 
Dec 28, 2007
325
0
32
Finland
Most people are aware of the concept of a finger palm but I still do it all the time.


This has happened to many people who know someone who is someway familiar with concept of DL:

Everytime you turn over a card, honestly or dishonestly, he states that you turned over two cards.

But of course, there are many flourishy doubles that may eliminate the thought of DL.
 
Sep 1, 2007
479
0
Philadelphia, PA
Just because someone can't catch your double lift doesn't mean that you should tell laypeople exactly what a double lift is. You should know by now that even if you aren't doing a double lift but the spectator speculates* that you are (because they are aware of the DL concept), your magic can only suffer.

Do you think it is lay people who are going after these videos to learn what a double lift is and how it is accomplished? I watch shows on quite a variety of things such as cooking, building cars, building motorcycles, etc. I don't immediately run over to the computer to learn every detail of how it is accomplished either. I would assume that the general population is satisfied much like I am with just watching the show as entertainment. Really gives me a laugh that people are so afraid of other people running off and trying to figure out how something was done, or even worse how a DL is accomplished. If every magician thought like this no one would ever leave the house or perform regularly.

Take something as simple as Copperfield performing his ace assembly routine. Broken down it is quite simple but watching him do it the magic amazement just ooze all over the place because he works to perform his magic to perfection and not half-assed like most of the stuff you see your average magician doing. He isn't doing any extremely complicated sleights or anything the average magician hasn't learned. The difference isn't in what you know it is how you apply what you know and turn it into a skilled and entertaining performance.

You do realize how long a DL has been around and performers still routinely use them in their presentations right?

--Jim
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I can only speak for myself, but when I perform I do not worry about people figuring out what I do. I worry about people THINKING they figured out what I do.

I once had a person at a nightclub promotion I was working explain away everything I did because he had heard of "counting cards." Of course it was ridiculous, but to him he had an answer and nothing else mattered.

In Austin we have an amazing show featuring comedy, music and magic. The magician performed a gorgeous levitation. During the performance an idiot frat boy (my apologies to those frat boys who are not idiots) leaned over to his date and exclaimed "It's nothing, there's a forklift behind the curtain."

He had seen the exposure show that posed that as a viable method. What he failed to realize is that the magician was performing in front of a glass window with curtain drawn. There was no forklift behind the window - there was a busy city street!

Our job is to produce wonder and anything that works against that is something I think we should be opposed to. Of course there are issues to consider, but arming people with a little knowledge AND NO RESPECT is to my mind a dangerous thing.

Thoughts?

Brad Henderson
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Our job is to produce wonder and anything that works against that is something I think we should be opposed to. Of course there are issues to consider, but arming people with a little knowledge AND NO RESPECT is to my mind a dangerous thing.

I think the "no respect" thing is the real factor here.

My typical response to a spectator thinking they figured out the method is to say, "No, but that's very creative." Sometimes I actually pull out a notepad and write it down. I've gotten pretty consistent success with that so far. But I think that's mostly part of my character.

Before I go off on a tangent, you notice that most of the people who blurt out methods want that spotlight a lot more than you do. Armed with a little knowledge, yes they are dangerous. But with no knowledge, they'll probably be just as hostile.
 
Dec 4, 2007
1,074
2
www.thrallmind.com
Before I go off on a tangent, you notice that most of the people who blurt out methods want that spotlight a lot more than you do. Armed with a little knowledge, yes they are dangerous. But with no knowledge, they'll probably be just as hostile.

Something I have noticed are people who feel insecure with you being around tend to do that. I've been performing for a group before, and then two guys showed up who were apparently some of the girls boyfriends. They saw their girlfriend were enjoying what I was doing, and then went on to try and expose me. Or people who feel they are the leader of the pack in a group. If you can spot this person, I've found if you do some of your better effects, and make them feel part of it as opposed to going about it like you are trying to trick them, they tend to try and expose you much less. Just my thoughts.

Brad Henderson said:
I can only speak for myself, but when I perform I do not worry about people figuring out what I do. I worry about people THINKING they figured out what I do.

I'm the same way. I've said it before, it doesn't matter how the effect is actually done, but instead what the spec believes happened. If they can create a viable method, it doesn't matter. I performed Sinful for a group once, and some guy yelled out "He just switched out cans when we weren't looking," even though it was his beer I used, and I had him sign both the can and coin.

-ThrallMind
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
The problem comes with the nature of magic. Too many people consider it a puzzle to be figured out - both performers and audiences. (This I believe is entirely our fault, just for the record.) To them, any answer is a valid one and cause to dismiss the performer.

Now, a great performer can go far to over come this attitude through personality and rapport. A great performer can go far to over come this attitude by constructing presentations which conscientiously eliminate methods in the mind of the audience while keeping the focus on the dramatic aspects of the presentation.

But every nugget of data the audience has is one more hurdle for the magician to overcome. Of course those hurdles can be traversed - but should we be happy to have them set before us?

I have taught magic for over 20 years. In doing so my goal has always been, first and foremost, to teach a respect and appreciation for the art. Admittedly we do that THROUGH the teaching of a trick, but even if the student forgets the trick, I want them to leave thinking more highly of what we do and those who do it.

If these magic tutorials encouraged that attitude - as opposed to "see how easy it is" - then magic would benefit from them. Without the respect, it is simply another hurdle for conscientious magicians to have to deal with.

Brad Henderson
 
Dec 4, 2007
1,074
2
www.thrallmind.com
As a disclaimer, I am NOT blaming Street Magic for this post.

That being said, I believe the problem of people wanting to expose an effect has always been around. The difference is, in a street magic performance, not busking, not street performing, the type where you walk up to someone and show them an effect. As an aside, a street performance is where the audience comes to you, street magic is where you go to the audience. This is my opinion, and a distinction I make in this post.

Anyways, in street magic, the audience is right there. There is no stage, darkened room, or payment that separates the audience from the magician. In a stage performance, the audience sits and watches. Later when they go home, they do discuss how they believe the effect was done. The only difference is the were unable to approach the magician to directly question him or her.

Whereas now, since there is an increase in street magic, you are hearing more people saying audiences keep trying to expose them.

Also, I believe if you walk up to someone an show them an effect, they are already less incline to want to see it. You walked up to them, you asked them if you could show them something (Not my style, but I needed an example) . In my opinion, if they say yes, this is a favor they are doing for you. And by you making a "fool" of them in front of their friends, something they weren't expecting when they walked out of their house, they feel the need to try and expose.

Whereas a street performance, or a stage performance, people came to you. You will still get people who heckle you, however most of the people who are there are there by their own free choice, and therefore want to be entertained.

-ThrallMind
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
(This I believe is entirely our fault, just for the record.)

I agree completely. I really do believe that magicians create a lot of their own problems, though the same could be said of people in general.

But every nugget of data the audience has is one more hurdle for the magician to overcome. Of course those hurdles can be traversed - but should we be happy to have them set before us?

I probably stand alone on this, but to an extent, I enjoy the challenge.

Not only is it a challenge to me as a performer, but as a person. There are few things more gratifying than turning an enemy into an ally. And they often make the most loyal, supportive allies.

Personally, I wish more magicians would take that paradigm.

This might sound tangential, but I wanted to ask you a question Brad. How familiar are you with the ancient Chinese general Chuko Liang?
 
Jan 7, 2008
20
0
I dig it! I'm glad that this is on since A&E took Criss Angel off. So I get my magic fix from this and channel 13 in the L.A. area puts a magic show or special on once a week!
 
Jan 7, 2008
20
0
I would say that I wish the celebraties would trade instructors weekly just so that the magic would be more rounded out, and not necessarily clones of there teachers.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results