Magic Unveils Brain Secrets, Tricks on Magicians Too

Magicians have long been masters of mind games, turning our brain's quirks and blind spots into moments of pure astonishment. But magic isn't just for show - it's become a powerful tool in the cognitive science of unlocking the mind's hidden limitations.

The science of magic has grown into a serious field of study , showing us how unreliable our intuitions and self-perceptions can be. However, a new study shows that magicians may be wrong about why their tricks work.

From psychology and artificial intelligence to education and mental health, magic is inspiring fresh approaches to some of today's biggest challenges. Today, scientists and magicians are teaming up, bringing sleight-of-hand into the lab to reveal surprising truths about how we think, see and behave.

For example, misdirection is a key conjuring principle used to manipulate what we see, and scientific research on misdirection shows just how easily our attention can be hijacked . Other techniques such as "forcing," involve subtle ways to steer our decisions without us even noticing. These illusions expose the gap between what we think we're aware of and what's actually happening in our minds.

Magicians are masters of mind control - using techniques like misdirection to guide your attention to one thing while something else slips by unnoticed. Take English illusionist Derren Brown. He claims that , with the right mix of gestures and phrases, he can get you to think of a card he's already predicted . Sounds wild, right?

According to research, it actually works. Well, kind of. Not 100% of the time, but around 20% . That might not sound like much, but consider this: the chance of randomly naming a specific card from a deck is less than 2%, and even lower if we account for biases (like people often picking the Ace of Spades). So, bumping that chance up tenfold is pretty impressive.

What does this tell us? That our decisions - what we choose, what we notice - are heavily influenced by what's going on around us, even if we have no clue it's happening.

And this doesn't just apply to magic. For example, as you are doing your weekly shop, you might think you pick your favourite brand of toilet paper because it's the best. But research shows that people often choose whatever is placed at eye level, or in the centre of a shelf. Supermarkets know this. That's why the most profitable products get prime shelf space - to gently (but powerfully) sway your choices.

We love to believe we're rational thinkers. But the truth is, we're often guided by invisible hands - and not just the magician's.

Magicians were tapping into the secrets of the human mind long before scientists caught up. For decades, they've been using intuition to craft tricks that play perfectly on our mental blind spots. But even seasoned professionals can be fooled by their own assumptions.

Here's a standout example: in the magic world, it's commonly believed that if a spectator names a card out loud (like "Queen of Hearts"), that choice is freer and less influenced by a magician than if the spectator had physically picked a card from the deck the magician is holding. Sounds reasonable, right? Except - it's the opposite.

Actions v thoughts

In our recent study, we interviewed nearly 140 people after taking part in a magic trick where they either named or physically picked a card. On average, people felt more in control when they physically selected a card, and less influenced by the magician - despite what the magic community might expect.

These findings reveal something fascinating: our sense of control is split. We feel more ownership over our actions - what we do - than over our thoughts. In other words, we trust our hands more than our heads.

But it doesn't stop there. Another long-held belief among magicians is that a trick feels more impossible and impressive - and creates a stronger emotional punch - when it happens in the spectator's hands.

Think about it: if a card magically swaps places with another while you're holding them that should blow your mind more than if the same trick happens, say, under a box on the table.

Surprisingly, that's not what the research shows. In our study, participants were shown two versions of the same trick - in one version, a freely selected card changed in the hands of the participant, while in the other version, the card changed underneath a box.

We found that people's reactions to this kind of trick didn't significantly change based on where it happened. Whether the cards swapped places in their hands or under a box, their sense of amazement was the same. The only difference? When it happened in their own hands, they felt more confused - but not more astonished.

Why? We think it's because the trick itself, just like many others out there, is already packed with emotional punch. No matter where the magic takes place, the effect is still jaw-dropping. So, it turns out, the "where" doesn't matter as much as magicians had thought. It's the "what" - the impossibility of the effect - that really leaves people stunned.

So, why are some magicians wrong about this stuff? Honestly, we don't have a definitive answer yet. But what we do know is this: even with years of experience, our perceptions can still lead us astray. That's why it's so important to test our assumptions - not just trust our gut. Magic gives us a powerful reminder of this by turning our mental shortcuts into moments of surprise.

And this lesson goes way beyond card tricks. In everyday life, we carry beliefs and assumptions - about people, situations, even ourselves - that might feel true but are built on shaky ground. Sometimes, it's just a harmless mistake. Other times, it can lead to stereotyping, misunderstandings, or missed opportunities.

So next time you catch yourself making a snap judgement, pause and ask: How sure am I, really? A little curiosity could save you from an awkward moment - or even help you connect with someone you might've otherwise dismissed.

Because if there's one thing magic teaches us, it's this: the mind is full of surprises - and we're all a little easier to fool than we'd like to admit.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.