![]() For instance, in the placement force, which relies on position effects and reachability biases, most participants (on average, 60%) choose the most reachable card among a horizontal spread ( 7, 8). In addition to the priming force ( 6), we have studied other “decision forces,” which either exploit cognitive biases or implicitly restrict a person’s choice. These taxonomies provide a first step toward distinguishing between myths and plausible psychological mechanisms.Ī true understanding of these conjuring principles relies on empirical investigations. ![]() For instance, psychologically based taxonomies of misdirection ( 4) and forcing ( 5) allow us to draw links between conjuring principles and formal theories of cognition. The first challenge is met by creating taxonomies that help bridge the gap between the magicians’ conjuring methods and established psychological mechanisms. As scientists, our true challenge lies in 1) identifying magic principles that are of scientific interest and 2) distinguishing fabricated principles from plausible mechanisms. Magicians have acquired valuable applied knowledge about ways in which they can manipulate our conscious experiences, and this knowledge can provide insights into human cognition. ![]() However, contrary to Cole’s view, we believe that there is great value in studying conjuring principles scientifically ( 3). Indeed, research from our laboratory shows that contextualizing magic tricks as psychological demonstrations perpetuates false beliefs about pseudoscientific principles even when they are explicitly labeled as magic tricks ( 2). We share Cole’s view that magicians frequently mislead the public about how they use psychological principles to manipulate what we perceive and the decisions we make ( 1).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |