I'm not sure we are really disagreeing. Being receptive of magic is to enjoy the idea of being "cheated" on, so I'd agree that it's not necessarily rational to feel cheated in the way you were cheated. Whatever the end justifies the means, and so on.
But I think the role of good magic is somewhat to test the boundaries of negative cheating in almost anyone.
For example, you've made it fairly clear you'd think of any visual effects to be negative cheating. But what if I actually do use visual effects, but successfully double down and convince you that it _isn't_, even though you'd normally be technically aware to spot such a thing. Would you enjoy being misdirected like that?
We're far from the original point, but what I think I'm saying is there's a selection/survivorship bias here; a smaller number of great tricks with fascinating explanations and, often, decoy explanations. And the rest is just cheating ;-)
> I'm not sure we are really disagreeing. Being receptive of magic is to enjoy the idea of being "cheated" on, so I'd agree that it's not necessarily rational to feel cheated in the way you were cheated. Whatever the end justifies the means, and so on.
I'm confident that we're disagreeing. Sure, you expect to be deceived at a magic show. But that's a necessary part of magic, not a sufficient one. If you attend a magic show and it's just someone playing acoustic guitar for 2 hours, you'll feel cheated. That's different than thinking the magician's hands were empty when in fact he was palming a card. There are clearly two very distinct senses we're using for the same term "cheated." You can't just sell someone a fake ticket to a magic show then say "tada!"
> For example, you've made it fairly clear you'd think of any visual effects to be negative cheating.
If I'm watching a video production that is ostensibly a live recording of a magic performance, then of course I think post-production visual effects are just straight up cheating, in the same way that I would feel cheated if it just ended up being a video of someone playing acoustic guitar.
> But what if I actually do use visual effects, but successfully double down and convince you that it _isn't_, even though you'd normally be technically aware to spot such a thing. Would you enjoy being misdirected like that?
If I literally can't tell the difference and thus I'm completely deceived, then obviously I can't be upset. But if I later found out, then of course I would be upset. Again, being "misdirected" is necessary but not sufficient.
And at the end of the day, I still enjoy learning how a magic trick is done more than I enjoy just watching magic tricks.
But I think the role of good magic is somewhat to test the boundaries of negative cheating in almost anyone.
For example, you've made it fairly clear you'd think of any visual effects to be negative cheating. But what if I actually do use visual effects, but successfully double down and convince you that it _isn't_, even though you'd normally be technically aware to spot such a thing. Would you enjoy being misdirected like that?
We're far from the original point, but what I think I'm saying is there's a selection/survivorship bias here; a smaller number of great tricks with fascinating explanations and, often, decoy explanations. And the rest is just cheating ;-)