5 ms·

>Rather coyly, Stanmore refuses to weigh in on the efficacy of such spells. “It is not my place to say whether the magic practiced by cunning folk was real,” sh

>Rather coyly, Stanmore refuses to weigh in on the efficacy of such spells. “It is not my place to say whether the magic practiced by cunning folk was real,” she writes: “I don’t know, I wasn’t there.” She does propose that all of their fellow citizens believed in the cunning folk’s powers. Many magicians had excellent reputations in the art of finding buried treasure or directing the outcome of lawsuits, and she maintains that this could only be the result of a consistent record of success. That last line of this quote and the first line of this quote sound to me like they contradict each other.

wavemode 2y ago
You can have a consistent reputation for success without having real magical powers. Being lucky is an option. ("I shall cause it to rain" and it just so happens to rain.) Outsmarting your client is another option. ("I shall cause it to rain... tomorrow" - meanwhile, you have used meteorology to predict that it will rain tomorrow. Lies and rumors are a third option. ("That magician can make it rain! I saw it with my own eyes!" meanwhile it's actually just a baseless rumor which has circulated around town for a while.)
- TrainedMonkey 2y ago
  Confirmation bias is a thing. If you believe that magical powers are real you will find a way to explain away when it does not work while celebrating loudly when it does. For example if your wizard cannot cause rain it's because the curse is too powerful etc. Additionally growing up with something, such as when everyone around you believes something, makes it somewhat unlikely that you will question it. Finally, if everyone around you believes something there is strong pressure to do the same thing to fit in. I have a theory that a lot of mental biases could be explained by energy minimization - changing beliefs requires brain reconfiguration which is expensive, so we tend not to do it... unless it's imperative to survival.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > I have a theory that a lot of mental biases could be explained by energy minimization - changing beliefs requires brain reconfiguration which is expensive, so we tend not to do it... unless it's imperative to survival. I am pretty sure this is a very variable trait among humans, some change their mind easily others almost never change their mind. Its expensive as you say, probably communities survive best when some change their mind easily and most keep their mind steady and only change when presented overwhelming evidence (usually from the minority that easily change).
- empath75 2y ago
  People who do that kind of thing for a living are very good at setting low expectations for success and blaming outside forces for failures and taking credit for every lucky hit. Dowsers, cold readers, etc.. it hasn't changed for centuries and con artists and magicians use all the same techniques today.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    > very good at setting low expectations for success and blaming outside forces for failures and taking credit for every lucky hit Sounds like a lot of management and executives I've ever worked with honestly
- interroboink 2y ago
  This reminds me of the story of Fermi and the "great generals"[1]: During the Second World War, the physicist Enrico Fermi asked General Leslie Groves how many generals might be called ‘great’, and why. Groves replied that any general who won five major battles in a row might be called ‘great’, and that about 3 in every 100 would qualify. Fermi countered that if opposing forces are roughly equal, the odds are 1 in 2 that a general will win one battle, 1 in 4 that he will win two battles in a row, 1 in 8 for three battles, 1 in 16 for four battles, and 1 in 32 for five battles in a row. ‘So you are right, General, about three in a hundred. Mathematical probability, not genius’. [1] quoted from (PDF): https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/96B11308710296966BF4B90EBA4F0DF2/S0007125000253038a.pdf/how-reliable-are-scientific-studies.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
- amingilani 2y ago
  Reminds me of this old con idea. Get a mailing list of 1024 people, send half an email that the market will go up, and half that it will go down. The next day, half of them will see you got the prediction correct. Of those, send a further half a prediction that it will go up, and the other half that it will go down. After 7 total rounds you’ll have 16 people that have seen you consistently predict the market for 7 days. Sell them your next prediction.
  - robaato 2y ago
    Derren Brown has TV shows where he implements this idea. Entertaining.
stevenAthompson 2y ago
Later the article discusses how some of those results were achieved via the application of psychology, which does explain why some might have excellent records of success.
- swayvil 2y ago
  The same could be said of any technology.
  - rfrey 2y ago
    What does this mean? The excellent results of antibiotics could be the result of psychology? CPUs? Lasers? Satellite imagery?
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      I suspect that the person you're responding to is critical of psychology, so they read my comment to imply something contrary to their very strange worldview and responded accordingly. I could, of course, be very wrong. That's just my best guess as to what they meant.
      - swayvil 2y ago
        Well that isn't self-serving at all.
        stevenAthompson 2y ago
        You gave us only eight words. I did my best to parse them into something meaningful and relevant, expending much more thought and effort than a few random words from an internet stranger are usually worth. If I failed and you meant something else with those eight words, my biggest failure won't have been misinterpreting you, it will have been in responding at all to someone who writes like they're on Twitter when they're not. This isn't the place for that.
      - 2y ago
m463 2y ago
(can't help but think of the fixer in pulp fiction) VINCENT: I said a "please" would be nice. the Wolf takes a step towards him THE WOLF: Set it straight, Buster. I'm not here to say "please". I'm here to tell you what to do. And if self-preservation is an instinct you possess, you better fuckin' do it and do it quick. I'm here to help. If my help's not appreciated, lotsa luck gentlemen. JULES: It ain't that way, Mr. Wolf. Your help is definitely appreciated. VINCENT: I don't mean any disrespect. I just don't like people barkin' orders at me. THE WOLF: If I'm curt with you, it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast, and I need you guys to act fast if you want to get out of this. So pretty please, with sugar on top, clean the fuckin' car.
utensil4778 2y ago
Those statements are not mutually exclusive. Whether or not the magic was real, people at the time believed it was real. Some practitioners clearly were successful in some manner, be it with magical or practical means

wavemode 2y ago

You can have a consistent reputation for success without having real magical powers. Being lucky is an option. ("I shall cause it to rain" and it just so happens to rain.) Outsmarting your client is another option. ("I shall cause it to rain... tomorrow" - meanwhile, you have used meteorology to predict that it will rain tomorrow. Lies and rumors are a third option. ("That magician can make it rain! I saw it with my own eyes!" meanwhile it's actually just a baseless rumor which has circulated around town for a while.)

TrainedMonkey 2y ago
Confirmation bias is a thing. If you believe that magical powers are real you will find a way to explain away when it does not work while celebrating loudly when it does. For example if your wizard cannot cause rain it's because the curse is too powerful etc. Additionally growing up with something, such as when everyone around you believes something, makes it somewhat unlikely that you will question it. Finally, if everyone around you believes something there is strong pressure to do the same thing to fit in. I have a theory that a lot of mental biases could be explained by energy minimization - changing beliefs requires brain reconfiguration which is expensive, so we tend not to do it... unless it's imperative to survival.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > I have a theory that a lot of mental biases could be explained by energy minimization - changing beliefs requires brain reconfiguration which is expensive, so we tend not to do it... unless it's imperative to survival. I am pretty sure this is a very variable trait among humans, some change their mind easily others almost never change their mind. Its expensive as you say, probably communities survive best when some change their mind easily and most keep their mind steady and only change when presented overwhelming evidence (usually from the minority that easily change).
empath75 2y ago
People who do that kind of thing for a living are very good at setting low expectations for success and blaming outside forces for failures and taking credit for every lucky hit. Dowsers, cold readers, etc.. it hasn't changed for centuries and con artists and magicians use all the same techniques today.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  > very good at setting low expectations for success and blaming outside forces for failures and taking credit for every lucky hit Sounds like a lot of management and executives I've ever worked with honestly
interroboink 2y ago
This reminds me of the story of Fermi and the "great generals"[1]: During the Second World War, the physicist Enrico Fermi asked General Leslie Groves how many generals might be called ‘great’, and why. Groves replied that any general who won five major battles in a row might be called ‘great’, and that about 3 in every 100 would qualify. Fermi countered that if opposing forces are roughly equal, the odds are 1 in 2 that a general will win one battle, 1 in 4 that he will win two battles in a row, 1 in 8 for three battles, 1 in 16 for four battles, and 1 in 32 for five battles in a row. ‘So you are right, General, about three in a hundred. Mathematical probability, not genius’. [1] quoted from (PDF): https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/96B11308710296966BF4B90EBA4F0DF2/S0007125000253038a.pdf/how-reliable-are-scientific-studies.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
amingilani 2y ago
Reminds me of this old con idea. Get a mailing list of 1024 people, send half an email that the market will go up, and half that it will go down. The next day, half of them will see you got the prediction correct. Of those, send a further half a prediction that it will go up, and the other half that it will go down. After 7 total rounds you’ll have 16 people that have seen you consistently predict the market for 7 days. Sell them your next prediction.
- robaato 2y ago
  Derren Brown has TV shows where he implements this idea. Entertaining.

stevenAthompson 2y ago

Later the article discusses how some of those results were achieved via the application of psychology, which does explain why some might have excellent records of success.

swayvil 2y ago
The same could be said of any technology.
- rfrey 2y ago
  What does this mean? The excellent results of antibiotics could be the result of psychology? CPUs? Lasers? Satellite imagery?
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    I suspect that the person you're responding to is critical of psychology, so they read my comment to imply something contrary to their very strange worldview and responded accordingly. I could, of course, be very wrong. That's just my best guess as to what they meant.
    - swayvil 2y ago
      Well that isn't self-serving at all.
      - stevenAthompson 2y ago
        You gave us only eight words. I did my best to parse them into something meaningful and relevant, expending much more thought and effort than a few random words from an internet stranger are usually worth. If I failed and you meant something else with those eight words, my biggest failure won't have been misinterpreting you, it will have been in responding at all to someone who writes like they're on Twitter when they're not. This isn't the place for that.
    - 2y ago

m463 2y ago

(can't help but think of the fixer in pulp fiction) VINCENT: I said a "please" would be nice. the Wolf takes a step towards him THE WOLF: Set it straight, Buster. I'm not here to say "please". I'm here to tell you what to do. And if self-preservation is an instinct you possess, you better fuckin' do it and do it quick. I'm here to help. If my help's not appreciated, lotsa luck gentlemen. JULES: It ain't that way, Mr. Wolf. Your help is definitely appreciated. VINCENT: I don't mean any disrespect. I just don't like people barkin' orders at me. THE WOLF: If I'm curt with you, it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast, and I need you guys to act fast if you want to get out of this. So pretty please, with sugar on top, clean the fuckin' car.

utensil4778 2y ago

Those statements are not mutually exclusive. Whether or not the magic was real, people at the time believed it was real. Some practitioners clearly were successful in some manner, be it with magical or practical means