Measures of Propensity for Various Magic Techniques

Discuss any aspects of Magic not covered in our more specific forums.
User avatar

Topic author
R. Eugene Laughlin
Adeptus Minor
Posts: 915
Contact:

Measures of Propensity for Various Magic Techniques

Post#1 » Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:37 pm

Giovanni B. Caputo studied the visual effect that I believe to be the base-phenomenon for the black mirror facial reflection-distortion technique (FRDT), published first by Nelson White (a prior close associate of Carroll Runyon) and brought into popular awareness by Donald Michael Kraig. Later, Carroll Runyon published on the technique. I imagine most readers here are familiar with that publication history.

It's unclear whether or not Caputo was familiar with FRDT for magic purposes, but he was certainly familiar with variants of Bloody Mary game, a popular feature of pre-teen slumber parties and summer camps for decades (in parts of Europe it's The Devil Himself that shows up, rather than an angry ghost, etc).

You can read a brief report of Caputo's early work here: https://www.noeton.org/Caputo-research.pdf.

Among the most interesting findings for me and presumably many of us here is that a sizable percentage of untrained individuals with no prior expectations about what should happen experienced visual effects that are comparable to what trained individuals using the FRDT for magic experience.

As a personal side note, I've used and taught the FRDT for years and have always maintained that the visual effect is a tool of magic, not magic in and of itself. That is, getting the visual effect recruits natural vision and perceptual effects, and while those effects can serve useful functions for accomplishing magic effects, making magic with it requires the will and effort that any real act of magic demands. The Caputo findings support the first of those assumptions: anyone can experience the visual effect. And while it's difficult to know for sure if his research subjects experienced any magic effects in their lives after participating in the studies, the literature on the whole after 10+ years of studies suggests that his general research subjects don't reported any after effects. That is, if he was getting reports of that nature, he'd I believe he's publish about it.

Also interestingly, Caputo uses a regular mirror under dim light conditions in his studies. It's a reasonable guess that the percentage of people reporting comparable effects, and/or the intensity of the effects might increase if a black mirror was used. That aside, Caputo's follow up studies aimed at understanding the individual differences that might explain who gets the effect, or who gets more intense effects, and who doesn't in either case.

Caputo turned next to clinical populations and indeed found that persons with certain diagnostic profiles experienced more and more intense mirror effects. You can read one of those studies here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4373638/. With those two sources, the rest of his literature should be easy to find on your own.

Caputo's research on the whole doesn't suggest that there's anything pathological about undiagnosed people who get the mirror effect, but it does indirectly support the hypothesis that many clinically significant symptoms have sub-clinical expressions. For example, hallucinations while driving (especially at night) are fairly common among non-clinical individuals: perceiving that a street sign displayed something other than what it really displayed, thinking a pile of old tires on the side of the road was a little old lady standing there, etc.

So the idea came about that select clinical symptom measurement instruments might serve as an index for predicting who is more or less likely to experience mirror gazing effects, and/or to predict the intensity of the effects. The literature suggest two useful instruments: variants of clinical Dissociation Scales and Depersonalization/Derealization scales, which may at least partially overlap. The most common use of these scales is by general practice M.D. where certain types of psychiatric issues are suspected. They're quick questionnaires that can be completed and scored in the context of a general doctor visit. In that context if someone scores above an established threshold, the M.D. would usually recommend follow up with a psychiatric specialist for diagnostics and treatment if warranted.

At sub-clinical levels, however, I propose that the same measurement instruments might be used as an index of the individual differences that make magic practitioners more or less amenable to certain magic-related practices. Evocation with the FRDT as the easy example, but I don't think their use is limited to that. These measures may also underpin propensity for scrying of other sorts, astral travel/pathwork-style magic, and ritual magic. Given my knowledge of the research literature and personal experience in magic practice and magic training, here's what I predict.

1. Person's scoring on the higher end of the sub-clinical range on the scales are likely to find more, or easier success with the evocation to visible appearance using the FRDT, astral travel and pathworking-type magic, and the sensory experience of magic energy in the ritual magic context (i.e. the act of tracing a pentagram in the air is defined by specific physical sensations). The converse is also predicted: persons scoring lower than that are less likely or will find it more difficult to be successful with the same techniques.

The more speculative hypotheses are:

2. Persons scoring at or slightly above the clinical cutoffs, who would probably not be diagnosed without several other manifestations of disorder...

A... are more likely to express natural (untrained) clairvoyance of all sorts.2

and

B. ...are more likely to succeed at evocation to physical manifestation (from their own perspective).

I'll post versions of these scales that have no copyright restrictions in separate posts, for interested parties to review and complete if they wish.

Then, I'm interested in feedback and opinions about the existing science and my predictions, and for anyone who feels comfortable sharing, I'm interest in individuals' scores and relevant history of magic practices.

This topic has 22 replies

You must be a registered member and logged in to view the replies in this topic.


Register Login
 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jadziya and 21 guests