Ecrof

Reflections on Psychological Forcing

By Ross Tayler
Cover Illustration by Jaye Tayler
 ECROF
Reflections on Psychological Forcing

By Ross Tayler

I don’t want to write this bit, as I truly do wish to trust you people. Unfortunately, I’ve been
informed via my family’s go-to lawyer, that you’re all vicious, nasty little children of Satan –
and so must be legally prevented from trying to steal all of my precious work for your own
ends.

Basically, please don’t. Please don’t copy it. Please don’t send it or teach it to friends who
have not purchased it. Please don’t upload it to file sharing sites. Please don’t do shitty
performances of it on YouTube (or good performances, for that matter – not without editing).
Please don’t try to pass off minor variations as your own work in order to gain fame and
fortune. Please don’t do anything of the kind – I’m sure I don’t need to spell it out for you.

Perform it, have fun with it, and let it inspire you. Just be considerate. I love you all, please
show me that love back.

For those of you unmoved by my emotional appeal to our connection as humans – here’s a
massive fucking legal message:

Copyright 2015 © by Ross Tayler

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used
in any manner without the express written permission of the author.
For further information or enquiries contact the author at:
[email protected]

   
 “No, no! The adventures first, explanations take such a dreadful time.”
- Lewis Carroll

   
 Contents

Foreword by Fraser Parker .....................................................................................................1

Introduction...............................................................................................................................2

What is ‘The Mirror Principle”? ............................................................................................3

Forces .........................................................................................................................................4
Remote Viewing………………………………………………………………………5
Fresh Air………………………………………………………………………………7
Dictator……………….……………………………………………………………….8
Liberator…….…………………………………………………………………...........9
Think-A-Drink………………………………………………...…………………..…11
Stay Positive……………………………………….......…………………………….13

Creating Your Own Forces………………..………….………….………………………....15

The Conditions……………………………........………………………..………......15
The Steps…………………………………...…………………………...…………...16
The Free Choice…………………………………...…………….……….....16
Justify………………….…………………………………………..………..16
Switch………………….…………..……………………………..…………16
Pressure…………………………………………………………..…………16
Reframe…………………………………………..…………………………16
Walk-Through…….…………………………………………………………………17

Reframing...…………….…………………………………………………………………....19

Applications…………………………………………………………………………..……...21
Predictions………………………………………………………………………...…22
Influence…………………………………………………………………….22
Psychic Spectator……………………………………………………...…….22
Mind Reading………………………………………………………………………..24
Tossed Out Anything………………………………………………………………...25

Missing……………………………………………….………………………………………27

Thanks and Credits…………………………………………………………………………28

Directly………...…………………………………………………………………….28
Indirectly….………………………………………………………………………….29

Final Thoughts………………………………………………………………………………30

Further Forces and Other Frivolities………………………………………………………31

The Reversal Principle…Reversed!............................................................................32
Gateway to Heaven…………………………………………………………………..34
The Ruler Force………………………………………………………………...……35

   
 Foreword by Fraser Parker

Ross Tayler is a very clever young man. He constantly impresses me with his thought process
and seemingly effortless ability to create not only ingenious, but often groundbreaking
solutions to the performance of prop-less mind reading. Although, this seems to be a more
recent concern of a “few” of us, who are trying to push the art form into the realms of using
words only to create seeming miracles; this seems to have always been the ultimate goal for
the Mentalist, in terms of method.

Ross understands the difference in how this approach not only makes himself feel about what
he does but also how it feels to his audience; it is why what we DO seems REAL. If you like
my work or even some of the work of my friends then I know you will also want this and
other work Ross puts out. His thinking is genius. I predict he is going to make a name for
himself quickly and will soon be thought of alongside names such as Peter Turner, Michael
Murray, Atlas Brookings and other great modern thinkers of the genre.

It is a privilege to have him as a friend and soundboard for my own mental meanderings. I
feel I should also mention that he has fooled me on many occasions, so I know first hand how
powerful such thinking can be.

Please take the time to not only read this manuscript but to also ponder on all of the possible
applications of this principle and to also go out and actually perform this material. It is only
then will you be able to see for yourself just how powerful this approach can be for a modern
audience.

Fraser

17th May 2015

Lincolnshire, UK

  1  
 Introduction

Firstly, welcome to my first solo manuscript: “Ecrof: Reflections on Psychological Forcing”.

This will tackle my approach to having spectators think of names, playing cards, places and
objects – and yet being able to control their thoughts from the outset. All this thanks to “The
Mirror Principle”.

Some history:

This method was inspired by an idea my dear friend Fraser Parker published as a bonus in his
fantastic book, True Mysteries 1. Here the spectator thought of a card, and then changed their
mind. By discovering the first card thought of, it was possible for the performer to determine
roughly what card the spectator had changed to. This was a really interesting idea to me, and
by reverse engineering it I devised the approach you’re about to learn.

Initially this was developed as a card force, which Fraser and I released at the beginning of
this year (2015) under the title “The Circle Force”. Unfortunately, outside circumstances
resulted in us choosing to remove this product from sale shortly after its release.

This disappointment, however, turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

Confronted with the almost immediate cancellation of my first ever publication, I was
naturally distraught. Thankfully, however, the way I deal with such feelings is to channel my
disappointment and frustration into periods of intense creativity (often accompanied by a
bizarre mixture of Assam tea, Courvoisier, Häagen-Dazs and Spaghetti Carbonara – usually,
but not exclusively, in that order).

When I created the original Circle Force, after reading TM1 around 3 years ago, I was
focused only on refining the original effect. That is, the ideas I was experimenting with were
exclusively focused on playing cards. Indeed, I never considered the potential for applying
these ideas outside of that arena. That was until, just prior to the release of The Circle Force,
my friend Michael Geddert of Germany enquired as to whether my new principle could be
applied outside of playing cards. I responded that it probably could, but I had yet to do this. I
then gave little thought to the idea. That is, until everything went (as the British say) tits-up.

It’s a widely known piece of psychology that the harder you try to push something out of your
head, the more prominent in your thoughts it becomes. Consequently, in my attempt to forget
the frustration of the experience, I found that The Circle Force was continually recurring in
my mind. As was Michael’s question. Suddenly a flood of ideas hit me, and I have been
refining these through casual and formal performances ever since. These ideas allowed me to
apply The Circle Force to seemingly anything – as shall be illustrated later. All this came
from distilling it down to its most basic essence, which I have entitled: The Mirror Principle.

I sincerely hope you enjoy this manuscript – every effort has been made to ensure that
nothing of importance has been missed.

Ross Tayler

2nd June 2015

Warwickshire, UK

  2  
 What is “The Mirror Principle”?

It’s becoming increasingly recognised that the key to creating effects and methods is to have a
large toolbox of “principles”. These are the methods-within-methods, the underlying concepts
behind the workings of effects once they are reduced down to their most fundamental idea.
By going through this reduction process with existing effects, methods and routines, one can
locate the broad concepts which allow us to create illusion - further allowing one to see where
these ideas can be applied elsewhere. Doing this with The Circle Force allowed me to
discover The Mirror Principle.

Simply, The Mirror Principle restricts someone from a potentially unlimited selection field, to
a tightly limited selection field, in the act of changing their mind.

A spectator thinks of something in a named category (e.g. foods). This category is then
divided, by the performer, into two subcategories, one larger than the other (the larger
containing their current thought). The spectator is then asked to change their mind to a
thought from the other category, and is thus forced to think of the statistically most likely
(psychologically appealing) thought in that small category.

As a result of this, otherwise very restrictive (and therefore reliable but not deceptive)
psychological forces become incredibly free, as the restriction is framed as a change-of mind.
As the first thought is so clearly free, scrutiny is removed from the second choice.
Furthermore, as all of this occurs in the participant’s mind, only they are aware of their
apparently self-imposed restrictions. So, whilst they may be attempting to think of a “healthy
food” (for example), the audience will perceive this as “any food”. This is also how the
participant will remember the effect.

In its rankest form, imagine this: you ask a spectator to think of a number from 1-10
inclusive. You then ask them to change their mind to another number within that range, but
with the stipulation that if they’re thinking of a single digit number, they switch to a two digit
number and if they’re thinking of a two digit number, they switch to a single digit number.

Clearly 90% of the time (actual maths!) they will be thinking of the number 10.

Don’t be too concerned; this is not the whole method, and the principle is covered nicely by
the scripting; however I felt it would be better if the most basic element of the idea were
understood at the outset.

With that done, let’s look at some examples of The Mirror Principle in action.

  3  
 Forces

Let’s get stuck into the meat of this manuscript: how to force anything!

Firstly I should note that, for all the reasons Fraser and I chose to withdraw the original Circle
Force manuscript, I will not include the method for forcing a card here. Suffice to say it relies
on a psychological colour force, some restrictive language, The Mirror Principle and aspects
of Kenton’s The Secret. I always force the Jack of Spades, and it is very reliable. I’m sure you
can work this out for yourself once you understand the principles explained in this
manuscript, which I personally feel far surpass this original use. As Fraser once said to me:
“playing cards are for wimps”.

The above paragraph does, however, illustrate something I feel to be worthy of mention: that
this technique is at its strongest when combined with other principles and methods. Many of
the routines in which I now use this feature, alongside The Mirror Principle: classic
psychological forces, gestures, restrictions, progressive anagrams, statistics, fishing, cold
reading, logical disconnects, CUPs, the force-linkage principle, one-aheads, the Hoy principle
and other more established techniques. A small number of these shall be covered, although I
try to avoid pressing too much into other areas, preferring to remain purely on the topic of
forcing single items. You should, however, be aware of this fact when applying The Mirror
Principle to your own routines.

I won’t go into a great deal of detail on presentation, as this is a highly subjective and
performer-dependant area. Suffice to say that these techniques are highly adaptable to many
characters and styles of magic and mentalism, but that it is the effective performance of these
routines that creates magic and mystery, not the techniques themselves.

Let’s examine first a pure application of the force, then how it can be used to clean up
classical psy-forces, and be combined with other techniques.

  4  
Remote Viewing

A spectator thinks of a holiday destination, and then changes their mind. The performer can
now reveal this information - or even show that it was predicted 12 years in advance, inside a
sealed walnut, in a lemon, in a can of baked beans, in the petrol tank of a car, in a cargo
container, on a cargo ship, in the middle of the Atlantic.

I shan’t reveal my method for getting the prediction into the above impossible location, as I’m
sure this is blindingly obvious to everyone who’s read Corinda.

The force, however, is this:

The spectator is asked to think of a country, whilst being subtly pushed towards a hot country.
They are then asked to switch countries – to a hot country if their country is cold, to a cold
country if their country is hot; several countries may be eliminated by using them as examples
during this process. In my experience, the most frequently named country (by quite a
significant margin) is now Iceland.

The scripting is as follows:

“In a moment we’re going to go on a little journey together. I’d like you to think of country,
perhaps a holiday destination like America or somewhere in the Caribbean – it doesn’t have
to be anywhere you’ve been”

One can clearly see how the mention of a holiday would guide a spectator towards a warmer
country (which they are preconditioned to anyway). For those interested, Spain seems to be
the most common choice at this stage (although I would not rely on this).

To guide the spectator to Iceland, we follow up with this scripting:

“Now clearly I don’t know where you have or have not been in your life. However to make
sure you were in no way influenced in a way I may be able to guess, we’re going to have you
change your mind. To make sure this isn’t predictable, if you’re thinking of a cold country
right now, switch to a hot country like France or Russia... wait, Russia isn’t hot is it, haha,
um, well maybe Africa. If you’re thinking of a hot country at the moment, switch to a cold
country like Poland or Alaska. Do that now! [Snaps fingers] Got it?”

Note firstly how the change of mind is justified, and framed in such a way as to make the
process seem more rather than less fair, ironically acting as the method whilst apparently
making the task even harder! Also notice how the conversational style allows us to eliminate
an extra country. You may find that depending on your geographical area (or that of your
spectators), different countries are thought of more frequently, and therefore different things
need to be eliminated. This is the primary weakness with this particular force, but can be
easily remedied with a few test runs and adjustments. (It should also be clarified that I’m well
aware that neither Africa nor Alaska are countries. I’m not a complete fucking idiot. These
work in the script, and that’s all that matters.)

I find that applying slight pressure at the end of the force improves the effectiveness, as it
encourages the spectator to latch onto the first “cold” country they can think of. Perhaps it is

  5  
the “Ice” in Iceland that makes it so accessible when thinking in this frame, but whatever the
reason I’ve found this to occur an overwhelming percentage of the time. 1

Clearly this force could be dressed up with countless presentations, and I’ll leave this to the
discernment of the performer. The beauty of this force is that it is short and sweet, and can
therefore be slotted into a wide variety of routines. In many senses this is the purest
application of The Mirror Principle: a thought in a category is restricted by binary
categorisation, following a small amount of psychological nudging. Next we shall look at
how this technique can be used to clean up a classical psychological force.

                                                                                                               
1
An excellent variant on this force was suggested by my dear friend, Bryony. She speculated
that replacing “Hot/Cold” with “Sunny/Icy (or Snowy)” might increase reliability. It certainly
works, although having only tried it this way around 25-30 times, I feel loath to include it in
the main body of the text. The limited sample also gives no indication as to whether it
especially impacts the reliability of this force, although did show a bias towards the mention
of Sweden or Switzerland when the force did not hit (perhaps it’s the sibilance?). I have no
way of knowing if this was causal, however. I chose to mention it here as some may find it a
useful variant. Please contact me if you choose to perform this extensively and find it to affect
reliability to any significant degree.

  6  
Fresh Air

A classic psychological force, to be found in Psychological Subtleties 1, is the force of a

tree/car by asking for something one might see outside. Those who’ve played with this will
know that it is incredibly reliable when performed on laymen, but can lack impact due to how
blatant the restrictions are.

The Mirror Principle can clean this up, and when combined with a little gesture forcing, can
create a very reliable and very deceptive force of a tree.

The scripting follows:

“I’d like you to think of an object for me, now. It can be as random as you like!”

This first piece of scripting achieves two ends. Firstly, for some reason the word “object” has
connotations of ‘smallness’, ‘manmade-ness’ and ‘inside-ness’ (only one of which is a real
word.) It is the connotation of ‘inside-ness’ that shall act as the binary characteristic allowing
The Mirror Principal to operate. Secondly, this is an incredibly fair initial choice – the
spectator could clearly be thinking of anything. By emphasising fairness now, it shall not be
questioned later.

“Now, to make sure you haven’t been influenced by your surroundings, or by my words, I’d
like you to change your mind completely. In fact if you’re thinking of something you might
find inside, switch to something you might see outside [gesture upwards with both hands, as if
drawing a mushroom-cloud, or caressing the waist of a voluptuous, corset-wearing maiden],
like a car or a shed – and picture it really big in front of you. If you’re thinking of something
you might see outside, switch to something you might see inside, like a lamp or a chair.”

Again, we begin by justifying the change of mind. This is very important. Furthermore, by
emphasising a “complete” change of mind, we encourage our participant to shift from small
to large, and technological to natural. This is subtle, but I do believe it has an impact.

We then eliminate two other common choices, the car and the shed. Actually, we eliminate
four choices. The inside objects we name are actually quite ambiguous, and serve to eliminate
street-lamps (which I have heard more often than one might expect), or park-benches, which
can be common depending on your location.

The gesture here is very useful – we essentially draw a rough outline of a tree-trunk blooming
into branches, emphasising its tallness. This is reinforced by telling the participant to picture
it “really big”. Combined, these subtleties make for a very effective and reliable force,
building on the efficacy of the classic, whilst making the whole process seem incredibly free
and fair.

Think about how this could be applied to other psychological forces you perform, and you’ll
see everything become much fairer and much more deceptive.

Before we get into a few more sequences, which plan for the inclusion of other techniques,
I’d like to demonstrate one final application of The Mirror Principle being utilised in its pure
form.

  7  
Dictator

Here is the first example of how I use The Mirror Principle to force a person. Some may find
this to be less commercial due to the force-individual, however I have never had a problem
with this.

Whilst I personally prefer the next method I shall explain (which uses a tiny element of
anagramming) when performing, due to a slightly greater level of reliability, this has some
elements that I quite like.

The force individual is Adolf Hitler.

“I’d like you to think of an individual from history who did something important… [snap and
await confirmation], or rather, had a big impact, but it doesn’t have to be anyone obvious.
For example, this could be Isambard Kingdom Brunel or Florence Nightingale – not
necessarily someone like Thatcher or Thomas Edison or Stalin.”

The adjective “important” has connotations of being worthwhile and good. There are very
few people who would say that Hitler “did something important” (in Britain, at least; this may
not work for our readers in West Topeka). This encourages the spectator to think of an
individual they look upon favourably.

By allowing the participant to settle on an individual and then expanding on what you said to
eliminate the restriction, we create the illusion that it was not in place.

Finally, we throw in the implication that the spectator could be thinking of some quite
obscure individuals. We also include two individuals who may be considered “bad” (by some
– this is not a vehicle for my political opinions); this serves the dual function of implying that
they’re unrestricted as far as public perception of this individual goes, and eliminating these
individuals from the second phase. Naturally, these individuals may change based on locale
or nationality.

We then force Hitler using the following opposition:

“Now, to make this even more random and make sure I couldn’t just guess who you might be
inclined to think of based on your values: if you’re thinking of someone you’d consider good,
switch to someone you’d consider bad. And if you’re thinking of someone you’d consider bad,
switch to someone good. Do that now! [snap fingers]”

The first sentence here is interesting. Firstly, it justifies the change. Secondly, it implies that
the first person they thought of is representative of their values, by implication stating that the
person they switch to should be far from their values. And what would most of us consider
more alien than Nazism?!

We then use The Mirror Principle to guide our spectator to a “bad” (sometimes I supplement
the word “evil” here, as it has slightly stronger associations) individual, and apply pressure to
force them towards the most obvious choice of bastard.

Now we’ll look at a second method of guessing a thought-of individual; one which combines
elements of progressive anagramming.

  8  
Liberator

When performing, I prefer this method. It is more reliable, and forces a better class of
individual. It depends on two most unfortunate circumstances: the ‘philosophies’ (I use the
term loosely) which developed to justify the horror or the slave trade, and the impact they’ve
had upon the history of our species; and the continually poor education system operating in
this country – which for reasons unknown to me continues to prioritise the teaching of white
colonial history, focussing primarily on the events of the past that reinforce the outdated
notion that our country is still a mighty one. I’ll elaborate on these two points and their
implications for The Mirror Principle at the end of this section, but for now I assure you it’s
not all as gloomy as it sounds.

We’re going to force Martin Luther King – a perfect example of how alcoholism and adultery
aren’t always so bad.

We do, however, have a failsafe built in to our revelation process, as another popular choice
is Nelson Mandela. For this reason, you may choose to use a multiple out if using this as a
prediction. Personally, I prefer the verbal revelation, and therefore perform this almost
exclusively as a demonstration of pure mind reading.

First, the force:

“So, I’d like you to think of an individual from history. No one too obvious.”

That’s it! I know, sad isn’t it? Unfortunately, due to the factors mentioned in our introduction,
almost all people who immediately spring to mind will be white. I should note that I in no
way relish this fact; however we will exploit people’s limitations for methodological reasons.

“Perfect. Now, to make sure we’re all PC and above board, and to make this even more of a
challenge: If you’re thinking of a white person, switch to a black person, a black person,
switch to a white person. [snap fingers] Perfect! So by including all races and cultures, the
number of possibilities expands drastically.”

Now may be a good time to admit that I came up with this particular piece as a satire on The
Mirror Principle. I really did believe that both this and my Dictator force would be too
obvious to people. However, following extensive testing of each, I’ve come to realise that
people simply aren’t aware of their own historical ignorance, nor their inherent racial bias.
Perhaps they’re just not prepared to admit it to themselves, and therefore reframe it in their
own minds. Either way, worry not – people don’t catch on.

You’ll see the switch follows the familiar pattern: Justify, Switch, Pressure, Reframe. We’ll
look more at this in a later chapter.

Now we reveal with a simple P.A.

“Okay, so see this person’s full name written nice and big in front of you. Focus on the first
letter, and repeat it to yourself… Is this an M? N? [await response and continue to reveal
Nelson or Martin]”

  9  
You’ll see how easy this is; it’s barely a P.A. The phonetic similarity between the letters is
very helpful in justifying the process (if it can be called that), and immediately gets you down
to the chosen individual.

If neither of these hit, all hope is not lost. You may be dealing with someone of slightly better
education/imagination. In this instance, I’d call Rosa Parks (or Jesus if they fancy themselves
to be a contrarian), as even those of good education and open mind are only likely to think of:
MLK, Mandela, Mohammed Ali, Malcolm X or Rosa Parks. As you can see, the N/M line
covers all but one of these. I’ll note I’ve only twice had this happen in around 100-200
performances of this particular force. No one to whom I’ve taught this method has ever
experienced this. 2

You may choose to create a more detailed anagram or PCA of the above individuals, just in
case. Personally, I’ve had no reason to do so.

                                                                                                               
2  It’s  worth  noting,  for  our  friends  in  America,  that  some  individuals  I’ve  asked  to  test  this  in  the  
States  have  had  George  Washington  Carver  thought  of  on  a  few  occasions.  This  has  never  been  an  
issue  in  the  UK,  and  I  certainly  don’t  foresee  it  ever  being  an  issue;  however,  as  school  
curriculums  and  culture  vary  across  the  Atlantic,  this  may  be  worth  considering  if  you’re  of  the  
Yankee  persuasion.    

 10  
Think-A-Drink

In the special edition of A Piece of My Mind, Michael Murray has an excellent method for
determining a drink thought of by a spectator. Having seen him perform it, it’s a thing of
beauty, and I was certain I could create a similar effect using The Mirror Principle. I’m
delighted with the result, and it’s very me!

Again, we’ll combine the force with a simple anagram. Actually, this is closer to a principle I
refer to as the PCA (Progressive Conceptual Anagram), in which the qualities of a thought,
rather than the letters, are anagrammed. I created PCAs because I’m convinced that the way
we read peoples’ minds should be in line with the way they think. In my experience, people
think more in terms of texture, appearance, associations, etc than they do in terms of letters. I
have much more work on PCAs, some of which I may choose to release in the future;
portions of which are in conjunction with The Mirror Principle. However, this is not the place
for a lengthy discussion on the topic.

The force drinks are tea, coffee and hot chocolate. I’m sure you can see where this is going…

“I’d like you to think of a drink for me… It doesn’t matter if it’s an alcoholic drink, or a soft
drink, but do commit to one now [snap fingers].”

Here, we can see how making connections with outside interests can dramatically enhance
creativity. To force the spectator to think of a cold drink, we make use of the False
Dichotomy Principle. This is a technique for restricting choice without seeming restrictive. In
studying politics, I encountered Luke’s “Three Faces of Power”: decision making, agenda
setting and (amusingly) mind control. It is not the latter of these that interests us here,
bizarrely, but the concept of agenda setting. The concept of agenda setting is as follows: by
deciding which choices or topics are to be presented for discussion, one can eliminate
undesirable ideas. Furthermore, in philosophy and critical thinking, a classic logical fallacy is
the “False Dichotomy”, in which two possibilities of many are presented as the only two
possibilities. An example of this might be: “A car can be either red or black. My car is not
red. Therefore, it must be black.” Clearly, the initial premise of this argument is false.
However, the restriction it imposes begets an apparently logical conclusion. By combining
these ideas, we have a very useful tool, which we can utilise to impose restrictions whilst
apparently removing them. Apologies if this level of depth is uninteresting, or if the principle
itself seems too simple to merit or require this degree of theorising; however, I thought some
might be interested in how such ideas can come about. In this context: we’ve forced someone
to think of a cold drink, due to the connotations of “soft drinks” as being cold.

“Now, to make sure neither your preferences, nor the weather, nor any other predictable
factors could have influenced your decision, we’re going to change it. So let’s say… if you’re
thinking of a cold drink, switch to a hot drink, a hot drink, switch to a cold drink. [Snap
fingers] Perfect! So there’s no way I could know this.”

Justify. Switch. Pressure. Reframe.

 11  
I’ve had someone name Mulled Wine. Once. Never perform for someone whose father
donates to the Tories. Amongst all the dirty proles I so love, however, I’ve only ever had Tea,
Coffee and Hot Chocolate. That’s what we like.

In reality, a one in three barely needs a method. Write one down. Cross one out. Throw one
out as an example. You’re golden.

However, I quite like the direct hit, and a little process improves the performance besides.
Therefore, I now use a PCA as follows:

“Okay, I’m getting the impression of something sweet, yes?”

Strong agreement at this point is Hot Chocolate. In which instance, I quickly check like this:

“And I get the feeling you associate this drink with childhood memories to some extent?”

Hot Chocolate will get an affirmative response. If not, we continue as if we had a mild or
negative response to our first statement.

This will be Tea or Coffee. If the drink was sweet-ish, in my experience it’s more likely
coffee. More people sweeten coffee than do tea, it’s a less enjoyable beverage without (fact,
not opinion!) Either way, I proceed as follows:

“Hmm, okay focus on the flavour. I’m getting a sense of bitterness. Yes?”

A strong reaction here indicates coffee. A milder (but often still positive) response will be tea.
This is a fine difference, which you shall learn to discern with practice. If you wish to practice
this, simply ask friends to think of one of the three drinks and practice. It’s a lot about
instinct. I’m sure there are more direct routes to take, but I like the subtlety of this method.

If you’d prefer something easier and more direct, those who are familiar with Michael’s
Comparative Uncertainty Principle will see how easily it could be applied to these three
drinks. I shan’t explain the principle here, as whilst I’m certain Michael would be entirely
gracious (he always is), I really do think you should purchase A Piece of My Mind directly
from him. The material is fantastic, and this principle in particular is infinitely adaptable.

One other shout-out to a friend: In his fantastic book Ratiocination the delightful Ben Cardall
has an idea he calls “Sugar Theory”. In short: this is a technique for knowing how any person
takes his or her tea, simply by looking at them. In the future, Ben will also reveal his work on
knowing whether someone is a black tea, green tea or a coffee person (if any of the above).
I’m sure you can see how these principles could elevate the final part of this routine. Buy his
existing work, and then I won’t need to tell you to buy his future work. You’ll do it by choice.

 12  
Stay Positive

This is the final force I shall present. It’s a means of forcing a simple drawing. I’ll say up
front that this is the riskiest effect in the book.

“I’d like you to think of a simple shape for me. Now change your mind. And again. And
again. And again. Perfect.”

Basically, we force the spectator away from a circle, as they will think of this within the first
three choices. By going beyond this, therefore, we ensure they’re on a straight-edged shape.

“To really make sure we’re exploring every option: if you’re thinking of a straight-edged
shape, switch to a curved shape. A curved shape, switch to a straight-edged shape. [snap] So
this could clearly be any shape or symbol at this point, I don’t know if you’ve gone for a
geometric shape or a more intricate symbol – this is completely random ”

Justify. Switch. Pressure. Reframe. Clearly they’ll now be on either a circle or a semi-circle
(I’ve never had an oval). We’re now going to have them generate a picture from this shape.

“I’d like you to create a simple drawing out of this, by adding a few lines in or around it.
[circular gesture with hands]. Just get something in your head, now [snap]”

“A few lines in it” will clearly lead to a smiley face if they’re thinking of a circle. “A few
around” has a good chance of leading to a more Cheshire Cat-style grin if they’re thinking of
a semi-circle (although admittedly this is closer to 60% than the 85% I’d expect for the circle
– figures which, I’ll admit, I have to some extent plucked out of my arse. However, they are
based on estimations made from experience.)

This effect is a little gutsy, but builds on pre-existing psychological force images. This makes
it quite reliable. I have missed on this. Worst case, you draw an image close to the spectator’s
in general shape/outline. An out I have used is to draw a smiley face inside a sun, as with the
end of the Teletubbies; this can be interpreted either way and accounts for two of the most
popular images. I, for one, am fine with a close miss occasionally, especially given how fair
the conditions feel. I don’t have enough of an ego to be bothered by being a little off.

Again, don’t be worried about the polarity being an obvious one. There are several curved-
edged shapes once we think about it. Given that the reframe implies they could have been
thinking of a more complex symbol, this will not cause you any issues. Furthermore, once we
get into the drawing, everyone forgets the initial shape. Equally, a sort of dual reality is
created, and the audience at large is never aware of the initial shape; therefore even if there’s
some kind of smart-arsed bastard in the group, the force is concealed from them. This is just
an additional layer.

For those worried about this, feel free to create a PCA of every image you can imagine
drawing with these two shapes. It won’t take long, and I’m sure will be worth the effort.
Personally, if I’m going to go to all this effort, I have more efficient methods at my disposal
for billetlessly divining drawings. The closest I may come to this is saying:

 13  
 “I’m feeling quite positive, does this make sense? There’s a smile on my face?”

If no reaction came from this, I’d transition into a classical method. A slight reaction may
lead me to go with the Sun, after elaborating about feelings of warmth and happiness and
gauging the reaction. For a quick, casual, bold effect, however, I find this quite satisfactory.

 14  
 Creating Your Own Forces

As you can see, there are a number of different ways in which The Mirror Principle can be
utilised to force pieces of information. Clearly, providing every force I’ve ever come up with
using this method would be time-consuming and not especially helpful. Instead, in this
section, I’ll walk you through the process of creating your own forces, and perhaps drop a few
hints as to further forces I have used. We’ll just have to wait and see!

The Categories

Firstly let’s look at the conditions of the force.

1. We must have a category. This may be any of (but is not restricted to) the following:
• Foods
• Drinks
• People
• Objects
• Toys
• Animals
• Shapes
• Places
• Numbers
• Playing cards
• Hobbies
• Careers
• Emotions
• Books
• Films
• Sports
• Drawings
• Clearly there are infinite possibilities of categorisation. If you have a specific
object you want to force, just think of a category it fits into and work from
there.

2. Establish a polarity. Any kind of binary opposition can work. One may even utilise
the False Dichotomy Principle if no legitimate binary exists. The key is to ensure that
one category is larger than the other, and the force information appears in the smaller
category. Here are some ideas:
• Hot/Cold (food, places, drinks, habitats)
• Good/Evil (people, animals)
• Big/Small (numbers, countries, animals, people, objects, toys)
• Light/Dark (colours, places)
• Old/New [young] (people, places, books, films, art, sports)
• Inside/Outside (animals, objects, plants, food, sports)
• Vowel/Consonant (letters… obviously… you fool)
• Manmade/Natural (objects, foods, places)
• Hard/Soft (objects, toys, foods)
• Male/Female (clothing, sports, colours, books, films, animals, emotions)
• Happy/Sad (memories, places, people, emotions, films, books)
• Dead/Alive (people, animals)
• Dull/Fun (careers, games, books, films, toys, people, places, sports, foods)
• Colourful/Dull (fruits, foods, toys, countries, objects, places, films)

 15  
 • All manner of others. As you can see, some can be applied to many
categories, others are much more specific.

3. Use restrictive wording. Not always strictly necessary, but this can help in certain
circumstances. Personally, I prefer wording which implies, although does not state any
specific restriction. Imperatively, one must not restrict using the words of the polarity
unless this is incredibly natural, synonyms are available, and a strong reframe is at ones
disposal. This will tip the method immediately.

4. Psychological forces. Some methods are, to some extent, reliant on favourite choices or
psychologically prominent selections. Know what these are. Find other likely choices
and seek ways to eliminate them, either by naming them or using restrictions (in most
cases, the former is clearly preferable). Alternatively, establish some kind of P.A,
P.C.A, or multiple out.

The 5 Steps

1. The Free Choice: The first step is to give the spectator a seemingly free choice
within our selected category. The less restricted we can make this feel, the better, as
(especially if we get them to verbally confirm how fair it is at the start) we can hang a
false memory on the fairness of this moment. Use just enough restriction to box them
into the larger category and, where possible, try to rely on natural tendencies and
implication rather than explicit restriction. It is in some cases possible to have a first
change of mind in this phase, which only adds to the fairness of proceedings.
2. Justify: The change of mind must be justified; otherwise it will be seen as part of a
method. However, justification=acceptance, so this issue is very easily
circumnavigated. The justification can be as simple as “to make this even fairer”,
although a logical explanation of why the first (incredibly fair) choice may be too
obvious is also helpful. None of this need stand especially close scrutiny; it only
needs to be logical enough for the spectators to accept it in the moment.
3. Switch: Here is where The Reversal Principle is implemented. Quite simply, have the
spectator switch between the polarities, and perhaps eliminate a few other possible
choices as required (this is force dependant). Occasionally, one may choose to tell the
spectator to change their mind, then add this caveat: “So now, to make this fair, I
want you to change your mind… in fact, if you’re thinking of…” Thus, in the reframe
you can refer to this simply as a change of mind. It is also important to note that you
should mention the switch in both directions. This both clarifies the instruction, and
avoids the implication that you already know in which field they lie. It should also be
noted that more than one switch can take place; for example, in the original Circle
Force, both the value and the colour of the card were switched. This opens up many,
many possibilities.
4. Pressure: This is simply used to encourage the spectator to settle on a more obvious
decision, as these occur to them first. Thus, an “evil individual” doesn’t come out as
Chairman Mao or Harold Shipman. This can be as simple as snapping your fingers.
5. Reframe: This is not a full reframe, as will be described later. Rather, this is a
sentence or so of recap, both to emphasise fairness and to remove any restrictions
which may exist after the spectator has committed to a thought. This is especially
important if the smaller of the binary categories seems too small, and may therefore
be obvious. We provide evidence that, in fact, it is not obvious. This sort of recap
may also be placed after the free choice, if restrictions had to be imposed.

 16  
Walk-Through

With these concept in mind, let’s look at how we might create a force together. Let’s make
the category: celebrity.

So first, in establishing the polarity, it’s good to find a trait shared by most celebrities. This
means that when this trait is established as a polarity, one category will be drastically smaller
than the other, and thus The Mirror Principle will be effective.

Off the top of my head: beauty. Almost all celebrities have it. Furthermore (again,
unfortunately), this seems to be more an identifying feature of female celebrities than male
celebrities, as women seem to be judged more on their looks. This uncomfortable fact will
serve as an additional restriction.

Now may be a good time to elaborate on a comment I made earlier. When forcing people, we
must often take advantage of horrible circumstances. When people are categorised and
marginalised (as is required for The Mirror Principle), it is rarely, if ever, a positive thing. So
sadly, if we wish to force people, our methods become rooted in the horrors of our society
and it’s history of inequality and persecution. Whilst this brings a new meaning to the term
“magicians guilt”, I tend to console myself by saying: “either I will create joy and wonder
from these horrors, or someone will realise what I’m doing and realise how much reform is
needed to protect the vulnerable in our world.” In this way, we have no need to feel
uncomfortable in utilising these situations to our methodological advantage.

Back to the force. The dichotomy we set up would now be: pretty/ugly. Clearly this would be
for a very particular crowd, and personally I would probably not choose to perform this, as it
would create the wrong tone for my act. It serves well as an example, however.

I won’t name the force individual for two reasons. First and foremost, I think this would be
cruel. Secondly, this will vary depending on time and location, so would be useless for
readers in any context but my own. However, I’m sure we all agree that the media labels
certain people as “ugly” at certain times, and much of the time this will be a common
perception within certain countries/locales at particular times.

The script would attempt to ensure that one of these individuals was not thought of initially. It
might go something like this:

“I’m going to ask you to think of a person. Now I’m really interested in how the media and
society control people’s aspirations and how they change, it’s almost like mind control. In
fact, why don’t you think of a celebrity – someone lots of people would be familiar with.”

The mention of aspiration and familiarity would create a semantic field of positivity, so this
would lead towards someone perceived as physically attractive. For me, this is the ideal form
of restriction, in that it’s not a restriction, but will cause them to restrict themselves without
realising it. Here we also add a little premise, to justify the categorisation. So that’s step 1 –
The Free Choice. I’ll label the remaining 4 steps within the script:

“To make sure this is no one obvious (Justify) if you’re thinking of someone that would be
perceived as ugly, switch to someone generally perceived as attractive. If you’re thinking of
someone you’d consider attractive, switch to someone generally presented as being ugly.

 17  
 (Switch) [Snap] Got one?! (Pressure) There’s now no way I could know of whom you’re
thinking, as you’ve gone to one at random, and then changed your mind completely! Equally,
beauty is an entirely subjective concept, so your view of who’s attractive and who’s
unattractive will be entirely different to anyone else’s. (Reframe)”

Remember that structure! Justify, Switch, Pressure, Reframe. That is how the second stage of
the force always works, and each stage is important. Stick to it.

In the first section of the switch, we refer to someone “generally perceived as ugly”. This will
strengthen the influence of media presentations of individuals, and avoid individual opinion
turning up unexpected answers (especially important if you’re dealing with someone who
likes to be contrary).

This is then reframed in such a way as to imply that ugly/pretty is no restriction at all, by
introducing the suggestion that it’s all subjective anyway. Of course, in truth, we know that
this is not entirely true in practice, as the media, society and evolution have all programmed
some pretty specific conceptions of beauty into each of us. Go to any pub in the country and
sit with a bunch of “blokes” – there will not be all that much disagreement.

So there’s a reasonably constructed Ecrof Force using The Mirror Principle. Hopefully this
has helped you to better understand the process of construction, and will aid you in
developing your own forces. As stated earlier, this is almost certainly not a force I’d use, as it
puts the audience in a bit of an unpleasant state of mind. For a bit of a laddish party, it might
go down okay, although I’m not sure I’d want to encourage that way of looking at the world.
However, it did allow us to highlight a few important points, so I hope no one has been at all
offended by it.

If you were, you’re probably ugly.

 18  
 Reframing

Of incredible importance in this type of work, and this method/effect in particular, are the
concepts of reframing and creating false memories. Typically, a full reframe will be
performed after all process is completed, just prior to the revelation (although scripting and
other factors we’ll draw on for the reframe are peppered throughout the whole routine). This
also provides an opportunity to theatrically build, and improve the impact of, said revelation.
Here I present my thoughts on this topic, through a direct excerpt from the incredibly limited
“The Circle Force” manuscript. I hope you benefit from it.

Reframing

It’s often said that most of an effect happens in the minds’ of our participants, after the
performance. Therefore, we should always be acutely aware of how they go on to remember
an effect. I therefore think it necessary to include a brief discussion of creating false
memories via the reframing, or recapping process.

Essentially, this process involves us retelling, to the spectator, how we’d like them to
remember an effect. For those who doubt the necessity or efficacy of this technique, here’s an
example of just how strong it is, taken from my own performing experience:

I was doing an impromptu performance at a friend’s house party, and had taken the time out
to bend a coin for a PK routine (if you want an impromptu coin bend, nip outside, slip the
coin into a crack in the pavement, and kick it). I went into the routine, switching the coin into
the participant’s hand then using suggestion to have him feel it bend. It absolutely blew the
guy away. Then the bête noir of the modern performer struck. A month or so later I bumped
into this guy in the pub, and he informed me he’d got bored one day, so found himself
searching ‘how to bend a coin by magic’ on YouTube. Of course, it didn’t take him long to
find the method. He told me he knew I must have switched the coin, he was right – but here’s
where it gets interesting. I responded:

“That’s really interesting, and I’ll be honest I know people who do it that way, but think back
– did I ever even touch the coin? I couldn’t have switched it.”

He thought for a second, then a frustrated grin burst across his face.

“Damn it! You didn’t! I thought I had you!”

This stuff works. In the context of this force, I’d suggest the following script:

“So let’s quickly look at how fair this is! I asked you to think of any card in the deck – that
was a totally free choice, wasn’t it? No influence or restriction! And then to make it even
fairer I had you change your mind entirely! How many times did you change? Clearly there’s
no way I could know to what card you’d change before even you knew!”

 19  
Note the irritating number of exclamation marks. I find it important to become quite animated
at this point, so as to sweep the spectator along in the emotional journey – and shut down
their critical faculties.

The points we mention multiple times are those we really wish them to remember:

• That all of their choices were free.

• That they had total freedom in their decisions.

• That they could have changed their mind in any way they wish, possibly multiple times.

Essentially, we increasingly exaggerate how impossible the effect was, but using similar
wording along the way. Therefore, people accept increasingly incorrect statements as fact.
Let’s take the coin switch scenario:

1. Ooh, no, you take that, I don’t ever want to touch it!

2. Okay, make sure I stay away from the coin, I don’t want to touch it.

3. And be sure to see I don’t ever touch it!

4. Again, I never touch the coin.

5. Is that really bent?! I never even touched it! Can I touch it now?

See how a statement about my own intentions soon slips into a reality altering statement.

Use these techniques both in this routine and in others – I guarantee it will make your magic
stronger.

 20  
 Applications

What? You thought that I was just going to present you with a bunch of methods to make
people think of things and then leave you to go out and botch up my good work with shitty
applications?! No, sir! You will do this justice.

This list is by no means exhaustive, simply a broad-strokes overview of some of the

possibilities.

I’ve kept the inclusion of specific plots to the minimum – as mentioned earlier, I think the
number of applications this tool has far exceeds the scope of this manuscript. From magic to
mentalism, influence to telepathy, you reading their mind, them reading your mind – the
possibilities are numerous.

Suffice to say: theatre is king. Without your presentational skills – this tool is about as useful
as a nun in a brothel.

For me, the highest aim is to use these techniques to emphasise a spectator’s own talents,
intuition and perceptive abilities, rather than simply my own.

As The American novelist Edith Wharton said in her really fucking long poem Vesalius in
Zante. (1564):

“There are two ways of spreading light; to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.”

 21  
 Predictions

By and large, I disapprove of using these methods, or indeed any psychological forces, as
predictions. Whilst I’m not above this (in very specific contexts), I’m of the opinion that once
the spectator is aware that you made them think of something, or led them to it in some way,
they begin looking to ways of back-tracking. Suddenly every decision becomes “what
everyone says”, or perhaps they even begin a process of self-examination and realise that
their personal knowledge of so-called “black history” is severely lacking. Then they realise
that you made them change, and take a guess that everyone starts on a white person.

Perhaps I run without being chased; however, in my mind, it’s simply not worth the risk of
having a great method exposed - unless, that is, one is using a very clean force, with a very
compliant and enthusiastic spectator and using a heavy dose of reframing prior to the reveal.

It’s also worth noting that, with these effects, infinite possibilities are opened up for using
multiple outs. I’ll leave these to your discretion, however.

Influence

A word is written on a billet, which is placed face down on the table, in an envelope, wallet or
even the spectator’s pocket. You speak with the spectator about advertising, hidden messages
and subliminal influence. The spectator thinks of a person/object/drawing under the fairest
possible conditions, even changing their mind. You are then shown to have influenced their
thoughts.

This is the simplest application of the force; however, there are some nice elements to this
presentation that make it effective. Firstly, you’re really doing what you say you’re doing.
Even if a spectator were to cotton on to elements of the method (they won’t, but just
imagine), you really are using words to influence someone’s thoughts – there’s nothing to
uncover. Secondly, on the rare occasion you miss slightly, you’ll always be close. Therefore
you can point out that, like advertising, these methods can’t produce precise results – but it’s
clear how they can produce results closer than mere probability would permit.

If performing this way, I tend to throw in some pseudo-influence script, which can be
referenced later (Evening of Wonders, anyone?), as this drastically enhances the believability
of the supposed method.

I only use this with a few of the forces described, for the reasons mentioned at the start of this
section.

Psychic Spectator

My favourite use of a prediction is for a Spectator-As-Mind-Reader routine. This doesn’t

create the same sense of challenge as a prediction effect, and to me is a far more interesting
plot anyway.

I frame this in several ways:

A word is written on a billet, which is placed face down on the table, in an envelope, wallet or
even the spectator’s pocket. You tell the spectator to slip into a negative state of mind and
think of a name/place/object. You then encourage them to focus on a time they felt positive or
especially intuitive, and now to change their mind entirely. The new word is named, and it is

 22  
then shown that the spectator is more skilled than they first believed.

Again, a very simple application of the force. The shift in spectator state justifies the change
of mind. I love this type of presentation, as, if the spectator is guessing, it prevents them from
being difficult. It’s also far more pleasant and theatrically interesting to apparently give a
spectator a skill, or teach them to achieve their potential. The fact that they’re not a real
psychic will act as an out, if the force misses slightly.

Alternatively, I justify the switch based on the fact that we each have opposite perspectives,
the implication therefore being that due to their position as spectator and yours as performer,
they will have thought of the exact opposite to you. I won’t give a full script, but this is a very
simple presentational ploy, which I’m sure you can develop for yourself.

Now it seems like they knew something after the fact, rather than you having known
something before. Thus, the idea that you ‘forced’ the information on them doesn’t really play
a role, and they won’t try to backtrack along these lines as they would with a prediction.

Actually, I tend to present this in a third way currently, which I’ve chosen not to include here.
I base it around intuition and the subconscious, and include elements of hypnosis to make the
whole routine much bigger than its parts. This is very personal to me, however, and for now
I’d like it to stay that way.

 23  
 Mind Reading

My favourite way of using these techniques is in a demonstration of pure mind reading. A

spectator thinks of something, changes their mind, and then I reveal it.

There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it falls more in line with my character and
supposed abilities. Secondly, I think it reduces the scrutiny on the process, inherent in a
prediction-style effect. And thirdly, the ability to be flexible in the revelation process
massively improves the reliability of these techniques. By using a variety of the fishing and
revelation techniques I will now describe, we can avoid misses, or at worst know when
they’ve happened prior to embarrassing myself with a dud revelation.

Quite simply: perform the force under whichever justifications you wish, then use any process
you wish to affect the reveal. All I’d ask is that you don’t just come out with it: take your time
and make it look as hard as it should be.

This process may also be an active part of the method, if forcing a selection of ideas rather
than a single piece of information. In the routines that have required this, we have briefly
included a number of techniques: PCAs, PAs, and fishing. Look at the qualities of the
possibilities, and throw these out in ambiguous ways so misses can easily be washed away.
Think of this as cold-reading objects.

Another useful technique is a ploy used by Derren in his “Smoke” routine from Pure Effect.
In demonstrating to the spectator how you wish them to repeat something in their mind, a
possibility is thrown out. This will be considered a revelation if it hits, a demonstration if not.
It’s a no-miss strategy. Pete Turner also has a nice version of this, which I believe can be
found in most of his books and DVDs. I’m certain it’s in Jinxed. Maybe. You may have to
check yourself.

To be honest, I see no need to expand much further on this topic. There are many sources and
techniques for fishing – so I don’t really see the advantage for the reader in explaining how to
determine which of three possibilities a spectator is thinking of. This has been covered
extensively elsewhere.

There is, however, one final method of using this technique for mindreading demonstrations.
It is, I think you’ll agree, a thing of beauty.

 24  
 Tossed Out Anything

This is a beautiful effect, which can be utilised close up or on stage. It combines the Ecrof
Force with the ‘Hoy Principle’ and some further scripting to create the illusion of a multiple
mind-read with no props, pre-show or fishing. Initially, this was devised with the original
Circle Force in mind, and it works fantastically in that context. However, it can also be
utilized, to great affect, with other Ecrof Forces.

Briefly, the ‘Hoy Principle’ involves forcing a single piece of information upon a group, then
apparently reading each of their minds individually by ‘revealing’ several pieces of
information, including the force item, and then asking each spectator to confirm that you
named their thought. A multiple reality is created, as every spectator believes the other
thoughts named where those of their fellow participants.

Have six spectators stand from different areas of the audience and perform the force on the
group. Let’s say, we force a hot drink.

“Okay, I’m not certain on all of these, but this is what I’m getting: Ribenna, tea, some kind of
lager, I think Carling, , um... there’s also some kind of coffee... Really send it! Okay no that’s
all I’m getting, some kind of coffee, but we can count that. Cherry Cola. And finally,
grapefruit juice.”

Each spectator is now addressed individually. Moving from right to left, point at each of them
one by one and instruct them directly, as follows:

“If I received your thought, please sit down.”

The idea of addressing the spectators individually is an excellent one of Wayne Dobson’s. It
serves the dual function of building the climax, and thus creating multiple applause cues, and
strengthening the illusion that each spectator was thinking of a different item (or drink in this
case.)

Note how “coffee” is thrown out as a general category, in case any of the spectators have
thought of a specific type e.g. latte, espresso, etc. This guarantees that they will accept your
answer, and consider their minds read.

So what if a spectator or two remains standing? I’ve only had this happen about three times
(first time I tried it for my family, the dicks; once in normal performance; once in front of a
roomful of magicians at my first lecture, ouch!).

You’ll notice that the only force drink not included in the spiel is Hot Chocolate. This is to
create the possibility of an additional effect – one of synchronicity. If two spectators remain
standing, I’ll say something along the lines of:

“Hmm, looks like we’ve got some crossed wires here.. I wonder, sometimes people have a
certain connection and this can happen. I think you might both be thinking of the same drink.
Really focus… I don’t know why, but I’m getting childhood memories from you both. And
Christmas. Marshmallows and cream. I think, somehow, you’ve both wound up thinking of
hot chocolate?”

At this point, you should have a miracle, of sorts.

 25  
If not, don’t panic, you’re reading minds; four or five out of six isn’t bad! But we can actually
recover further – in the original Circle Force, there are only ever twelve cards the spectator
can be thinking of (assuming every psychological aspect of the force misses) if they have
followed your instructions. The revelation script left only four possibilities, which were very
fishable. With some of the forces here, a similar strategy can be taken.

Alternatively, stand up straight, be a man, and fucking deal with it. Laugh it off, and then
move on. Or perhaps, tell the spectator that they’re a tricky-bastard, write something on your
pad (another, mechanical, force), and pull them up on stage. Gain their thought with the
Dunninger ploy, and then tie this into a one-ahead routine. Easy.

The reliability of this routine varies with the specific force. Using the think-a-drink force, for
example, is almost 100%, whereas the thought of object (tree) force might be closer to 65% or
70% (depending on a number of external factors). In that instance I’d avoid eliminating
anything during the force, and I’d throw out tree, car and the broad category of sports gear:

“Something to do with sports… really focus… no, that’s all I’m getting, sports apparatus of
some kind, but we’ll count that”

This in a effort to cover as many bases as possible. I’d probably also make the “inside”
objects (some of which should always be thrown out to hide the force) ambiguous in this
instance, e.g. lamp, table, chair, to further my reach. For this application, some forces are
better suited than others (due to the desire to be pretty close to 100% on stage in a routine of
this scale). However, it is reliable, and it absolutely kills: a propless, multi-person mind-read,
in which they have a free choice and change their mind. Come on!!

 26  
 Missing

It is possible that occasionally - due to poor delivery, participant selection, or simply some
spectators being total arses – someone will have intentionally or otherwise diverted from our
path. In all incidences, the best solution is to brush it off as nothing. Blaming the buffoon will
only make matters worse and, if their mistake was unintentional, you risk alienating a
potentially shining participant (especially as following their mistake, meeker spectators will
often be especially eager to please and therefore will become putty in your Machiavellian
hands). Real mentalism is hard – this should be clear to your audience, so if your attitude is
correct, they’ll forgive something as minor as missing one thought.

Of course, if one is proficient with the basics of sleight of hand and classical mentalism, many
of the effects herein could be rectified with a billet switch, one ahead, top change, nail writer,
Phantini out, etc. I’ll leave this up to you - your decision should be dependant on your
character, presentation and performance circumstances.

Equally, one could simply move into a different effect if the force misses.

Whatever you do, just remember to stay relaxed. You own the performance space. Only you
know where you’re going. Only you know your process. There’s nothing to call you on.

It’s all in mind.

Ultimately, when performing any effect there’s a chance of missing. Key cards get forgotten,
breaks get dropped, swami leads snap, spectators write above the impression device or miss-
fold the billet; the list goes on! As mentalists we needn’t worry about this, and as magicians
we have the tools to jazz around it. This method is reliable and this effect is powerful. Learn
it, use it, and create some real miracles for your spectators.

 27  
 Thanks and Credits

I have several people whom I wish to thank for their help in all manner of areas, especially as
pertains to this work. There are also a few credits, which need dishing out.

Directly

Jaye Tayler First and foremost: my absolute beast of a sister! We have her to thank for
the incredible cover-work that graces the front of this manuscript! She’s
the single most fantastically talented human I know, and I couldn’t be
happier with the result. She’s also a source of continuous support, and has
put up with me charming her friends with these skills at inconvenient
times for far too long! Easily the most wonderful person I’ve ever met.
Love you sis!

(BTW, anyone with an interest in getting some fresh and original

illustrations for their own projects – or any form of commission: contact
me and I’ll put you in touch. She’s the best I’ve seen.)

Fraser Parker This guy! Fraser is, in my opinion, one of the greats of our time. It feels
fucking weird saying that, because in my head he’s just a mate, but in truth
he really is. His work has influenced my approach massively. True
Mysteries and Memoria were some of the first pieces of mentalism to
which I was exposed, and they’ve informed many of my own creations
and ideas. Since, we have become very close friends, and our frequent
chats shape the way I perceive this art. He’s a great guy, and a genius. The
original idea of changing a card to discover it, which inspired the Circle
Force, is his from True Mysteries. Much love and props (or is that: no
props… shit, how funny am I?!)

Lloyd Barnes Just for convincing me that this little thing I do is good enough to actually
sell. Lloyd is a hell of a creator, and it’s great to have such a bright guy
backing my work. Feelin’ that Celtic lovin’.

Jakob Michaels For being continuously supportive in all my endeavours, encouraging my

development of the Ecrof Force, and just generally being one of the most
genuinely lovely and down-to-earth people you could ever have the
pleasure to meet.

Josh Liepa A Muggle mate of mine, who bizarrely has become incredibly influential
in the creation of Ecrof. He was the first person to whom I showed The
Circle Force (in a GCSE English class, if you must know), and he’s
encouraged me to discard many crap ideas with this. He also performs it
unusually frequently for a guy who knows nothing about magic. A true
friend, love you man.

Bryony Barratt My best friend in the whole world. I’m so glad to have had you in my life.
Bryony has been a source of constant encouragement on my way up
through this community, and I have her to thank for the cheerful, playful
mindset, which has allowed me to be so creative these past few years. I’m
really going to miss you at Uni, but I know you’ll always be there.

 28  
Indirectly

Michael Murray Not strictly a credit, as the two are unrelated, but The Reversal Principle
is in some ways similar to The Boomerang Force from A Piece of My
Mind, in that a controlled change of mind is used as a force. The
Boomerang Force is a very clever piece of thinking from Michael, and
the whole book is very worth investigating!

Banackek The undisputable master of the psychological force. The original Tree
force is of course, from PS1 – a book for every performers arsenal!

Pete Turner The man of the moment! For isolating the principle of restricting without
seeming restrictive.

Mother For birthing me.

 29  
 Final Thoughts

Thank you so much for purchasing this manuscript. I realise that £20 is quite a lot of money
to spend on the creation of a teenager, who’s only recently begun to edge his way onto the
scene. Whilst I generally see faith as, in the words of the mighty Hitch3, the most overrated of
the virtues, I must thank you for yours in making the leap to investigate my work.

I’m thoroughly proud that this can be my first solo offering to the community. Ecrof, in its
various forms, is amongst my most frequently worked routines, and I use it in every single
performance: my residencies, private gigs and casual performances. It’s dazzled performers
and “lay people” (still can’t say that without wincing) alike, and is incredibly satisfying to
perform.

Its simplicity and flexibility allow it to be utilised as a tool, slotted into any existing routine or
performance, without adding excessive process or requiring specific conditions. This is what I
aim for in all of my creations.

I realise some will be worried that, in its current form, Ecrof has only existed around 10
months. This concern, I completely understand.

Let me reassure you, therefore, that this has been tested and performed to death. The original
Circle Force has existed for several years, and has been performed literally thousands of times
over that period. Whilst Ecrof is in its infancy by comparison, the mutual reliance on The
Reversal Principle means that much of the testing is interchangeable. Please don’t get this
twisted: I have performed Ecrof almost every day, since its creation, often multiple times. So
too have a number of friends and acquaintances with whom I’ve shared these techniques. I’m
sure this will be clear to readers of this work, much of the advice given being clearly from the
“school of hard knocks”. You needn’t fear performing this. Put simply: it works.

I’d love to hear what people are doing with this. Most, who purchase it, I’m sure, will already
know me – so please, all of you, get in touch and share your ideas! I’d love to hear them!

Until then, I will leave you with these 3 bonus ideas, 2 of which I have been performing for
most of my time in mentalism, the third of which originated shortly after the Circle Force. I
hope you gain a good deal of use out of them, and perhaps they’ll inspire some fun new ideas
in you.

Best Wishes,

Ross Tayler

August 2015

                                                                                                               
3  Christopher  Hitchens.  Seriously,  if  you  don’t  know  who  this  is,  stop  reading  this  immediately  
and  hit  Google.  It  will  change  your  life  (or  at  least  get  you  to  read  some  good  shit).  

 30  
 Further Forces and Other Frivolities

I’d like, now to share a few further ideas and concepts, which relate either to the topic of
psychological forcing or the Reversal Principle. I hope in this way to increase the value you
gain from this manuscript, and further expand your toolbox. Much more could be written on
all of these topics (some of which will hopefully feature in my upcoming book); so treat what
follows as an introduction, a taster, and hopefully you’ll pursue these ideas further.

 31  
 The Reversal Principle… Reversed!

This tool is best used in conjunction with the Reversal Principle to improve its reliability. It
can function as a tool on its own, although it is to some extent limited in this context, and
holds few advantages over simply attempting the force.

In this way, the Reversal Principle is used as a cue, to tell us what category a spectator begins
and ends on. This is done through a guided change of mind.

You’ll notice that having someone change their mind in such a controlled fashion makes their
task really quite difficult. Illogically, giving them a smaller number of choices makes the
thinking process harder. One can therefore see, with great ease, when they are changing their
mind.

This will be obvious in a variety of ways. Their head will often tilt, eyes glaze, we’ll get
classic NLP eye accessing cues, they’ll often nod afterwards, lose concentration once you
finish the first part of your instruction and for some (bizarre) reason, their mouth will often
drop open slightly - I’ve even had people say “okay”. Trust me, this is very obvious when
using the Reversal.

As I say, the core application of this is ensuring your Ecrof Force is going to plan. If they
seem to be changing their mind at the wrong time, the likelihood is that they began in your
force category. You may therefore choose to get both thoughts with a one-ahead, only reveal
the first thought (the change of mind seeming to be part of your process), or simply have the
second thought written down.

To apply this on its own allows one to use broader polarities e.g. odd/even cards, red/black
cards, high/low cards etc. What’s important is that, if doing this multiple times through
different categories, you ensure they remain in the category they previously switched into. If
having a spectator change their mind, for example, between multiple cards, it’s important to
state clearly: “If you’re thinking of an odd card, I’d like you to switch to an even card, but
stick with your current thought-of suit.” This way, the spectator doesn’t depart from pieces of
information you’ve already gone to the effort of harvesting. This could be used as a propless
variant of Michael Murray’s excellent Boomerang Force, with a little consideration.

To be honest, I rarely use it in this manner. More often, I have the spectator change their mind
once, and use that information only. For example, in a DOB or star-sign reveal – I may use
this to find out what season or element they could place their initial thought, using the
Reversal Principle with a faux-reversal (a little like the false dichotomy principle).

“I need a random thought to practice on, because I need to tune in, but don’t want you to
think I’m just fishing. We’ll make sure it’s completely unrelated though, so it gives me no
clues. So if the sign you’re thinking of is a Water sign, switch to an Earth sign. An Earth sign,
switch to a Fire sign. A Fire sign, switch to an Air sign. An Air sign, switch to a Water sign.
So now you’re on a completely unrelated thought on which I can tune in.”

This may seem a little involved, but that’s kind of the point. The spectator will be slightly
confused, and therefore will lock onto the particular task they need to perform. As this task is

 32  
itself quite difficult, the cue is incredibly pronounced. The above example would require that
the spectator be familiar with the star-signs and their elements, but clearly this is less of an
issue if using the seasons, or having them switch from one suit to another, for example.

I’ll reiterate, this is primarily a checking tool, to ensure the force is going to plan and adapt if
necessary, but I considered it worth mentioning that it can, and has, been applied on its own.
Essentially, you know where the spectator is without them knowing you do, and can alter
later instructions accordingly.

Credits

• The use of eye-movements in magic has existed for centuries. My earliest exposure
was Erdnase’s “The Expert at the Card Table”, under the heading “Methods For
Determining A Card Thought Of, D.” Roger Crothswaite and David Berglas have
both worked extensively with this method.
• In “Tricks of the Mind” by Derren Brown, I first read of the use of eye-accessing
cues in a lie-detector routine, or in determining the type of thought a person is having.
This is where much of my own work in this area derives from.
• Ben Seward in his excellent “Cog” popularised the use of eye-cues to determine a
thought of card. His method is almost a blend of the other two mentioned here, and is
well worth looking into. Pete Turner has also published on this method, in Isabella
Star 2, with regard star-sign revelations.

Now some completely unrelated forces for your entertainment-pleasure.

 33  
 Gateway to Heaven

Here I’ll briefly elaborate on the force-linkage principle. The concept is as follows: by linking
very reliable psychological forces to predictable associations, we can create reliable forces for
obscure concepts, and thus make better use of our existing repertoire of psychological forces.

This has its roots in a number of places, primarily Grey Elephants in Denmark, and Fraser’s
Memoria. I’m sure there’ve been others. By isolating the concept, however, I feel that we
open up a lot of doors to create effects much greater than the sum of their parts.

This particular force is as follows:

“In a minute, you’re going to think of something completely random, which I couldn’t
possibly know. However, to ensure I cannot influence you with bizarre persuasion tactics, we
need to make sure you are grounded in a logical process.”

This counter-intuitive explanation for the process sounds quite logical in performance, and is
sufficient to justify the process to follow.

“I’d like you to think of a number between one and ten [snap], so this is random and
unpredictable from the outset. Now I’d like you to think of a word off the back of that,
something you can relate… maybe that rhymes or… perhaps you have that number of siblings
so you go for “sister”, or whatever, it’s your choice!”

Clearly the first section is the classic 7 force. This is very reliable. Now we ask the spectator
to form a connection to a word; of course, they have no idea what this means! This puts the
spectator under slight stress and pressure, so when we offer them the escape of “maybe
something that rhymes” they immediately jump to this. The word they think of (invariably, in
my experience) is heaven.

We now reframe this, so as to imply that how they linked the two words was outside of our
control or knowledge.

Often, I’ll now go on to have them think of another word they’d relate to their current thought
of word. As I’m sure you’ll know by now, this is justified under the pretence of “making
things fairer”. The words they go for tend to be: Angel, God, Jesus, Hell. I use CUPs to
determine their word, then reveal it as theatrically as I wish in that moment.

This is a nice way of getting from a very reliable force to a much more impressive one. This
is theatrically important to me. There are many other instances, in which this technique can be
utilised: the force of a shape, a colour, a flower, an animal – we know all of these from
Banachek’s work. By simply finding links from these classic forces, we can create far more
impressive demonstrations.

 34  
I hope you find some application with this idea.

The Ruler Force

Here is a short extract from the original “Circle Force” manuscript; from my hands-off
ACAAN effect, “Pseudo Berglas”. Jakob Michaels has an excellent performance clip of this
routine, and if you’re very nice to him he might consider sharing it with you. I’ll elaborate on
further applications of the technique in a moment, but this was the initial use.

The Ruler Force

This is a prop-less timing force I’ve developed after several years of playing with the dribble
forcing of playing cards. Both forces are entirely based around proper pacing, and being
assertive with your spectator.

I make direct eye contact with the spectator, and ask them to visualise a scale in the air
between 1 and 52.

I mark this scale out with my hands, being sure to draw the scale left to right from the
participant’s perspective. Precise labelling and direct commands are key for this force to be
effective.

I now begin sliding my right hand from right to left along the “scale” and instruct the
spectator to call stop. By watching the participant closely, one can predict precisely when
they are going to say stop, and adjust the pace of the right hand movement accordingly. Most
frequently, the spectator will have you stop just over 3/5 of the way along the scale.

This is where you must be really assertive. Stop at that point and address the spectator:

“There. You’re sure? That must be what, 35... 36? Yes. And that was a free choice, you don’t
want to change. You’re happy with 36.”

This is a series of questions, but they’re said as statements. In reality, after the spectator’s
called stop, they don’t get a chance to speak until they’re nodding and agreeing with your
assessment. Only when you know they’re not going to change do you step off them and ask if
they felt the choice was free. Nodding your head whilst making these statements and keeping
solid eye contact is a very effective way of increasing your spectator’s compliance.

A small amount of experimentation will allow you to find your own pace with this very bold
force, and calibrate precisely how much pressure you need to put on your spectator, and when
you can begin relieving it.

Further thoughts

 35  
There it is, very simple. This force is incredibly practical and flexible, and has never failed
me in the 6 or so years I’ve been using it. I use it for many, many things, so rather than
describing each individually, I’ll make a bullet point list and allow you to adapt:

• Forcing a number for an ACAAN.

• Forcing the number for a forced playing card.
• Forcing a suit for a forced playing card (in this instance, I label the position of each
suit in the air, placing the force suit in the 3rd position from the spectators perspective.
The force now proceeds as normal.)
• Forcing a letter of the alphabet (this, I’d combine with The Sequence Principle, which
shall be published elsewhere, as well as Pete Turner’s Snap Change and some ideas
of mine and Fraser’s, to make the final force letter a little more detached. These ideas
shall find publication in an upcoming project.)
• Forcing a month of the year.
• Forcing a day of the month.
• Forcing one of a real or imagined group of objects visualised in a line.
• Forcing one of several categories visualised in a line.
• Forcing an object in a room.
• Forcing a person in a line.
• One of my best friends in the whole world, Brad Hodgins, uses a similar technique in
a table-spread variation of the classic force. He managed to fool me with this, despite
my using the same technique every day. Very deceptive.

There are many more places to which this can be taken, and listing them all would be utterly
pointless. Needless to say that a good understanding of the technique will allow one to adapt
it for use in almost any circumstance.

Jakob Michaels has an excellent touch with this technique, of placing the imaginary “ruler” or
“scale” into the spectators’ hands. I really like the aesthetic of this.

The biggest problem people seem to have when I attempt to teach them this technique is a
failure to be assertive and commanding. Speak with clarity. Make direct eye-contact. Label
space clearly with your hands. Gesture boldly. Keep your back straight. These things will
guarantee success.

And with that, I leave you. I hope you’ve enjoyed this journey through the looking glass, into
the world of my mind and some of my thoughts on “psychological” forcing. I’m sure we’ll
see each other again. Until then, I bid you my best.

 36  
“Alice had got so much into the way of expecting nothing but out-of-the-way things to
happen, that it seemed quite dull and stupid for life to go on in the common way.”
- Lewis Carroll