The Amazing Color Changing Card Trick

[LostAngeles]

I'm so focused on the fact that the shirts had changed, I missed not only the camera cuts, but the changing of the table and the background.

I did notice the Wookie/gorilla thing watching later on, though...

[SphereGuy]

I thought that was bigfoot on his way to speak to the Canadian government.

[tkingdoll]

It's a gorilla -a tribute to Dan Simon's gorilla video.

And it's C-O-L-O-U-R :D

[CynicalSkeptic]

I was so focused on the cards, I missed everything. The deck switch was easy to spot of course, but that wasn't the point.

[IceSage]

I thought that was bigfoot on his way to speak to the Canadian government.

Hahaha! Awesome observation!

[darnell11]

I was focusing on the cards and only noticed the table cloth changing colors. I saw the gorilla, too, couldn't miss him!

[phyz]

I showed it in class ASAP, but at least one student had already seen it! Crikey!

Also found it best to break it into two segments for classroom viewing/discussion. Stop at the end of the trick to ask students how the trick worked, then show them the reveal.

The toughest part with HS kids is that they have no control over their own speech. They are anatomically unable to watch the trick in silence. If they notice a change of shirt color (sorry Teek), a loud announcement of that change spews from their mouths without any conscious effort on their part. They have no inner monologue.

[BillyJoe]

I have to admit that I missed everthing including the gorilla.
My son at least saw the gorilla.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The interesting thing behind this is that our perceptions are "shaped" by our attentional system. We cant see things if we are not, somehow, expecting to see them.

[BillyJoe]

The video about the basketball players and the gorilla was more impressive in my opinion.

http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html

[Gr8wight]

I'm so focused on the fact that the shirts had changed, I missed not only the camera cuts, but the changing of the table and the background.

I did notice the Wookie/gorilla thing watching later on, though...

Camera cuts? I've just gone back and watched it again, and there were none of those. I had to have the gorilla pointed out to me, though.

[Tumblehome]

Camera cuts? I've just gone back and watched it again, and there were none of those. I had to have the gorilla pointed out to me, though.


When the changes were first revealed (none of which I caught), I thought there had been camera cuts. When the "bigger picture" showed that it was one continuous shot, I realized that I had assumed there were camera cuts.

I'd make one ba-a-a-d witness. But what a great demonstration.

[BillyJoe]

On the ABC "Catalyst" series, they once showed five minute scene of a party. At some stage during the party, there was a clear view of a person stealing an object off a table. Afterwards you were shown a line of suspects and you had to pick the person responsible. It seems most people (including myself) picked someone that was at the party but was not the person who stole the object. They then replayed the 5 minute scene to show you that you had, in fact, chosen a person who featured prominently at the party but who, clearly, was not the person who stole the object.

Scary implications for eye-witness testimomy incriminating innnocent people.

[Tumblehome]

On the ABC "Catalyst" series, they once showed five minute scene of a party. At some stage during the party, there was a clear view of a person stealing an object off a table. Afterwards you were shown a line of suspects and you had to pick the person responsible. It seems most people (including myself) picked someone that was at the party but was not the person who stole the object. They then replayed the 5 minute scene to show you that you had, in fact, chosen a person who featured prominently at the party but who, clearly, was not the person who stole the object.

Scary implications for eye-witness testimomy incriminating innnocent people.


I wonder if that kind of misperception (if that's a word) is relevant in courts. I know I'd feel more comfortable now committing a crime in full view of witnesses. :)

[BillyJoe]

You might have a problem with corroborating witnesses. ;)

[rjh01]

All it would take is a mistake like many people made in the ABC "Catalyst" then you would have several people saying a certain person did it when it was actually someone else.

There are many variations on the idea.

I understand there are many people in prison who are not guilty of crimes. Many of them have been cleared because of DNA evidence.

Another example I heard is that it is difficult for a person to ID a person of a minority group who does not belong to that minority group.

[BillyJoe]

All it would take is a mistake like many people made in the ABC "Catalyst" then you would have several people saying a certain person did it when it was actually someone else....I understand there are many people in prison who are not guilty of crimes. Many of them have been cleared because of DNA evidence.


That jogs my memory. I'm sure that aspect of it was covered in that program. There was also the linked problem of publishing the face of a suspect in the papers.

Another example I heard is that it is difficult for a person to ID a person of a minority group who does not belong to that minority group.


We are all racists to some extent. Those others are "blacks", not "individuals who have black skin". We don't distinguish between them. Sad but true to realise that. But, at least, having realised that, we can work against that tendency.

[rjh01]

It is nothing to do with racism. It is to do with knowledge. It is knowing what are the differences between individuals of any group of people.

[Warge]

Nevermind...

[BillyJoe]

It is knowing what are the differences between individuals of any group of people.

I don't get it.
If it's any group, why does it apply only to minority groups?
It seems to me to be a contradiction.

[rjh01]

If you are familiar with a group of people with similar appearance and can easily tell one individual from another then you would be able to pick out a person you met once from a group of strangers (to the limit of your ability).

However if you have never met a certain group (say green coloured people), because they are only a minority group or do not mix in the same circles as you then you are likely to pick out any of that group as the person you met once.

You are likely to be familiar with people of the same groups as you are and groups that make a significant % of the population. This is because you see them every day. You are unlikely to be familiar with other minority groups. You do not see them very often. Hence this applies to minority groups.

That is why a witness of a crime done by a minority group should be asked if they are familiar with the group. If they can say yes I deal with them on a daily basis then they are as good as any eye witness. Otherwise 'do not call me I will call you.'

[BillyJoe]

I see what you mean. But I wonder if this effect is greater for someone who is actually prejudiced against the particular minority group. Part of what enables racism is a tendency to see the minority as a group rather than as individuals.

[tracer]

Another example I heard is that it is difficult for a person to ID a person of a minority group who does not belong to that minority group.
That's because you all rook arike.

[BillyJoe]

...didn't you mean r--k arike?


Actually, whilst at high school, I was one of a group of four friends, one of whom was Chinese. He was typically Chinese, even living in the Chinese restaurant that was his father's business. Yet I always saw him as an individual. To this day I have a natural friendly predisposition towards all Chinese people. In fact, it is almost a sort of reverse racism. :)

If I ever witness a robbery, he'd better not be a Chinaman!