[krisoft]

I am not sure if I should read your sentence as sarcasm. Because of its context i will interpret it straight.

Acting requires a deep understanding of human psychology. If i would have to bet who can pretend to be anything better, an actor or a magician I would bet on the actor every time.

[eru]

Though eg method acting tries to make the simulation less required?

[krisoft]

I don't see how that changes anything? Actors pretend to be what they are not, and pretend to be in situations they are not. That is their job. Yes, method acting is one way out of many how they achieve this.

Just so we are on the same page recap of the discussion:

Observation: Magicians are less prone to mental disorders than other artists

Hypothesis1: Maybe they are not less prone, but better at hiding their mental disorders.

Follow on hypothesis2: Maybe they are better at hiding their mental disorders because they are more knowledgeable about psychology.

Now, how you check for this hypothesis is that you design a study which weeds out the truth. So it must be understood when I write my counter argument that it is speculation. It is in the absence of hard data. If anyone has evidence pointing either way that should trump such speculation.

Counterpoint to hypothesis1: There are other artist who we would expect to be just as good or even better to be pretending to be "okay". For example actors. So it feels unlikely to be just up to ability to pretend to be ok.

This is where the conversation was before your comment. Then you wrote what you wrote, which I interpret as "but some actors method act!" Is that a counterpoint to the counterpoint? Is that an alternate hypothesis? If so could you spell it out please? Sorry if this sounds harsh, I'm just trying to understand the argument you are making.