This is a wonderful double-bind strategy (see Wonder Words Vol. Ill) that also uses the principle of comparison for a really sneaky outcome
"Do you want me to tell you just want you want to hear, or do you want me to tell you the truth?"
"Do you want me to tell you only the good things, or do you want me to be honest with you?"
Consider that a person who says "Tell me only good things" or "Tell me only what I want to hear" can have little argument later with the reading. If the reading seems to be placating, general and nothing important is revealed, the spectator must place the responsibility squarely on their OWN shoulders. It is the SPECTATOR'S decision that made the reading tt i tt so lame .
On the other hand, if the spectator chooses to be told the "truth" and not just "what they want to hear", the spectator still has little room to complain. Maybe the spectator WANTED to hear about their love situation, or their lack of money, or their concerns about health. But the spectator CHOSE to have the reader say only what the reader "honestly" saw was going on in their lives. The spectator might THINK love is their main issue for example, but the reader says that the spectator's "control issues" are the key to his troubles. How can the spectator argue? The spectator had asked to be told the "truth" of what the reader sees!
As we have stated, another wonderful part of this technique involves the comparison factor. Once the spectator chooses to be told the "truth" and not sugar coated, placating, happy things alone, the spectator subconsciously "braces" for the worst. After all, why would a reader say such a thing, unless there were unpleasant issues to be revealed, focused upon and discussed? While the reader may make suggestions and point out potential problem areas, the spectator tends to feel the reading was revealing and successful. Why does the spectator feel this way? Because compared to the horrible things the spectator imagined the reader might say, what the reader said wasn't all that "bad". The spectator now wants to believe the reader was successful, because it says to the spectator, "things aren't all that bad". The spectator feels in comparison that they can "cope" with what the reader has said, and so they want the reading to be correct. After all, the spectator stated he didn't want the reader to politely lie, and the reader didn't say "just what he wanted to hear" - so what was said must be real, detailed, to the point, and legitimate.
Notice also how in this technique, there is a very indirect statement secretly being made: the spectator has some troubles he or she might not want to face, and the reader must know something about these things. This is a hidden assumption that makes sense to the spectator, considering the reader's statement. While this is not a 100% guaranteed assumption on the spectator's part, it is likely to be a general feeling underlying the reading process. "Do you want me tojust say all good things, or do you want me to tell you the truth?", suggests that the reader knows something deeper about the spectator. There is a suggestion that if the reader says something that is not completely positive, the reader must be telling the truth.
Put yourself in the position of the spectator for a moment. What would be your answer to such a question from a reader? Put aside being a magician or mentalist for a moment. How would you feel? How would you feel when the reading, while not all positive, wasn't nearly as negative as you imagined it might be? Relieved? Considering this feeling of relief once the reading was over, would you want to say to your friends that the reading was all wrong? If you did, wouldn't that mean you would have to stop feeling relief and begin getting concerned all over again? At the very least, wouldn't discounting the validity of the reading call into question the validity of your own feelings (relief) after the reading?
Of course upon hearing an opening remark such as "Do you want me to tell you what I think you want to hear, or do you want the truth?" most spectators will tend to "choose" the latter - "truth". For a spectator to say "lie to me", they have to admit they don't like honesty. They'd have to admit they are frightened of the truth about themselves. They must then say to the reader essentially "Lie to me so I feel better about myself...", and few people will admit to this - even if they honestly feel that way.
This puts us, as readers, in a wonderful situation. If we say something the spectator doesn't agree with, then the SPECTATOR may be in some form of "denial" about the TRUTH. We are never "wrong", the spectator just doesn't want to hear it. If a spectator says for example:
"Well, I don't know about that, I don't think so."
All we have to say is:
"Well, you wanted honesty - for me to tell you the truth..." or "Do you want me just to tell you what I think you want to hear?"
... and the spectator is once again guided back to being under the spell of acceptance.
IMPORTANT NOTE: We are certainly NOT suggesting that you say anything truly "negative" to any spectator. That's missing the point of this technique, and frankly, blowing the whole reason why this works. You might say such things as "I see where you can be a little self-indulgent, but you are learning to balance that now..." or "While this may seem unsettling at first, you take a calm and sensible approach to this issue, and resolve it well in the end", and so forth. Please also see how we handle the "future" in our readings and how this applies to the 'Truth/Lie to you" concept.
If you feel a client truly sees you as incorrect, you might say something more along the lines of "Well you wanted the truth, and I see where certain control issues had been influencing things in your life. Fortunately that is beginning to change now and I see where everyone is working at being more balanced. That is exactly what is needed so you are heading in a much better direction. Perhaps that's why you don't see these issues - you have already quickly moved away from those problem areas... Good for you"!
In this way you acknowledge the spectator's view of her situation, and allow her to keep it, while you confirm your own statements.
There is also an effect that occurs when you give a NEGATIVE suggestion to someone. As in the placebo effect, this suggestion goes to work and often becomes true. So if someone says "You're going to be having fights with your spouse" chances are you will tend to unconsciously MAKE this happen. If you tell someone that they have an illness, they will likely become ill. This is very dangerous stuff! That's why we suggest that you always take any negative and hedge it along towards a POSITIVE, PRODUCTIVE outcome. Saying negative things can truly harm others. So consider this another fair warning on the subject.
Which brings us to...
Was this article helpful?
Magick is the art and practice of moving natural energies to effect needed or wanted change. Magick is natural, there is absolutely nothing supernatural about it. What is taught here are various techniques of magick for beginners. Magick is natural and simple and the techniques to develop abilities should be simple and natural as well. What is taught on this site is not only the basics of magick, but the basics of many things.