No he's not!

[Olmstead]

Because he did it big time and got to do it on prime time tv and he is a cultural phenomenon that keeps being mentioned on television for over several decades.

As are many other criminals. He has a skill set that brought him fame and fortune in the circumstances in which he has lived. You can call that talent, but on the very top of that skill set is a complete disregard for other people. That's why sociopaths make such talented CEOs.

 

[dirtywick]

If said guy was taking a dive for several decades and still carrying on, you would have a point.

Again to go with the previous comparison of the Kardashians, plenty of celebrities had their sex tapes leaked. But who else other than Kim Kardashian made millions off of it? Okay, maybe Paris Hilton.

But out of the hundreds or more who had that happen to them, none came close and for a lot it was an absolute career killer.

Kardashians turned it into a gold mine.

You can say you don't think Kim Kardashian is talented, but she clearly is, considering that again, very few people succeed in doing what she does.
Millions try and almost all of them fail.

You could say it was dumb luck, but dumb luck can't carry you around for decades.

Now is Kim Kardashian someone I think is a good person? No.
Would I teach my (non existing) child to look up to her and be like her? HELL NO.
Do I think she's absolute scum and think she should rot in prison? Well, not really for her, but yes for Geller.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Kim Kardashian; she's a beautiful woman living a glamorous life that people are interested in, I don't find that particularly offensive that I'd need to lump her in with con artists. A couple of points is that the sex tape wasn't "leaked" and she's much more famous for her various sponsorships, social media presence, and TV show than the sex tape which is really more of a footnote from 2007 at this point than anything. And Geller's footnote is the entirety of his career, and he hasn't been bending spoons on TV, or anything culturally relevant other than bar trivia, in a long time so I believe it is a lot more like the guy who cashed in big once like the guy taking a dive. Kim was at least able to create something sustainable and relevant. If you want to talk about not giving people enough credit.

That said, I don't really see a lot of similarities between them besides a general idea amongst some that they don't "deserve" to be famous. My point is that Geller's talent, which we are supposed to acknowledge if not admire, was dishonesty about his stage magic. In a sense of historical record, yes I will acknowledge he found success by tricking people into thinking he had super powers. In the sense that this fact is something I need to respect or acknowledge as something of value, no I reject that.

His bank account is no illusion. The fact that his name is being mentioned all the time is not an illusion. I just saw a rerun of Are You Being Served and caught his name was dropped there.
A show from the 1970s mentioned him as well as a gameshow in 2021. 50 years and people still talk about him.

The man has a Pokemon named after him for crying out loud.

That is not an illusion.

His legacy and the facts behind it are that he made a large amount of money deceiving the world into thinking he was something he was not, got caught out, and is now a former celebrity level piece of trivia. This seems to be supportive of that.

If that's an achievement you feel should be given respect, I disagree. If you feel that he had some kind of cultural significance that we need to respect, I would consider him a fairly obscure Kevin Sorbo or Lorenzo Lamas level celebrity; bending spoons 50 years ago has about the same cultural impact as wearing a duster or pretending to be Hercules, and I still hear about them once in a while too. If being talented at deception and being greedy and dishonest enough to continue the ruse is something to be admired, I disagree.

 

[theprestige]

I mean, I get recognizing and even respecting the magnificent bastardy of a magnificent bastard. Vladimir Putin is my Magnificent Bastard of the Year, just about every year since he took power.

Uri Geller isn't even in my top 100. Even in the category of stage magic charlatanry, there are bigger bastards with more magnificence. John Edwards, for example. Never mind flogging a parlor trick for the lowest common denominator of the gullible. Edwards actually works a cold-reading angle.

 

[The Atheist]

... Kim Kardashian; she's a beautiful woman...

 

[Armitage72]

The man has a Pokemon named after him for crying out loud.

For which he attempted to sue Nintendo, suggesting that he was in need of money at the time.
(The Pokemon is actually named "Kadabra", for the magic word. The Japanese name is "Yungera", which he claimed was derived from his name, plus it's a psychic Pokemon that carries spoons as weapons.)

A number of years ago, I saw him doing his routine on an infomercial promoting one of those $2.99/minute psychic phone lines, so he must have needed money then too.

 

[kookbreaker]

For which he attempted to sue Nintendo, suggesting that he was in need of money at the time.
(The Pokemon is actually named "Kadabra", for the magic word. The Japanese name is "Yungera", which he claimed was derived from his name, plus it's a psychic Pokemon that carries spoons as weapons.)

A number of years ago, I saw him doing his routine on an infomercial promoting one of those $2.99/minute psychic phone lines, so he must have needed money then too.

There have been several hints the Geller isn’t rolling in dough these days.

1) He said he wants to sell his house and move into a smaller one, citing it as being downsizing and that he doesn’t need a mansion…but his present house isn’t exactly a monster.

2) He has made several odd merchandising choices, such a line of folding bikes (they bend…get it) despite such products not really being a thing you put your name on.

3) His last book, which was another batch of woo nonsense with a quartz crystal point shoved in the book frame was remaindered real fast…this was over two decades ago and he hasn’t produced anything of note since.

 

[Chanakya]

There’s an interview with Randi on YouTube where he says Geller tried to “apologize”, but Randi refuses to accept. “You’ve ruined lives, live with it.”

That "live with it" sentiment seems misplaced. That would assume he has the kind of sensibility Randi seemed to have taken for granted, the kind of sensibility that would make this a problem. He's clearly having no problems living with it, in style.

 

[Susheel]

...

3) His last book, which was another batch of woo nonsense with a quartz crystal point shoved in the book frame was remaindered real fast…this was over two decades ago and he hasn’t produced anything of note since.

I found these in one of the more elite "book stores" in my city just about then, displayed in the "current bestsellers" section. My thought was, well...we are now importing western woo, when we have more than enough home-grown stuff going around.

 

[Pixel42]

Professional magicians and professional 'psychics' use the same tricks and take advantage of the same cognitive biases and perceptual limitations, but there is a fundamental difference between them which is not subtle or difficult to grasp.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Geller was a moderately competent magician who was reasonably charming and glommed on to something that was not commonly known to be a magic trick by the general public at the time he got big.

 

[Pixel42]

Everyone is human, and most of us deceive others from time to time, of course. But, when I think of how aggressively Randi pursued Geller, it always makes me think that in some sort of way he may have been projecting a bit.

Houdini, Randi and Penn & Teller have all spent time debunking the likes of Geller, so it seems to be something professional magicians often feel a need to do. Perhaps the fact that their integrity and professional pride are offended by seeing the simple tricks they use to harmlessly entertain people used to con them instead is as far as we need to look for the explanation.

 

[The Atheist]

Houdini, Randi and Penn & Teller have all spent time debunking the likes of Geller, so it seems to be something professional magicians often feel a need to do. Perhaps the fact that their integrity and professional pride are offended by seeing the simple tricks they use to harmlessly entertain people used to con them instead is as far as we need to look for the explanation.

That's exactly it, and it's not just in USA. NZ's best-known magician, Jon Zealando, spent years debunking garbage like "psychic surgery".

 

[Warp12]

I guess this video touches on the lives that Geller "ruined"?



This doesn't really strike a chord with me. Because, these academics were very bad at their jobs, it seems to me. So, it is my opinion that their lack of competency is what really lead to their careers being affected. They could have exposed Geller and gained success.

I mean, either he was masterful...or they just sucked at their jobs.

 

[Darat]

Derail sent to AAH, if you wish to discuss something other than the topic of the thread start a new thread or find an active thread about the topic you wish to discuss.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Darat]

I guess this video touches on the lives that Geller "ruined"?



This doesn't really strike a chord with me. Because, these academics were very bad at their jobs, it seems to me. So, it is my opinion that their lack of competency is what really lead to their careers being affected. They could have exposed Geller and gained success.

I mean, either he was masterful...or they just sucked at their jobs.

According to some professional magicians he wasn’t very talented, and had a small number of tricks he relied on. I’m not qualified enough to make such a judgement so I’ll go with the experts on that one.

Regarding “sucked at their jobs” - I think that is true to an extent, but I think it is mitigated somewhat as simply being how science progresses. You have to consider what the scientific world was like all those decades ago, ESP and other such claims had not been ruled out “scientifically”, these were amongst the first scientists to try and formally research these claims. And remember they weren’t looking for human trickery, they thought they were looking for new physics, I think it is a better summary to say many of them were naïve.

 

[Lithrael]

Because things like close-up magic and cold reading exploit the existing loopholes in the ways we perceive and evaluate our experiences, anyone who is not familiar with what those loopholes are is at a massive disadvantage as far as trying to figure out what a close-up magician or cold reader is actually doing.

A bird that flies straight into a window is not bad at flying, it’s naive about glass.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Because things like close-up magic and cold reading exploit the existing loopholes in the ways we perceive and evaluate our experiences, anyone who is not familiar with what those loopholes are is at a massive disadvantage as far as trying to figure out what a close-up magician or cold reader is actually doing.

A bird that flies straight into a window is not bad at flying, it’s naive about glass.

And that's what Randi always said. I don't remember him ever saying or writing that someone was stupid when they were taken in. Just that "here is an explanation".

 

[Darat]

And that's what Randi always said. I don't remember him ever saying or writing that someone was stupid when they were taken in. Just that "here is an explanation".

What Geller did was to lie to the scientists, the major failing of the scientists was to not adjust their research to remove mundane methods and to believe Geller was honest. They jumped in because they were fooled by Geller's demonstration and lies, watching a few magic acts should have at least made them suspicious of his claims.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Because things like close-up magic and cold reading exploit the existing loopholes in the ways we perceive and evaluate our experiences, anyone who is not familiar with what those loopholes are is at a massive disadvantage as far as trying to figure out what a close-up magician or cold reader is actually doing.

A bird that flies straight into a window is not bad at flying, it’s naive about glass.

IME, as someone who interviewed folk for a living (well, it's a reasonable description of all the assessments I carried out and even talking therapies), it is astonishing how little attention many people pay to what they actually say, let alone how they say it or what questions they have been asked. Many times I had patients or their family members express surprise that I knew certain things, despite them having told me. One bairn did ask me if "psychiatric nurse" actually meant "psychic nurse"...

I've spoken to a couple of experienced police officers who describe similar things.

Take home message: experienced interviewers can get a lot of information out of many people without them knowing it, before they need to resort to the antics of some stage "psychics", and many folk don't know what they have actually said to someone.

 

[Armitage72]

On the psychic hotline infomercial that I mentioned, he did the classic trick of replicating a drawing someone made. I suspect that he didn't even bother with the classic technique of watching the motion of the pencil (which I remember Lt. Columbo immediately picking up on in one of his episodes involving a fake psychic). The subject drew a right triangle, Geller drew one that faced in the opposite direction, and the subject was wearing glasses with large, highly reflective lenses.