7 In Asch’s Experiment [1951], eight subjects - among which just one was not an accomplice - had to perform a very simple task: that of locating two lines of the same length in an image. The non-accomplice subject was, therefore, tested in two ways: at first, he was asked to give his answer publicly together with the other participants of the group. Confirming the scientist’s initial hypothesis, it emerged that the accomplices’ wrong answers influenced that of the unaware subject that, in order to avoid the disappointment of the expectations of the group, conformed his to that of the other members. In the second way, with an excuse it was asked to the individual to mark his answers on a piece of paper, so that the person - no longer held to having to give his answer publicly - marked the correct options to the detriment of other members’ mistakes who, instead, expressed themselves publicly. In Asch's original experiment, 25% of the participants did not comply with the majority, but 75% conformed at least once to the pressure of the group. In Milgram’s Experiment [1961], a pupil of Asch, another dynamic intervened, that of obedience to authority: the result is always a behavioural re-modulation against one’s own will. Each participant was given the role of teacher who had to ask questions to a student, an accomplice of Milgram, and to give a shock electricity of increasing intensity per each wrong answer. The experimenter supervised the fake experiment standing next to the participant. After the first slight tremors, the accomplice began to complain, in agreement with the experimenter, up to shout and beg to stop when he received the strongest shocks. The experimenter invited the participant to continue by means of pre-established sentences as Please continue, The experiment requires that you continue or It is absolutely necessary that you continue. The maximum intensity of the tremors reached by the participant before interrupting the experiment was the measure of obedience to the authority: 65% of the participants arrived until the end. In these experiments we can test the mechanical logic that lies behind the fact that, for most people, though knowing they are wrong, it is better to do as they told me - be it an authority, as in the case of Milgram, or a group of peers, like in Asch’s case. 8 Human, on tour since 2019. 9 The practice of questioning or denying false, exaggerated, anti-scientific statements based on scientific methodologies is the activity of a debunker. The traditional thematic area of debunkers’ intervention initially concerned UFO phenomena, conspiracy theories, claims on the paranormal, miraculous events or presumed such, studies conducted outside the scientific method. Due to the growing diffusion of the fake-news phenomenon - or, in the terminology used by Claire Wardle in 2017, of the disinformation ecosystem - today's figure of debunker is mainly concerned with verifying the reliability of the sources questioning the veracity of the content. Especially when, as is currently the case, checking and deciding what content I can find and consult online is decided by an algorithm inside Google, calibrated by some youngsters from Silicon Valley. The world goes ahead thanks to doubts, and not thanks to dogmas. This principle should always remain valid, even at the cost of patiently having to tolerate certain absurdities. Although sometimes it might result unpleasant, me I see the alternative to that principle leading us in the direction of an intellectually dystopian and Orwellian world, with a system that limits free thought, dialogue and confrontation, because what is true and what is questionable, what it is right and what is taboo, has been decided a priori for us from above. In this regard, one of the greatest living illusionists, James Randi, once said: «It doesn't matter how awake or educated you are; you can always be deceived». Do you share this statement, or rather do you believe that there could be a human category or typology that not even the best of mentalists could deceive? The effectiveness of mentalism’s suggestions does not depend on people, but on the mentalist, on his experience. People are similar, but also all different and unique. It is therefore essential to know how to establish the right relationship with those in front of us, calibrating our communication on the basis of the viewer and leading him appropriately. So, I don't see differences in the efficacy of the show, but rather in his interpretation: for instance, an engineer will look at my performance with different eyes than those of an enthusiast of meditation, and this does not mean that one is right while the other is wrong. Simply, everyone catches what resonates within himself: the analytical ones usually try to "disassemble" the performance into parts to be studied to try to understand how, while those who have a more holistic approach appreciate the whole thing, what. My shows give rise to several questions, pushing the public to face the mystery. For those with a For those with a scientific disposition, mystery represents something to be solved, while for those with a more artistic nature mystery is something to be tasted. Therefore, viewers’ mental and emotional responses will inevitably be different between them, because they indeed describe characteristics possessed by the spectators themselves: their own background, their own convictions, their own approach to interpreting reality. To me, all this is just fine: after all, art should serve as a mirror to reveal something of its beneficiaries’ nature, E =O 111
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDUzNDc=