There are 7 more parts to this — follow the related videos at youtube.
« Aetogate
An enlightening series
« Aetogate
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
There are 7 more parts to this — follow the related videos at youtube.
This basic idea would make for a great psychology experiment if performed under controlled conditions.
More brits on bullshit. This stuff makes people cry down south.
Derren Brown is really cool, he has several series in the UK where he shows how he can manipulate people with mere suggestion and slight of hand
Nice stuff, it’s all very sad though. Reality is nothing to these people, they have their fantasies and will live them out regardless.
Derren Brown is awesome. You shuld check out his book as well that is a really entertaining Randi-style explanation of mental tricks, foibles habits and the like.
Sweeeeeet!!
Oli
Okay, I just saw the second one where a psychic draws a few pictures in a room and he “psychically” tells what they are.
Um… How the *FUCK* did he do that! He *did* say “draw what sails through your mind” and she drew a sail-boat but otherwise…
Yes, I know there are “soft reads” but:
1) “abstract… religious symbol … organic … a tree” => star of david and a tree
2) “curve like a banana” => banana-shaped cresent as an abstract
3) “water something moving on water” => sail-boat
4) “warm … face … sun” => The sun with a face on it
… is significantly *more* than power of suggestion.
I mean, honestly, if I were to question and question hard I’d have to conclude he really is a psychic. I simply can not fathom other then having cameras or a stooge how that could be done.
Any ideas?
Oops! Careful danley at #2, your prejudice is showing.
As much as I like Derren Brown and enjoy his shows, it seems all is not as it seems with him. Simon Singh reckons Derren is a little dishonest about how he achieves most of his tricks.
http://www.simonsingh.net/Derren_Brown_Article.html
My goodness – in part 4, I was so relieved when they showed the caption that “all these people were ‘de-converted’ later on”…. that was really sickening, the suggestiveness and all.
Putting the feet together for instability – using what little echolocation humans have, the lability of the human psyche, proprioception etc…
How many people fall for that every day? One would be too many.
I love Derren Brown. And accusing a magician of being dishonest is a little like accusing a fat cat of being lazy. It’s what they do.
@6:woozy
He SAYS it is a “trick” – that means he has some way of getting the information – that he is not sharing. What else do you expect from a stage magician?
Many, many years ago, I went to some hel-fire and brimstone church – more like as a dare. Afterwards, I was asked if I had “ever seen anything like it?” – I replied yes, I had – on stage with Kreskin (look him up if you are too young – I have been onstage with him three times)
The answer was not well received :-)
JC
I wish we had the BBC in the States, then I might start watching television again rather than just BBC episodes I download.
PZ, just curious, but had you heard of Derren Brown before? I understand he’s not too well known in the States.
You know what’s funny? I have a Christian Fundie friend who is pretty smart, a magician and an absolute fan of this series. Now, I was already able to give this guy serious doubts about the Bible, but now that I’ve seen a couple of episodes of this guy I’m going to try to either make him an atheist or at least admit to the blatant attacks on his religion that this guy does practically every show.
Should be fun, I’ll let you guys know if there’s any progress.
I never heard of Darren Brown. I’m a bit confused though. If we honestly believe he isn’t using any “tricks” or “stooges” but using keen power of suggestion. Isn’t “keen power of suggestion” every bit as amazing and uncanny as the thing being debunked.
What I mean is, I do not believe telepathy exists and I not believe anyone can read my mind to see that I am thinking about the grapefruit juice I was drinking this morning as I contemplated calling my building contractor. As well, although I believe body language and power of suggestion *do* exist, I do not believe anyone can be so attuned to them so as to deduce anything to such a degree of accuracy. Thus if someone *were* to deduce my thoughts to such a degree of accuracy I’d be utterly stunned and consider such a skill every bit as valuable and astonishing as telepathy. To explain it as “just” power of suggestion is to transfer one impossibility to another.
I’ll second the “how did he do that?” call.
I watched the remote reading one, and the “conversion” one.
How is this stuff done? Pretty cool…..
I liked the guy with the horses at the end w/ the credits. (Part 8) I doubt any of that stuff would work on him. :-)
Oh, if anyone is wondering how he did the pictures thing, it was through suggestion. It’s edited so that you don’t get to hear much of the dialogue prior or during the drawing session, but the boat on water one is blatant:
He says, (paraphrasing) “ok, do the next one, just do the first thing that *sails* through your head and please, don’t go *overboard* on details.
Pure genius.
If you want to hear the “boat on water” suggestion, it’s at the 1:49 (ish) minute mark on the second video.
What do we make of
“Tags: sin messiah false prophet lies bush antichrist”?
Oh, if anyone is wondering how he did the pictures thing, it was through suggestion. It’s edited so that you don’t get to hear much of the dialogue prior or during the drawing session, but the boat on water one is blatant:
He says, (paraphrasing) “ok, do the next one, just do the first thing that *sails* through your head and please, don’t go *overboard* on details.
Yes, I caught that but that’s utterly no guarentee that she’s going to draw a sail-boat or give into power of suggestion. And the other three pictures had no such suggestions. I find “power of suggestion” attuned to *such* a degree to be every bit as impossible as “telepathy”.
Here’s a trick. Think of a soft-drink. ….oooooh…. Are you claiming that I can *absolutely* guarentee that you are going to think coca:cola?
As far as i can tell, his mindreading technique is really just feeding certain images into the minds of his subjects. When he speaks to them just before they draw a picture og think of something, he is using words, they’ll associate with what he wants them to think about, without them knowing it.
The most obvious one is the boat:
“Let different images _sail_ through your mind. Don’t go _overboard_ on detail”.
@woozy,
Erm, absolute success is not guaranteed, but it’s not needed, and he was very careful to include things that where boat like (rocking motions, water, curves) but that, in a pinch, could still be related to something inspired by “sails” and “overboard”. And, as I said in my original post, we have no idea what else he said, what the full dialogue was between Brown and the drawing lady, because it was cut and edited, possibly deliberately so that the suggestions wouldn’t be obvious.
And, well, when you said soft drinks I did think of Fanta, which is a pretty solid coke brand, and it would be reasonable to assume I would think of, say, aluminium bottles.
It is an amazing ability this guy has, and I was skeptical, but seeing so many *other* magicians, even speaking with other magicians, do or talk about how to do, it does just turn out we’re massively prone to even casual influences.
He’s got a live show on in London right now, although it’s coming to an end and there are no tickets left, sorry.
I went last Thursday night, and it was fantastic. Lots of great mind reading, all sorts of stuff.
However, a previous poster is correct, in that a lot of the stuff he says he’s doing by “reading” people, or by “neurolinguistic programming” is actually done by more mundane methods.
He does put on a great show though.
“Let different images _sail_ through your mind. Don’t go _overboard_ on detail”.
And if someone said that to you you would have to draw a sailboat? I can accept and do accept a small ammount of leading the witness but to *such* a degree?
If anyone actually *does* have such a degree of persuassion, couldn’t an argument bit made that his abilities are equally impressive as those a messaih is supposed to posess, and who cares whether he’s the son of god or a really really good con man; the “messiah-ness” of both are equally valid and “impossible”?
Using suggestion is not 100%. You’ll get some misses, but that’s why you don’t air those mistakes. :)
In part four he mentions the paranormal Author “Lorraine DeFelice” Strange, I cannot find a mention of her in any google resulte other than pages summarizing this Derren Brown series. I’m skeptical about this
Derren Brown is really good as a stage act too. I saw him in Llandudno a couple of years back. He’s a really good entertainer.
His latest special, called “The System” is a pretty good one too – but I think a lot of people failed to grasp the premise of the show, which was basically “just because YOU have experienced something, if you’re not getting the whole picture, you cannot use your experience as a basis for reality” – i.e., just because you think you saw a ghost as a kid, if you didn’t take into account all the possible natural causes, you cannot use it as proof that ghosts exists.
But, of course, just as you should look at psychic abilities and ghosts with a sceptical eye, you should also do the same for his tricks. He sometimes explains them, but don’t always believe what he says! Sometimes he simply lies… (But that’s ok – he’s a magician!)
Being important the psychological mechanisms of delusion, one must cope with the fact that religions/superstitions are a social delusion. So, social mechanisms are perhaps more relevant than individual psychological ones. Said that, it’s a pity that Europeans tend to look to America to “study” superstition/religions. We seem to forget that some European delusions can be even more dangerous to a democratic society.
Nevermind I spelled her name wrong apparently. It’s wierd becuase I know a family “DeFelice” that is spelled just like that.
He openly admits that he’s using trickery to achieve the appearance of mindreading, and it’s a relatively well-known fact that humans are very easily manipulated if we’re not careful. If we figuring out his exact technique was easy, it wouldn’t work in the first place.
He SAYS it is a “trick” – that means he has some way of getting the information – that he is not sharing. What else do you expect from a stage magician?
Well, as this is a show preporting to debunk psychics and other frauds, I expected an explanation as to how he did it. Otherwise he hasn’t debunked anything as I’m scratching my head over his performance just as much as I, hypothetically, scratched my head over a psychic.
Frankly, if a psychic can trick his or her way into deducing that I’m thinking about a glass of grapefruit juice I drank while contemplating calling my building contractor (I really should; it’s getting late), then that psychic *deserves* to be called a psychic and to get away with it because getting the information through trickery is every bit as valid and useful as getting it through “magic”.
Meanwhile, I’m going to be scratching my head all day wondering how the hell he did that.
I mean, if power of suggestion, *is* so powerful, isn’t *that* an amazing and astonishing fact and should be the point of such a show rather than debunking a few frauds?
I felt this way about the Ouija board segment on Penn & Teller’s “Bullshit”. Of course, the Ouija board doesn’t communicate with the dead; of course when four neutral people get together the folcrum’s just going to sit there and not move… and !!HOLY SHIT!!! The folcrum moved and not a single one of the four people had any conscious intention of doing so!!!! Oh, the psychiatrist explains pre-conscious movement predating and actually occurring *before* conscious thought. Wow! That’s amazing! It totally over-turns everything “common sense” would tell us about conscious and deliberate thought! Fascinating! Tell me more… wait, you’re just going back to make fun of the whack-jobs. The Ouija board is bullshit? What do you mean? You just *saw* how it reacts to the concensus of four pre-contious people feeding it thoughts! That is anything *but* bullshit!
This guy does a pretty good breakdown of the conversion trick, as well as a few other Derren Brown stunts.
But yeah, I love him, I saw his stage show (Somethign Wicked This Way Comes) and it was absolutely amazing.
I love Derren Brown. Many people think he’s a psychic or a magician but he’s always categorically denied he uses magic or such forth. In fact, he’s an atheist. Sometimes he does reveal how he does what he does but for the most part he leaves it in mystery (it wouldn’t be very exciting otherwise). But he makes it clear he can ‘read minds’ purely through body language and speech patterns. Anyone can do it if they are clever and patient enough.
Sam,
The article you reference from Simon Singh says “I now believe that his amazing demonstrations of mind reading and mind control are little more than clever magic tricks.”
What else did any sane person think they were?! And, of course, by definition, a sane person understands ‘magic’ to be trickery.
From Derren’s home page: “He doesn’t claim to be a mind-reader, instead he describes his craft as a mixture of magic*, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship.”
It therefore makes Mr Singh’s article an exercise in stating the bleedin’ obvious.
It is an amazing ability this guy has, and I was skeptical, but seeing so many *other* magicians, even speaking with other magicians, do or talk about how to do, it does just turn out we’re massively prone to even casual influences.
Even more impressive is his “train of thought” where he seems to random people forget the names of there subway stops. It’s *bizaar* to think that the human mind works that way.
I’m not doubting he does this through power of suggestion but if there was more that was cut (I assume he said “Draw whatever _crosses_ your mind. Whatever image _grows_ in your mind) but if this is true debunking he shouldn’t edit those out. I know that the brain does work very differently then the way we “think” it does. (i.e. the Ouija board, which really ought to be used in psychology studies, and discontinuity studies — you know, they ask participants to count the number of times a ball is passed between white shirted players and discover the participants completely miss the guy in the gorilla suit who walks to the front of the camera and beats his chest and walks off) and that magicians can manipulate this to the extent they do is amazing.
But, somehow, this seems the opposite in spirit to debunking. If I can be awed and forced to accept that the brain works in a way more truly bizaar than common sense would dictate than maybe I can believe any other crazy claim. That the brain *doesn’t* record memories as tape recorded and we act on thoughts *before* they reach are concious are so astonishing would the idea that our brain emits waves which others can read be so astonishing. That light can be a particle and a wave and we can scatter *particles* through slits not in the path of the light is so astonishing does an invisible consciousness guiding our lives seem that much weirder? The point of skepticism isn’t just to debunk charletons but to also replace false ideas with true ones.
@24: I don’t think he’s ever said that he uses “neurolinguistic programming”. In fact, I think he denies this. He covers NLP in his book a little but I was left with the impression that he’s not a big fan of it.
He also admits that his methods don’t work on anyone. He doesn’t try to hide it. If you watch his show “Tricks of the Mind”, there are episodes where he fails (there are even some in YouTube, like the one where he makes people forget where they should get off in the London subway or when he tries to pay for things with (blank!) paper money).
If I remember correctly, he said his tricks work on about 60% of the people. And he’s very careful to choose them. Just watch his Russian Roulette (the one that made him famous), where he spends most of the show picking up his assistant out of about 100 people. In fact, watch that show period — it’s fantastic!
I got to like this guy even further when I read his book. He devotes the entire first chapter to basically bashing Christianity. He describes how he used to be an evangelical Christian and how he gradually started sobering up. “Magic” obviously helps in this.
A new James Randi. Excellent.
Focus on his face: If you ever see this guy join your poker game, RUN!!!
I used to do this as a parlor trick. I also used to use the tarot to divine fortunes. Then I explained I was making it up and people were following me where I lead them. They’d argue back that I was psychic and didn’t recognize my gifts.
Another time, in English 101, my main paper of the semester was about how Astrology is completely bunk and I used Linda Goodman’s “Sun Signs” as the claims-focus-to-be-debunked in my paper. My professor’s notes on the paper indicated she thought I believed in/supported Astrology due to my “favorable review” of the matter, even though I was EXPLICIT that it was bunk and my research showed it to be bunk.
I gave up.
From part2 @3:25:
Precisely!
For those of you that enjoyed this program you might also like “The System”. The first video can be found by following this link:
There are lots of other great videos of his scattered around the internet…enjoy.
Could anybody link to a page where this sort of stuff is explained? It makes my brain angry trying to debunk him myself.
Sam @8
You and Simon Singh remind me of my great-aunt. Any time a magician did a trick on TV, she would say “ah, there’s a trick in that”.
Really? You don’t say!
From what I’ve researched it seems to be primarily power of suggestion *and* picking his targets as those who are suggestable.
Odds are, he wouldn’t pick a skeptic and he “primes” or picks folks already in a suggestable state. And it works only most of the time. It strikes me as hard to believe someone could be so attune to such signals and that once one is attuned they’d fall so hard. I mean I couldn’t hypnotize or cold read or seed suggestions to anyone to save my life.
He uses “magic” (misdirection, slight of hand) to heighten the effects (One person suggested he taps a closed-eyed hypnotized person to make it appear he was aware of of visual cues) but they are mostly power of suggestion and hypnosis. I can’t really believe his power of suggestion are *that* good (for the drawing test) but his audience *were* suggestable psychics who *want* him to be a psychic. I’m sure you and I would fail his drawing test because we’d draw strange (yet simple) things and not give in to suggestion because we *want* to trip him up. As well, he probably did some hypnotic “priming” too. Still, I’m a bit more than amazed. Of course if he *did* use cameras and lied about it … well, I’m annoyed.
I’ve never actually been to a hypnotist show. I’ve been to two hypno-therapists and we’re completely ready and willing to accept them and they were terrible and useless.
You and Simon Singh remind me of my great-aunt. Any time a magician did a trick on TV, she would say “ah, there’s a trick in that”.
On u-tube a while back there was this college kid who did a card trick “called the best card trick in the world” and he did … a card trick. And he did it pretty well.
Man, the numbers of people who claimed he was cheating and he obviously edited the tape…
I issued a challenge to those thinking the tape had been edited to try to reproduce the trick through editting and make the editting look natural. In other words, faking a card trick by editting is probably harder than faking a card trick … by card tricks.
Still, very hard to belief power of suggestion alone works that well…
He’s damned good!
Derren Brown! I love Derren Brown and I loved this programme. As I think someone mentioned upthread, he is a former evangelical christian and now an atheist, and I certainly see some resemblance between some of the tricks he does and things I remember from my evangelical youth…like when he puts his hand on someone’s head and they fall backwards and collapse. That trick is done in hundreds of churches every week!
My favourite trick of his is where he goes to a dog racing track and gets the cashiers to pay out on losing tickets.
He’s a great magician and fantastic live, and it’s cool that he uses his act for thoughtful things like this show which might actually cause people to question why they believe what they do.
no.28, Gareth:
There’s another North Walian here? Pleased to see you, boyo! I’m in Llangollen, myself.
davidONE:
Some take him literally, he is convincing. Just thought I’d link to the article if anyone was interested.
No offense, PZ, but while you’ve got the beard, he’s got the accent!
I love me some Derren Brown. ^_^
Just thought I’d mention…as I am willing to bet there are a few Doctor Who fans who read Pharyngula….that Derren recently did a half hour show with David Tennant.
Sorry to butt in but —
Judge Stein is an idiot.
As for the Simon Singh thing, Derren Brown talks about it here http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html
In his first series he didn’t give the disclaimer that he does now about using magic, psychology, misdirection etc. Singh complained that he was claiming to use just psychology and science when in fact he was using tricks. Brown took this on board, and changed the nature of his claims. I don’t think either of them have much of an argument with each other now.
Thanks, Laurence.
I didn’t bother checking for follow-ups. That was naughty of me, I probably should have. I like Derren Brown and was surprised to read an article criticising him, especially by someone as nice as Simon Singh! I still thought the article was interesting, though, and I stand by my decision to post it! Before I read it, I hadn’t given much thought to how Derren pulled off his tricks, I assumed he really could do all that stuff with psychology.
After watching the David Tenant video I’m convinced he *has* to be using “magic” (i.e. not merely power of suggestion) for the drawing trick which is … jaw-dropping.
The predicting the the guardian article of scrabble suing face book were clearly leading the witness (assuming he had time to read and even switch the trance-writing) but it’s astonishing he was able to hypnotise Tennant.
That’s truly amazing.
But still, seeing a magician do the seemingly impossible isn’t as convincing as debunking as seeing the mundane manipulate into the seemingly impossible would.
Sheesh, though… How on earth do you *make* *two* people draw a cat!
The buggy driver at the end wins the internet.
If you ask most people to name “a vegitable” real quick (don’t give them time to think) they will say “carrot”. Try it and see.
You feel like a wizard. You should even write it down on paper and show them this after they say it.
People are dumb. That includes us – we just think we’re not.
I never thought I’d see an atheist shaman on TV. I find Derran Brown interesting but a bit scary and I usually spend the day after watching the show trying to work out how the whole trick works and if I’m being effected by the same processes without realising. For example, I’ve heard that it is quite impossible to come up with random numbers without mechanical assistance. Now, think of the first number that comes into your head and look about to see where you saw it!
David, being suggestible isn’t the same as being dumb.
In regards to other comments, there is some evidence (a handful of studies that I don’t have the citations for off the top of my head) that show that beliefs in the paranormal are correlated with being more suggestible. So Brown in many of these cases already has a good starting pool to work with.
#56 – I said Tomato. Really. I am old enough to still think it is one. I am wrong, of course :-D
JC
Why do they have to keep coming to the US? Those brits keep making us look like idiots…
It’s funny how all the skeptical Pharyngula readers believe in Derren Brown’s “powers”.
>>On u-tube a while back there was this college kid who did a card trick “called the best card trick in the world” and he did … a card trick. And he did it pretty well.
Man, the numbers of people who claimed he was cheating and he obviously edited the tape…
I issued a challenge to those thinking the tape had been edited to try to reproduce the trick through editting and make the editting look natural. In other words, faking a card trick by editting is probably harder than faking a card trick … by card tricks.
Still, very hard to belief power of suggestion alone works that well…
He’s damned good!<< Ahh, I think that was Jumping Gemini by Darwin Ortiz. I love that trick. Highly recommended to anyone who's about an intermediate with cards.
If you ask most people to name “a vegitable” real quick (don’t give them time to think) they will say “carrot”. Try it and see.
You feel like a wizard. You should even write it down on paper and show them this after they say it.
People are dumb. That includes us – we just think we’re not.
And think of a number 1-10 most will say 6. Most isn’t all and getting a guy to say the word “carrot” is a *lot* different then getting someone to draw a sun with a smiley face. (I was going to draw a penguin on an ice flow…)
He leaves a lot of symbols and props around to suggest things. Magic is all deception and it’s a skill. Honestly I’m bamboozled.
Why do they have to keep coming to the US? Those brits keep making us look like idiots…
Sigh… I don’t thinking they are making us look like idiots… *sigh*
Brown is fun. Here’s one of my favourite clips. Him and Stephen Fry. What could be better?
I wish every member of a church in the entire United States of America would watch this series of videos. It is still amazing to me to see how badly people feel the need to believe in or feel connected to nonsense. I was there myself for years and thankfully I finally listened to that little voice I call critical thinking and skepticism.
Memes’ can be dangerous!!!!!!
Just Another Primate
Lorraine DiFelice’s comments on the Dream Machine fiasco can be found here.
Highlight:
Ahh, I think that was Jumping Gemini by Darwin Ortiz. I love that trick. Highly recommended to anyone who’s about an intermediate with cards.
It was this:
. What I like is his non-sensational delivery. It’s a pretty good trick. Not a fantastic trick but a trick. You know something is being done but you’re damned if you know what.
I looked up the revelation of it
and … surprise! It’s just a trick.
For those of you who have friends who read horoscopes, or ring psychics, or subscribe to any sort of similar “astrological” nonsense, this Derren Brown video is the perfect antidote. Watch as he demonstrates to people around the world just what a load of nonsense horoscopes are. Brilliant.
This is one of my favourite Derren Brown videos of all time.
My other favourite is this one, with poor Simon Pegg succumbing to David’s powerful suggestions: the best thing is, in true Derren Brown style, he explains how it’s done.
Yay for Derren Brown – him and Richard Dawkins should team up for a TV series about religion.
woozy said: “Well, as this is a show preporting to debunk psychics and other frauds, I expected an explanation as to how he did it. ”
One of the reasons I’m a big fan of Derren Brown (most of the others have been given) is the fact that he’ll tell you he’s not psychic and then go and do something amazing and not tell you how it’s done.
This is important.
If you believe you know how that trick was done you are likely to fall in to the trap of thinking you know how all tricks are done. If you think you know how all tricks are done and see something you cannot understand, you may feel yourself even more qualified in declaring someone a miracle worker.
Is it not better to admit from the outset that you do not know how something is done, but you have some ideas you’d like to test and eliminate and so on? This is how we avoid scientists looking like lemons the next time a Uri Geller gets on TV. We get good at knowing the limitations of our knowledge, and turning to magicians when we need them.
Lastly, he doesn’t reveal secrets on the show. But, if you are prepared to put in the effort to track down the tricks, to learn the secrets of mentalism and spend time learning and practicing as magicians do then essentially nothing he does is inexplicable.
Oh and Peregrine – you know Derren was interviewed in Dawkins’ series? (Derren is definitely a man on our side and I only hope he continues to spread the message in the marvellously entertaining and subtle way he does)
Peregrine @ 68 said “Yay for Derren Brown – him and Richard Dawkins should team up for a TV series about religion”.
They have been on a TV programme together:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown#The_Enemies_of_Reason
Yes – they would make a formidable combination against the trickery of religion!
I don’t know. I just don’t seem to get it. Debunking religion and/or frauds with magic, seems like using plate tectonics to explain post-noah ark species distribution. I end up not feeling that anything is debunked but that all he has shown is that he is capible of deception. If anything I feel since my anglican minister, and the nuns in my sunday school, and the psychics being hoodwinked are *not* as good at deception then they are probably sincere and honest. Showing that you can do deception better than my teacher doesn’t convince me in any way that my teacher is a liar; it just makes me think you are a bully.
People see and conclude what they want to see and conclude. Perhaps maybe you are seeing this as an “Aha, got you *now* you lying religious hypocrates” because that’s how you want to see it. I imagine the stretch “If I can bamboozle you, don’t you think religion is a bamboozle” would elude believers. After all, couldn’t scientists, liberal politicians, and evolutionist bamboozle and/or be bamboozled too. Why should this open my eyes to think more critically about *religion* rather than to think more critically than say science, or politics, or my mother’s love?
Better debunking is simple rational and honest letting the cards lie where the may and pointing the logical conclussion. Bunk: the world is 6,000 years old. Good Debunk: the grand canyon. Bad Debunk: performing a magic trick turning a chicken into an egg.
It was actually after watching some Derren Brown videos some years ago (including “messiah” and “seance”) when I finally dropped my superstitious christian beliefs.
“It was actually after watching some Derren Brown videos some years ago (including “messiah” and “seance”) when I finally dropped my superstitious christian beliefs.
Seriously? And it was causual? Well, can’t argue with facts but … really? … No offence, but was your faith really so low a TV magician could shake it? … I … well, I’m surprised. Never having been a believer I can’t claim to no what any one think would convince me but I always figured it’d be an overall … unnescessariness and unbelievability … in just about every aspect of the *real* world that would have done it for me. I guess there’d always be some staw in a camel’s back … but … really? … Derren Brown made you an atheist? …
… wow …
Oh, well. More power to him and kudos, I guess, but … ??really?? …
@woozy, #71
The thing is, here, he’s not trying to prove that there is no god, he’s just trying to dubunk the argument, “I believe in god because of this spiritual feeling I had.”
In the case of these people, the only reason they started to believe in god was this altered mental state, so it basically was “i believe in god because he turned a chicken into an egg”, and “turning a chicken into an egg” or producing this feeling or mental state through mundane means was a good way to show that the feeling was not proof of god.
I’m not saying these people are stupid either; I had a similar experience myself. I was basically told to close my eyes and think really really hard about feeling “Jesus embracing me,” and when I did, I was able to construct such a feeling.
If some else had come up to me and said, “Think really hard about feeling ‘x.’ Do you feel ‘x?’ That’s just your brain creating a sensation to meet your expectations. Isn’t psychology cool?” I wouldn’t have been as susceptable to this phenomenon as “proof” of religion.
The way I see it, he is just showing people truth and facts. He’s showing them: You can have this supposedly “religious” experience with no religion involved.
I think this is important, as many people ignore huge mountains of evidence (like the Grand Canyon) by saying, “it doesn’t matter what you say, I’ve felt it.”
woozy @ #71:
Woozy,
You’ve missed the point. Brown isn’t trying to show that these people are insincere. By gaining their endorsements, he is showing that they — acknowledged “experts” in their fields — can be fooled into believing that his gifts are genuine.
You should think critically about all of those things. As Brown says in the closing moments of part 8:
All of us are subject to biases and distortions. All of us can be bamboozled. All of us have the capacity to be certain of things that are not true.
This is why habitual, disciplined, critical thinking is so important.
Linsey;
yeah…… I dunno. …
The whole things a little unsettling I guess. I find myself *more* willing to believe the unexplainable when I have an unexplainable phenomena. I mean, this weakens my sense of will and power over myself, so it’s not a very far step to view the sense of will and power as a chemical response, and as chemical responses are just bits and data, and as bits and data and information can occur in any medium, perhaps my sense of will is repeated an echoed and influenced and mirrored in all sorts of complex systems like gravity between orbiting bodies, and perhaps there are greater and more encompassing information systems when viewing the universe on the whole so maybe this sense of will which can be changed and influenced by a magic trick can be replacated or stored somewhere permanent after I die and maybe all the gravitational pulls and motions in the universe spell out the sense of will of some supreme being.
I mean, I feel duped … and if I can be duped by him I can be duped by anything … so *nothing* I know can be certain. But by the same token nothing I *know* can be certain so everything I *feel* is just as valid as everything I know.
…. yeah …. i dunno….
>>Woozy,
>>You’ve missed the point.
Well, obviously. :)
>>>>All of us are subject to biases and distortions. All of us can be bamboozled. All of us have the capacity to be certain of things that are not true.
>>>>This is why habitual, disciplined, critical thinking is so important.
Maybe I’m being too generous but I tend to think everyone already knows this and does apply critical thinking already.
Hence, if I were to believe in God I would have already applied my critical thinking to it.
Or more to the point, being bamboozled by a little thing like “FUCK!! HOW’D HE KNOW WHAT THAT WOMAN DREW” would discourage me to think “Shit, if I can’t trust my critical thinking to understand a simple *parlor* trick, How on earth can I trust myself to apply it to the *real* questions. Dang, the folks how believed in geocentricism weren’t *dumb*; they just had pre-conceived notions. WHy should I assume I’m any more immune then they were when I can’t even see through a fucking magic trick!”
Anyhow, those who stubbornly insist on refusing to accept critical thinking will probably continue to resist.
But if he does got work and has some success, all power to him. Still maybe I’m too critical or not critical enough for this approach to really do it form.
By the way… how the fuck *did* he know what the woman drew?
correction to my post #37:
I was thinking about inducing a catatonic trance and the success rate of that is not 60% but about 1/3. DB says that in his Zombie episode, which is probably the second-most disturbing thing I’ve seen him do.
Derren Brown is also the performer of the most disturbing “magic” trick I’ve ever seen anyone do, which is this one.
Being important the psychological mechanisms of delusion, one must cope with the fact that religions/superstitions are a social delusion.
He converted Atheists with a touch. Does that mean your beliefs are also social delusions? Or are you the only followers of the One True Faith? When Derren Brown questioned the Atheists after he converted them he said: “Be honest, be honest”. Do you know why? Because before they were simply reciting their belief system. They were speaking purely rationally. Then he established an emotional connection with them and when they talked about that they were speaking from their emotional center instead.
Brown knew that highly rational scientific people tend to cut themselves off from their emotional life. Which is experienced subconsciously as a kind of void, a lack. He exploited this vulnerability.
Being whole, bringing together your emotional and rational selves is very hard. It’s much easier to simply ridicule those you judge beneath you isn’t it?
Look at all the camera angle switches… they even inserted a random recording of his voice in one scene (while he wasn’t on-camera, of course), I think it was the one with the alien abduction “researchers”.
I think the skepticism over anything Derren Brown presents in his shows is extremely warranted. I tend to think he’s having a bit of fun fooling not just the easily-wooed but the professed skeptics ;).
#55:”The buggy driver at the end wins the internet.”
Heck yeah he does!
I was waiting in the express lane with my twelve items or less, at the checkout counter at the local grocery store. I was only passin’ by, but a paper caught my eye, and I learned a few things I mever knew before. (Thanks Weird Al)
It was titled “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Tarot and Fortune-Telling,” and I think it targets its demographic perfectly.
People really need to watch more of his stuff before getting all worked up about how he does his tricks. He is open about it. Sometimes he lies and sometimes he is honest. Watch his video in which he uses subliminal suggestion on advertising employees.
Also, people overlook the role hypnosis plays in much of his tricks. That leaves the subject extremely suggestible. Watch his. Watch the video with Simon Pegg. Watch what he does when he shakes Pegg’s hand. That is called a pattern interrupt and it leaves a subject extremely open to suggestion. When mixed with confusing language the subject is left in something of a trance.
Derren does use some NLP, but very little. He does not subscribe to the message NLP sends out. I’d go so far as to say the only bit of NLP he uses is pattern interrupts, which are a form of instant induction.
Here are a few links. The first will show you how he manages to manipulate thoughts. It also demonstrates that he isn’t always 100% accurate.
This one demonstrates subliminal suggestion and is equally astounding.
The next video is mind blowing. Based on what I can only assume is insanely advanced cold reading, he manages to guess specifics. The participant is a famous model and quite obviously not a stooge.
Some of what he does is magic. In fact, a lot. However, a great deal is done with hypnosis, suggestion and cold reading. In particular his ability to read body language is stunning. Here is a clip with a famous actor, the one I mentioned in the above post. Watch the handshake and watch Pegg’s face after the pattern interrupt. He is extremely suggestible. It’s a confusion technique that essentially leaves a blank space for the hypnotist to fill.
I hope I have in some way helped to explain how he achieves his results. Not everything is psychology. In fact, he lies occasionally. In fact, he is fond of saying that he is “always honest about his dishonesty”.
Woah — wait. What? Where’d all the science go? What is this crap? All of a sudden some tv magician has people all excited about his act? He may be a talented performer, but that’s all I’ll grant him. As far as I can tell, he’s not debunking anything — he’s a purveyor of bunk. A bunkmonger. Yes folks, I just coined a new term. You saw it here first. This man is a bunkmonger.
He claims to have converted atheists with a touch. Do you believe all his claims? Do you know that there was no prearrangement, and that the whole scene wasn’t staged for the benefit of the minister Brown was trying to convince?
I have sat in a hospital waiting room with a neurosurgeon who was telling my wife and me that our 4-year-old son had a probably inoperable brain tumor. If there is any experience guaranteed to put you in touch with your emotional center, this would have to be it. I walked into that room an atheist and I walked out an atheist. I seriously doubt that spending a few minutes with a bunch of suggestible “non-believers” (if that’s what they were), being told by Derren Brown to “be honest”, would suffice to convert me. In fact, I would consider a conversion under such circumstances to be prima facie evidence of extreme intellectual and emotional shallowness.
An interesting assertion. Can you cite evidence, or is this just idle speculation arising out of stereotypical thinking?
It certainly is tempting.
When he is converting the weak agnostics and gets that one guy to stand up with his feet together, I noticed he puts his hands on the back of the guy’s sleeves near the shoulder blades and slides his hands down before letting go while he is positioning the guy. Then, notice that before the guy lurches backwards, Darren swiftly reaches to that exact line across the guy’s back and then grabs at the air with his hand as he magically pulls the guy backwards.
Thanks for the head’s up about the series. I watched the whole set, and was struck by just how painfully stupid people can be. I mean honestly, how can anyone believe in crystals or not see through the psychics? It is as though some people have never had a rational thought in their lives.
He converted Atheists with a touch.
Um, if he really had he himself would have claimed he had rather than disclaiming christianity himself.
I have to admit the volnerability one can have when confused. This isn’t magic at all but it shows the extent in which one will go against one’s common sense when one is thrown off guard with confussion:
In college a roommate of mine was applying for a job where she had to get two stamped copies of her health records. So I took her to the clinic where her records were and stood at the desk. Behind the desk was a sign that said “Copies of records $0.25”. So I took out a two quarters and held them in my hand and she called over the receptionist and asked her for two copies of her records. The receptionist smiled and looked up the records and made a xerox copy, stamped it, and cheerfully smiled “there you go, hon” and turned around back to work and didn’t ask for payment and I was left holding my quarters. We looked at each other and I asked “You need two copies, right?” My friend called the receptionist back and asked “Could we have another copy, please?” The receptionist returned and looked at as with a concerned and sad face and said “Oh, I’m really sorry. I’d have to charge you for a second copy. In fact, technically I shouldn’t have even give you the first one without charging you twenty five cents.” She patted my friend’s wrist and said “I’m really sorry. I hope you understand.” And … we walked out of the clinic back to my car.
On the curb, I turned to my friend and said “Why didn’t you tell her we were willing to pay fifty cents?”
“I don’t know. She said we couldn’t for … some reason and …”
“Yeah, because we’d have to pay… Why’d she assume we weren’t willing to pay measely fifty cents… I mean … if we *need* the records, … why didn’t it occur to her we’d be willing to pay?”
“I don’t know. It was just …. weird … what should we do now?”
“Um… let’s go to kinkos and make a xerox and hope personel’ll accept them if just the first one is stamped.”
The “zombie game” episode is a bit too far-fetched,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2428437236878343763
The flashes of light put the guy “into a catatonic trance”? Ok…and he holds onto a gun which is given to him during this “trance”. And he appears to have let out several smiles, especially at 9:16 and 9:24. And he’s suddenly ready to return to his “trance” when Darren appears. At the moment I just don’t buy it.
I’m pretty skeptical of the idea that he’s able to do all he does by hypnosis, cold-reading, and the like. I don’t think it’s psychic power either. :) I think he probably uses stooges and other sorts of trickery as well. With the drawing trick, he could have been watching through a closed-circuit video feed. I suspect stooges with the insta-conversion trick.
Or if you watch the ones where he hypnotizes and kidnaps the gamer and has his friends help him take the guy and put him “into the game,” I’m not convinced the friends would just play along. “Hey! Who the hell are you? Where are you trying to take our friend? John? John? Wake up!”
Also, if I was convinced I’d been sucked into a zombie attack, and shooting the zombies with the gun didn’t work, my next move would have been to take the gun by the barrel and start swinging.
Or the car crash trick, where the woman just stands conveniently in one spot saying “Hello? Hello?” over and over again. She never tries to do any obvious thing like opening the car door to have a closer look at “her” body (or at least seeing if she can float through the car), or trying to walk up to somebody, get in their way or touch them, and say, “Hey! I’m talking to you!” The slightest bit of human unpredictability from the subjects would have blown those tricks out of the water.
In cases like that, either the person is voluntarily playing along, or Derren Brown has complete control over their behavior after a few seconds of contact. If hypnosis could accomplish the latter, then the first person who got good at it would have taken over the world.
“Hello, Mr. President, it is an honor to meet you.” ::insta-hypnosis:: “I have a few policy suggestions for you. Also, I would like to be introduced to the British Prime Minister, if you don’t mind.”
@woozy
I had my doubts before but Derren made me realize, when a con artist can do such a thing like people who say they got the power from god, something can not be right.
Also after watching “seance” and seeing there is no such thing as evil or ghosts,… .
But you were right, it wasn`t only Derren. At about that time I read a lot of books (like selfish gene, sperm wars, mating mind,…) and watched documentaries like “the god who wasn`t there”, “brief history of disbelief”,…. .
But I still feel watching a lot of Derren really gave me an extra kick out of that religious magic thinking.
#59: (mini-rant) A tomato IS a vegetable. Yes, it’s a fruit, but that’s neither here nor there. “Vegetable” is not a scientific term of art; it is an everyday word in a natural language and as such it’s meaning is in it’s usage. You know what else are vegetables? Mushrooms. That’s right, vegetables don’t even have to be plant-life! HA! It would be a bad category for biologists to use, so they don’t*, but for cookery it functions very well, thank-you.
Also black and white are colours.
I approve of pedantry, but to be pedantic and wrong is unforgivable.
(/mini-rant)
*Well I guess they do when they are talking about food.
Woozy, gravity is not complex. Your brain is the most complex object we know of in the universe. It is more complex than the galaxy in which it resides. Don’t confuse numbers of molecules with complexity, complexity includes order, lots of it. So the grains of sand on the beach are not complex, but take that sand and make transistors etc from it and build a supercomputer and you will have complexity.
Your idea that because you find the functioning of the brain fantastic that it could open up other things YOU consider fantastic does not speak to reality. It speaks to your lack of information and personal incredulity. The rock you need to grasp in this stream of the fantastical is the rock of evidence. There is evidence, a lot of it, for how your brain works from all sorts of angles, including from what Derren Brown has learnt to do. He is not the only one, some con men know it too and use it to bad effect. But the point about Derren Brown is he is honest about his dishonesty. He claims no magic powers.
Unless and until there is solid, peer reviewed, generally accepted evidence of true psychic powers you can keep your wilder speculations firmly in the ‘this is woo’ drawer. Follow the evidence, if you find yourself somewhere the evidence is absent or someone will not reveal it to you for silly reasons then walk away. I am a scientist and in my experience the problem is not getting scientists to talk about their work in detail, it is stopping them once they get started, and that includes me. If you ever want to know about muscle patterning during development in the mouse, just let me know…
#48, Sam:
Yup. I’m a Gog! In Wrexham.
I doubt Channel 4 would want to be involved with such dishonesty. They have a reputation to keep, and a leaked report would damage that.
Here’s a Brown clip where he didn’t pre-select the individuals he manipulated:
There’s some word games of the type used with Pegg here too. He also explained this method in “Something Wicked This Way Comes”.
Trick-Or-Treat had some stunning episodes, such as taking a young woman who claimed never to have learnt music and having her play a concert after two weeks of preparation that involved no practice. There was a trick, partially explained, but even that was remarkable.
The armed robbery special was possibly the most alarming though.
That’s a very short cut of The Heist. The original was an hour long.
It’s worth noting that it was made with a lot of help from the Metropolitan Police, which I doubt they’d give if they had any reason to suspect Brown as a fraud.
Gareth…
Wrexham is right by where I live! Ruabon is actually where I live. Llangollen is where my school is and where I try to spend as much time as I can.
What do you do in Wrexham?
To the people arguing over Brown’s tricks:
“I am often dishonest in my techniques, but always honest about my dishonesty. As I say in each show, ‘I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship’. I happily admit cheating, as it’s all part of the game. I hope some of the fun for the viewer comes from not knowing what’s real and what isn’t. I am an entertainer first and foremost, and I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people’s real-life decisions or belief systems.”
He also claims he has never used actors or stooges, and says that using them would be “artistically repugnant and simply unnecessary”; furthermore, he “would not want any participant to watch the [TV] show when it airs and see a different or radically re-edited version of what he understood to have happened”.
(all quotes from his book, Tricks of the Mind, via wikipedia, because I don’t own it)
@kcrady:
Watch the whole thing. You are making snap judgments. It is irrelevant whether you find it hard to believe or not. Stooges are not used. There are a few reasons regular viewers know this.
1. In his stage show he performs several “tricks” you see on his television shows. He chooses audience members by throwing a stuffed toy into the crowd and having the crowd members then toss the monkey (no pun intended) randomly 3 or 4 times. The audience member it finally lands at participates. Unless the whole audience are in on it, he doesn’t use stooges.
2. Derren has been going for a number of years. In all of these years, not one solitary person has ever came forward claiming to be a stooge. There hasn’t been one claim by anyone, past or present, who has worked on his shows that say he prearranges anything.
3. Names of individuals who participate are given. The press can easily look into the lives of participants and check whether the history given on the show is accurate. Again, not once has there ever been any suggestion that Derren has used stooges.
4. Derren uses famous television and film personalities in many of his tricks Are they also stooges?
You are making pretty baseless accusations. You don’t understand how he does it? That’s your problem. Given that I put quite a bit of time into studying the techniques Derren uses, I can try to explain how he achieves such effects. You can either attempt to understand them or simply write them off as being impossible simply because you’re unfamiliar with techniques he uses.
I would recommend looking up pattern interrupts, a confusion method that leaves subjects highly suggestible. Derren relies heavily on them for some of his best tricks, such as making people forget their train destination. Watch his video with Simon Pegg and you will see a blatant pattern interrupt when he shakes Pegg’s hand.
Also, watch the videos more closely. In the car crash video, the woman does not simply stay in one place. Derren explicitly gives this suggestion when she’s in trance. That is why she doesn’t move.
Sam,
I can go one better then. I actually live in Rhos, but work in Wrexham. So we probably live only a mile or so away from each other! I work at Yale College. That is, when I’m not browsing various blogs, I work at Yale College…
I am going to tell you a story about one of the top 5 coinmen who ever lived: T. Nelson Downs.
Downs had an effect where he took 40 (four-oh, 30+10, 2*20…you got it? 40) silver dollars in his right hand, passed them to his left hand, and PRESTO…the silver dollars disappeared. So far, this is just a trick, right? Impressive, simple…how did he do that????
Downs NOISELESSLY palmed the whole stack (40, remember?) of coins in his right hand. Here is the question: which is more unbelievable, the effect (40 silver dollars vanishing) or the method (palming 40 silver dollars in the hand WITHOUT MAKING A SOUND)? The trick is, to the witness is merely a perplexing puzzle. But when the method was revealed, it borders on the miraculous.
Downs would pull up a chair and do this right under your nose; there was nothing to see, and nothing to hear.
The man was not a god, a spiritually gifted human in denial. He was a dedicated, incredibly talented magician who specialized in coin work. When he died, those who knew him well told of 7-8 hours of practice every day for over 55 years. Artists like Downs, and others can make the uninitiated believe that they are seeing real magic.
It does not exist.
Let me add to that…
No offense to Woozy and some of the others, but when I tell the Downs story I get the feeling that some will say “well, it is not possible to manipulate that many coins just inches from my own eyes and ears, and not make a sound…he must have some kind of gift.”
Listen, I am not that good. I will never be that good. I won’t live long enough, practice enough, or be patient enough to achieve even 10% of the skill needed to pull off that trick. But. Give me a group who believes in magic, psychic power, or any other of that nonsense and I will have them showering me with money and kissing my feet inside of ten minutes.
That is the point.
I almost went to Yale college. But then I stayed at Dinas Bran sixth form. I am currently on study leave for my actual proper A levels. That is, when I am not browsing various blogs, I am studying.
Are you a teacher there?
This is truly TRAGIC! Derren Brown has been blessed with a special gift. Unfortunately he has been brainwashed with materialistic realism so he now believes that he is just tricking people. What a waste, what a waste :(
Comment 105:
I really hope for your sake that you’re joking.
I wonder if he plays poker…
Doug,
Derren Brown’s shows are for Channel 4, not BBC.
He is banned from quite a few casinos for card counting. There are a few videos where he uses his skills for gambling, including Blackjack and using a pattern interrupt to profit from a losing horse racing ticket.
Yes, he does. One of the Trick Or Treat episodes was him teaching an old lady to play poker, and entering her into a top professional tournament. She did well.
Heavily edited:
Derren Brown is ace. A friend of mine was a camera technician on his heist show and says that he is as interesting in real life as on the show. Amongst his many talents he is an excellent caricaturist and artist (even using some of his artwork in his TV shows). I first had that feeling (which I seem to get from all his shows) of amazement and envy when I saw this clip which still strikes me as totally brilliant
Sam,
No, I’m not a teacher. I work on the admin side.
Ross Barnett,
Ironic that he’s now turned out to be gay, isn’t it? ;o)
Im sure the same techniques would work just as well at any Republican convention.
One of the chief comments about Brown is that he isn’t entirely honest about his explanations of his tricks. It is common for some magicians doing mentalism acts to claim a special knowledge of psychology as the basis of their performance which makes their abilities seem remarkable and learned, when, in fact, they are using other subterfuge. Brown seems to have come clean in the introduction, in this case and not exaggerated the “psychological” angle.
Woozy, gravity is not complex. Your brain is the most complex object we know of in the universe.
1) I was being facetious.
2) I wasn’t referring to the gravity, chemicals, etc. as complex but the potential of them representing data and information.
No offense to Woozy and some of the others, but when I tell the Downs story I get the feeling that some will say “well, it is not possible to manipulate that many coins just inches from my own eyes and ears, and not make a sound…he must have some kind of gift.”
I’m not sure why you are apologizing to me. I never claimed Brown had a “gift”. I’m not in doubt about Downs developing a *skill* to perfection and I’m sure Brown can and has done the same. It’s just that I *believe* people can palm coins whereas I’m not convinced I believe people can be hypnotized (as I said, I’ve never been to a hypnotist show; In fact I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a hypnotist show, which people assume are so common, ever advertised). Or more to the point, there is an upper limit to coin palming. Down’s could not possibly, for example, palm a number of coins equal in volume to his size. That’s an upper limit. I imagine there’s an upper limit to power of suggestion and hynosis. I could be wrong but I’m utterly astounded at Brown’s acts and assume they would all be well beyond such an upper limit. I’m mean this feats are literally incrediable. I doubt there are cameras or stooges (that’d be pathetic) but I’m finding power of suggestion and hypnosis, *er*, incrediable. So there must be another trick but damned if I can even *guess* what it is.
Woozy, you have to understand the techniques he uses. For example, hypnosis is not what most perceive it to be. Derren even concedes as much in his book. In fact, it is more a means of lowering inhibitions. You won’t, for example, be able to hypnotize someone and command them to jump off of a cliff. Our brains limit what hypnosis can achieve.
The point is it renders a subject suggestible. I posted a few links and have tried to describe what he is doing. His most effects are achieved through a particular NLP technique (I hesitate to even bring NLP into it, since it is more like religion) called pattern interrupts.
There are certain patterns we expect to be completed. For example, when someone holds out their hand for a handshake, the brain expects your hands to meet and shake. To interrupt this pattern, someone like Derren can do a variety of things. The way Richard Bandler (co-creator of NLP and a bit of a snake, to be honest) teaches it is to first hold out your hand for a hand shake. When the subject offers their hand, pull your hand back slightly and then grab their wrist gently with your other hand and place it on their forehead, all the while talking in a consistent tone. From there you can put them into a deeper trance if you so wish.
That really is the basics of it and it isn’t quite so easy as it sounds. It is all about confusion and interrupting patterns we expect to be completed. Confusion is a tool used to make subjects suggestible. What it achieves is to leave something of a blank space for the hypnotist to fill with a command or a suggestion.
It has been a while since I studied it, but Derren has mastered it and then some. He uses a variety of pattern interrupts and is particularly adept at using confusing language and inserting commands into what appear to be a normal sentences.
I don’t know if you have watched the video with Simon Pegg. If not, I would urge you to do so. He uses a quite blatant pattern interrupt when they are sitting down. Watch what he does when he grabs Pegg’s wrist. In particular, look at Pegg’s expression.
I hope the above is of some help to you. I certainly don’t know how he achieves all of his effects, but I’ve studied quite a few of his techniques. If only I could replicate them…
Woozy, this video might interest you. The user explains some of Derren’s techniques quite well in this video. He tells you what Derren is doing as he is doing it and he is spot on.
I’m sure you’ve heard of conditioning, both classical and operant. Derren uses something similar called anchoring. Basically, he anchors certain emotions to a touch on the shoulder.
The ease at which Derren does this is pretty astonishing. It requires so much confidence.
The above video is an excellent example of confusion techniques and anchoring. Hopefully this allows you to better understand what he’s doing.
After catching up on Derren Brown’s act a little (Gary Marcus mentions his person swap trick in Kluge, also…) I was really impressed by how suggestable people can be, and wondering if it was all faked. But I remembered when PZ posted this, an “aikido master” willing to defend himself against a mixed martial artist, using the power of his ki. The ki worked great on his students, the MMA fighter wasn’t too impressed.
oncarborundum
He claims to have converted atheists with a touch. Do you believe all his claims? Do you know that there was no prearrangement, and that the whole scene wasn’t staged for the benefit of the minister Brown was trying to convince?
He claims that he does not use stooges. But if there were one or two present that would serve to bolster my argument that he is using your emotional vulnerabilities against you. I understand that you would not believe that a plant in the group could convert any atheist, and yet they did. How can this be? Perhaps your belief system is not grounded in the hard rock of reason as you claim. Perhaps it is the reverse and you “rationality” is constructed afterwards.
I seriously doubt that spending a few minutes with a bunch of suggestible “non-believers” (if that’s what they were), being told by Derren Brown to “be honest”, would suffice to convert me. In fact, I would consider a conversion under such circumstances to be prima facie evidence of extreme intellectual and emotional shallowness.
Ahhhh, the perfect mark. Arrogant and convinced of your own intellectual superiority. Con artists like Brown just love that in a mark. Easy pickins.
Driving back from the pet store (I love ’em but their poop sure does stink) It came to me why I find sending a professional magician to debunk bullshit bugs me so much. It’s actually rather obvious.
The guy’s a great magician; he could “de-bunk” *anything. Fake and convince a panel of palentologist he has a fossil of a missing link between frogs and salimanders? No proplem. Talk his why into giving into a departmental talk to the history graduate students. Easy. Make a black kid seem as smart as a white kid. Extraordinarily easy. Does faking these “debunk” them?
Okay, okay, we have to think critically about everything. But seeing a magician who can do anything do something leaves us no-where.
To debunk a psychic, you have to sure the psychic *can’t* do anything that any average other person can’t do. That’d be done throwing a pyschics body of work into analysis and showing it’s barely above random in significance. If you wish to debunk it by showing how it’s a fraud we *have* to know how to do it or else you don’t know it’s a fraud.
Sure this idea of “debunking” is a nice framework for some amazing magic tricks but he doesn’t debunk anything more than if he had debunked mathematics, or race car drivers, or anthropologists.
Even though Brown distances himself from Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) it’s funny how many videos are on YouTube with NLP-based explanations for his tricks.
Does anyone here know much about the actual scientific basis of NLP? From a cursory scan of the psych journal databases there doesn’t seem to be much research about it since around 1985. Not a good sign. To me at this point it has all the hallmarks of a pseudoscience: Extraordinary claims with little published research (that I can find) to support it. Nice Wikipedia article though, and a great sciency-sounding name.
I also suspect that most of the time when Brown’s tricks are explained as “hypnosis”, it’s way simpler than that. It often seems more like stage hypnosis, which relies more on the audience’s willingness to play along than on actually inducing hypnotic states.
@79-“Brown knew that highly rational scientific people tend to cut themselves off from their emotional life. Which is experienced subconsciously as a kind of void, a lack. He exploited this vulnerability.”
Does anyone have any evidence of this whatsoever? I’m not ruling it out, it just goes against most of my personal experience…the highly rational people I know seem to be *more* in touch with their emotions, whereas the people who seem less so seem to be more in touch with *sentiment* – as in “exaggerated and self-indulgent feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia”, or the feelings one believes one *should* have.
Then again, the distinction between “emotion” and “sentiment” is often ignored.
Hmm, I’m still skeptical of all this. Is there any decent, peer-reviewed research corroborating any of these ‘methods’ of hypnosis? Given that Derren Brown tries to show how gullible people are by proving that he can do it, too, only leaves us with mystery as to how he does it. Given the editing practices he has, it’s simply too obvious that there’s some trickery afoot, so how much of the situation you can ascribe to hypnosis/cold reading ability and how much you can attribute to trickery is ambiguous.
#123
I’m in the same boat.
As a psychology student I tend to be immediately skeptical when people claim to be “using psychology” to pull off parlor tricks. In actual fact they’re just playing off of people’s ignorance of science. It’s pretty interesting – the trick can actually be pretty simple but it will totally mystify people if you attribute it to “psychology”. It’s like a magic wand – it just distracts people from the real explanation, which is usually pretty mundane.
And attributing a trick to “psychology” is pretty much the same as attributing it to “spiritual powers”, except people are more likely to be credulous if they think there’s real science behind it. In the process you end up tarnishing people’s notion of psychology by reducing it to trickery.
Shirakawasuna,
Derren has a stage show. How does he use editing during a live show? You don’t appear to know much about hypnosis or suggestion. I’d recommend doing some reading on the subject. No one is suggesting hypnosis does what people generally believe it does. In fact, Derren even argues against the popular misconceptions about hypnosis.
He does not use stooges. I have already given several reasons why that isn’t possible. Go and watch the numerous “tricks” he does with celebrities. You are right to be skeptical, but you are being cynical. I have tried my best to explain how he achieves most of his effects. If that isn’t sufficient, feel free to do your own research. I already know what tricks are magic and what tricks are based on psychology and hypnosis (calling what he does “hypnosis” isn’t entirely accurate, to be honest). This in some ways reminds me of creationsists being skeptical of evolution, in that their arguments are mostly based on ignorance.
info_dump,
Brown rightly distances himself from NLP. You have to distinguish between NLP and what it incorporates to achieve its alleged effect. Like I said earlier, NLP is more like a religion and can be compared to the countless self-help programs out there.
When people say that Derren uses NLP, what they mean is that he uses a form if instant induction (which NLP also uses). Derren, if memory serves, actually trashes NLP and Richard Bandler in his book. Distinguish between the confusion techniques NLP teaches and its overriding message.
Has anyone watched the videos I have suggested? I feel like I’m explaining things, but no one is actually clicking on the links I’m posting. I’ll again point people to the Simon Pegg video. two reasons for this:
1. He obviously is not a stooge.
2. It demonstrates a classic pattern interrupt combined certain language patterns designed not only to confuse a subject but to fill in the space left as a result of the pattern interrupt.
I suppose it is a form of stage hypnosis, only at a far more advanced level. By all means ask me whatever questions you have and I’ll do my best to answer.
Hey Clydey,
Thanks for all the links to the videos. Yes, the Pegg video is pretty interesting. Brown’s apparent use of the pattern interrupt technique is pretty compelling, and I’d love to read some research about it, since I’m not too familiar with the concept.
The segments I think are more like stage hypnosis include the “converting atheists” bit, and the “colorblind” bit. These people aren’t stooges but they’re playing along. There’s a charismatic magician with a camera crew, so why not let your inhibitions go for just a bit? I don’t think these participants even believe the things they’re saying. In these cases I don’t believe Brown has demonstrated suggestibility, just “stage hypnosis”. The whole thing reminded me of a high school improv class. If anyone is suggestible it’s the people watching the clips who eat the whole thing up out of Brown’s hand.
He is definitely talented though. I just think those particular segments are a bit cheesy.
What I imagine happened (pure conjecture) during the conversion segment was a bit of pre-show preparation. We won’t have seen what happened prior to filming. He likely primed them for hypnosis (I use that word for lack of a better term, since it’s not actually hypnosis).
You are right. Hypnosis is merely a means of lower people’s inhibitions. A person will only go as far as they are willing. Like I said earlier, you aren’t going to be able to make a subject jump off of a cliff. What Derren is doing isn’t actually hypnosis, though. It’s sort of hard to explain. In one way it is and in one way it isn’t. They are in a light trance, but they are not necessarily open to commands (bark like a dog, do the moonwalk etc.). Confusion leaves a blank space for someone like Derren to fill (demonstrated in the Pegg video) with suggestions (that of a BMX Bike in Pegg’s case).
In the colour blind video, it is very much like conditioning. An emotion is anchored to something (Derren is fond of a tap on the shoulder, which is also shown in the Pegg video). Every time he fires that anchor the emotion or feeling is amplified. Think of it as psychology mixed with hypnosis (again, for lack of better terms). That is really my area. The following trick and others of that type are where I’m less comfortable. In the next video, he guesses something very specific about a famous model (obviously not setup)
If I was to guess, I would say it’s cold reading. I’d likely be wrong, though. It is far too specific to just be cold reading. If it is, it is extremely advanced. He doesn’t do enough fishing initially to get something *that* specific with cold reading unless he reads tiny bodily cues better than anyone I’ve ever seen. It’s possible he has increased his chances by manipulating what type of thing she is thinking about. Sorry, I rambled a bit there.
Hey Clydey, I’ll match your long-ish post with another one :)
I suppose the instant conversion bit could have been done as you say (some kind of priming before taping to induce a light trance), but I suspect it’s even simpler than that. His introduction to the segment is telling:
“The people you see here responded to an advertisement to come to a discussion on spirituality.”
These people didn’t require any priming from Brown. The kind of person who responds to an ad that invites them to a church to talk about spirituality is already “primed” to be receptive to mumbo-jumbo. All Brown had to do was invite them to play along with his spiritualist persona. And even at that, half the people didn’t want to play along, and left. Brown’s audience effectively filtered itself down to the most credulous/”primed” portion. If he was a real pastor he would talk about the “spiritual warfare going on” that caused the people to leave.
So, let’s look at the “conversion” part of the trick. When Brown touches the girl and asks if she’s as skeptical, here are her words:
“I guess I can understand the feeling that they’re talking about.” [explains her grandma’s concept of an “inner hug”] “I guess I kind of understand a little…little more what she was talking about”
Some “conversion”! It’s not exactly a “road to Damascus” kind of situation, is it? First of all, all she says is that she understands a little more what an inner hug feels like. Secondly, I don’t believe her words for a second. The pressure’s on, and she’s acting. Poorly at that. That’s just my gut feeling about it.
Brown’s “conversion” of the guy consisted of making him fall backwards. He wasn’t exactly praising the name of Jesus – he just fell down. (Does that count as a conversion?) And he only fell over because (as one YouTube vlogger correctly pointed out) Brown told him what to do. Brown didn’t say “fall over now”, but he did say “I’ll catch you”. Yes, maybe Brown primed him to be more suggestible, but, again, I don’t think that was even necessary. The fact that the guy came to the event in the first place, and didn’t leave half-way through, means he was already willing/wanting to believe. Add the feeling of being “caught up in the moment” and people do silly things. I used to see it all the time when I went to church – and there was never any extra priming needed.
As far as the colour blind bit, I understand your explanation, and I have no problem believing Brown has that kind of mastery over anchoring techniques. The problem is, I don’t believe the girl. I think it was a lousy performance on her part. I’m not saying she was a stooge, but that she was just being a good sport. She was playing along consciously to humour the magician with the camera crew, and happened to be a bad actor. Case in point: if her car’s colour suddenly changed she would seem a bit more awe-struck. Don’t you think?
I’ll start with your last point. I think confusion, which she exhibited, is a far more likely reaction than awe. If I went outside and noticed that my car had a different paint job, I would be confused rather than impressed. The reason for this is that he didn’t tell her that it was a trick or that her car would change colour. He simply suggested they go outside to look at her car. He gave no indication of what she should expect to find. She volunteered the information.
It’s certainly possible that someone could play along, but I highly doubt it. For example, Derren “bought” some items using paper money through the use of suggestion. I doubt the owner of a store would play along, particularly when they are being filmed covertly and have no idea a trick is being performed. See the following video (also shows what happens when Derren comes across someone that is not so suggestible).
I see no reason why the girl would play along and replace the colour red with black (crucial to the end of the trick, since her car is red). Derren only suggested that yellow is red. She actually insisted that red was black, not Derren. Other than what you perceive to be bad acting, there’s no real reason to doubt the girl. Well, other than the fact that you were looking for awe, which would be bad acting if that’s what she was trying to portray. That there was no indication of a trick when she went out to see her car suggests to me that confusion is a more likely reaction to seeing your car with a different paint job. If he had told her that her car would change colour, awe might be more likely.
Here is another example of such techniques used on people who are unaware of a trick being performed (I think it may also show him getting one wrong, but I may be mistaken).
I sort of agree with you on the conversion clip. I’m not sure it shows a conversion per say. It’s more like he’s planting a strong emotional response, in order to mimic a spiritual feeling. It looks like he’s trying to replicate what goes on at those giant evangelical events, particularly with the guy who fell backwards. It’s not his best trick on that show, I’ll grant you. I preferred his cold reading, when he demonstrated how psychics achieve their results.
Clydey,
In light of all the other crazy stuff I’ve seen this guy do I could easily be convinced that the girl in “colour blind” wasn’t pretending.
In any case, thanks for all the information about Brown’s methods. I’d never heard of him until yesterday, and I think I’ve learned quite a bit. I’d still like to see some research about things such as pattern interrupt, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s out there.
Thanks for an interesting discussion.
No worries, mate. Feel free to give me a shout if you need any help and I’ll try and dig out some links.
Take it easy.
Clydey:Derren has a stage show. How does he use editing during a live show?
I know that he has a live stage show, but there are two things wrong with using its mere existence as a counterargument: 1) stage shows can still be “staged” ;) and 2) if he doesn’t do the identical trick or one equally amazing and call it “psychology”, we’re comparing apples and oranges. The way we’re supposed to trust him on that video series PZ linked to is that he’s found more public people so we don’t think they’re paid actors, for example – this wouldn’t be the case on-stage and there is nothing keeping him from selecting a person who already knows what to do. There are many, many unseen factors that can let this trickery take place and the huge number of camera shots doesn’t make what he says any easier to believe.
You don’t appear to know much about hypnosis or suggestion. I’d recommend doing some reading on the subject. No one is suggesting hypnosis does what people generally believe it does. In fact, Derren even argues against the popular misconceptions about hypnosis.
Really, you got all of that from me asking whether the specifics “methods” listed had support from peer-reviewed journals? I’m not as ignorant about hypnosis as you may think and have gobs of access, if you’d like to cite something.
He does not use stooges. I have already given several reasons why that isn’t possible. Go and watch the numerous “tricks” he does with celebrities. You are right to be skeptical, but you are being cynical.
Celebrities aren’t exactly trustworthy either. Lots of them make lying to a camera into a career, you know ;). I’m not cynical at all, actually, but I’m very keen on editing practices and what Derren Brown presents. What reasons have you given for how it isn’t even possible that he’s used stooges? In fact, he’s definitely used actors in some of his tricks, although he denies that any of it has to do with the trick itself.
Naturally, using stooges isn’t the only option one has for various parts of these tricks.
His lies of ommission are something I like to pay attention to, personally :D. Pay attention to his disclaimers before specific acts: their nonexistence before other ones makes you wonder, eh?
I have tried my best to explain how he achieves most of his effects. If that isn’t sufficient, feel free to do your own research.
Oh, I will. But it won’t be in a psychology resource ;).
I already know what tricks are magic and what tricks are based on psychology and hypnosis (calling what he does “hypnosis” isn’t entirely accurate, to be honest). This in some ways reminds me of creationsists being skeptical of evolution, in that their arguments are mostly based on ignorance.
Of course, the evidence for evolution is freely available and available in gobs and gobs of resources, including those peer reviewed journals I was talking about. Not seeing it for your claims. Hypnotherapy is the best I ever seem to find. I’ve freely admitted ignorance of anything in the literature supporting this, and that’s about it. My argument isn’t based on ignorance, but reasonable skepticism based on the positive evidence of what has been presented: ridiculously large numbers of camera angle shots, dubious setups, etc. I also freely admit that many of his tricks can be accomplished by playing with someone’s psychology, although not as subtly as what you forward would have to be, things like cold reading.
By the way, I’d seen every video you’ve listed before you recommended them.
As for Simon Pegg “obviously” not being a stooge, I’d like to see why that is, exactly.
Thanks for comparing my skepticism to creationist nonsense, though.
Ah, in rereading my last post, it seems I may have left some wrong impressions.
1) I know that he has people pass around a bear for some audience participation. Are we sure that this is the case for every single trick like the ones on his shows?
2) I “believe in” cold reading and it’s entirely plausible that he’s very good at it.
Clydey, I’m reading your posts, and watching your linked clips, with great interest. Obviously you have some knowledge of psychology. Do you mind if I ask from where this comes?
Concerning the model on “Born Sloppy”, I note that there had already been discussion of the model riding horses as a young girl before the reading. Perhaps Brown had arranged the host to bring the topic up in order to prime the model after doing some background research on her?
In the live show I went to back in 2006 (part of his Something Wicked This Way Comes tour), I don’t recall him selecting any participants in a way other than throwing the toy monkey around, which is a pretty random method. And in one trick, where he had to guess which of the 6 participants held a black ball instead of a white ball by trying to figure out if they were lying or not, he actually got it wrong and had to hand over £50, so his tricks don’t work every time.
I know how he does some of his tricks, and some of them are pure, simple magic tricks rather than any form of psychology, even though he dresses it up as psychological or physiological.
As for the NLP issue, NLP isn’t one single entity. It is made up of many different tools, some of them useful, some of them not. He uses things like anchoring (as seen in the Simon Pegg clip), subtle suggestion, some of the visualisation techniques, etc… but also says that a lot of the stuff in NLP is complete rubbish.
And finally, on the subject of stooges. I don’t think he does use stooges (as in pre-prepared people), but he perhaps does use “willing volunteers” for some tricks… ;o)
Gareth, cool. So it seems that whenever there’s another person participating in the trick, which must be pretty darn often, it’s a random audience member?
In that case, how often does he do tricks equally amazing as the “remote viewing” one in this series of videos? I suspect some massive trickery and tend not to buy the “subliminal messages” thing.
As for “stooges” I think it’s ambiguous in his videos. He’s an entertainer, after all. Gotta leave some mystery in there ;). They aren’t the only thing to explain some trickery (vs. “psychology”) in his videos either, the idea of willing volunteers or culling a crowd are both viable, and of course he could only be showing us the one times in 10 that his claims worked. But when it comes to amazing/unbelievable things, I’d look at the recent example Clydey gave, the one where he convinces someone that he likes a BMX bike. I’m going to have to say I suspect shenanigans of some kind outside of merely saying things that sound kinda like BMX while manipulating him with touch.
Shirakawasuna:
I’m sorry, but you are not being skeptical. You are being cynical. Of course actors make a habit of lying to the camera. The point of using actors, however, is to use participants that the public know. Is it possible that the Simon Pegg is a stooge? Of course it is. Being a slave to logic, I concede that anything is possible. Still, it is far from likely that the celebrities he uses on the show are all in on the act. You are being silly.
I didn’t suggest that his methods for all tricks are random. In fact, he admits that they work better on some than others and chooses certain people if the trick requires someone who is, for example, particularly suggestible. The point of throwing the monkey during stage shows is to get a random volunteer, however. He uses many of the same techniques on stage and uses a random volunteer for these tricks. That alone proves that his methods work without stooges.
You appear to want a background check on every participant of every segment on his show, including celebrities. That simply is not possible. Shows are edited for a variety of reasons that do not necessarily have anything to do with fooling the viewer. It very much is like a creationist doubting evolution. Your demands are unrealistic. You doubt every participant, regardless of whether they are chosen randomly; you question editing techniques, even though every taped show has to make edits; and you want peer reviewed papers on what is an entertainment act. It’s a bit like a creationist looking for a fossil record without “gaps”.
There are probably countless papers on hypnosis, and none of which touch on what Derren actually does. Like I said earlier, it is not technically hypnosis. He uses a combination of techniques and their effect can be viewed live or on screen. Whether you choose to believe participants are stooges is up to you, but please don’t pass cynicism off as skepticism. There is a massive difference. What you are suggesting is a conspiracy theory (actors are in on it, along with every participant, chosen randomly or not). You have offered no evidence that justifies your cynicism.
amk:
I am actually studying psychology at university. To be honest, though, very little of what I’m talking about comes from my formal education. It’s more the result of reading up on the subject. I’m actually a bit rusty, as my interest waned around a year ago and I haven’t done as much reading recently. Still, I’ve retained most of the information I studied. It was Derren that got me interested in the subject quite a few years ago. I started reading up on mentalism, hypnosis, NLP (specific techniques they use, not the actual message they send out) and various other related subjects.
I wouldn’t think that there was a set up on Born Sloppy. Again, it’s possible. There’s no reason to think there was a setup, though. For that to happen, Derren would have to first tell the host what he’s up to (a risk in itself if he’s a fraud) and then the host would have to help prime her. It is very unlikely. Besides, Derren has demonstrated that same technique live using random participants.
He is at pains to try and show the viewer that nothing is setup and no stooges are used. It is then up to the viewer to believe him (a live show packed full of these techniques is pretty irrefutable evidence that they work) or don’t believe him.
Skirakawasuna,
You are free to doubt all you want. It’s your right. However, I suggest you actually show some proof to back up your claims. Simon Pegg is obviously not a stooge. He is not a random member of the public that could have been paid off (no one has ever come forward claiming to have been a stooge). Could Pegg have been rendered more suggestible when they met prior to taping? Of course. I doubt it, though. The trick needed no further assistance. The pattern interrupt is sufficient to achieve the desired effect.
If you have evidence of stooges being used, by all means share the information. As it is your accusations are baseless. Derren has been on the go for years and not once has anyone come forward as a stooge.
Try this trick, it works most of the time.
Draw a picture of a red dog and seal it in an envelope. Ask someone to write down a the first colour and animal that come into their head. Most will people will write down red and dog. Then you give them the envelope and ask them to open it. There is always some awkward sod that writes blue cat, but most folks write down red and dog.
How the hell do you “Train psychics”.
My personal DB fave is where he conditions 4 people to hold up (at gunpoint) a security van (not because the scene was near my office), 3 of the 4 actually do it.
I’m sorry, but you are not being skeptical. You are being cynical.
Nope and I’ve already explained how this is wrong. I have nothing against Derren Brown, either.
Of course actors make a habit of lying to the camera. The point of using actors, however, is to use participants that the public know. Is it possible that the Simon Pegg is a stooge? Of course it is. Being a slave to logic, I concede that anything is possible. Still, it is far from likely that the celebrities he uses on the show are all in on the act. You are being silly.
Why is it far from likely, exactly? I think I have every reason to declare that an unsupported assertions that could easily feed from your biases on this subject. None of this answers the reason for using so many camera shots and then not releasing the full, unedited film. The reason, of course, is that this is entertainment and that there’s trickery going on. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, although people might want to avoid taking it at face value.
I’ll gladly concede that he seems to use random volunteers for lots of his live performances, as many report it to be so from personal experience.
He uses many of the same techniques on stage and uses a random volunteer for these tricks. That alone proves that his methods work without stooges.
Which techniques, specifically? Remote viewing? Do any of his non-solo tricks involve only people not randomly selected from the audience and himself?
You appear to want a background check on every participant of every segment on his show, including celebrities. That simply is not possible. Shows are edited for a variety of reasons that do not necessarily have anything to do with fooling the viewer. It very much is like a creationist doubting evolution.
No, it isn’t. I’ve already explained how it’s clearly and obviously different and will take this as an insult. Really raising the bar *eyeroll*.
Tossing a stuffed animal around the audience is fine for me, although it’d be better at an even more random sampling. I’m not asking for full background checks, actually. Right now I’d be happier with simple, full, unedited footage. After all he’s debunking these things, right? Or is he doing a fun show? ;)
My answer is that he’s doing both, but cares more about the latter than the former for obvious reasons. He could thoroughly and explicitly debunk every one of those examples in the exact same style while revealing the entirety of his tricks and releasing all video footage. It wouldn’t cost anything more, either.
Your demands are unrealistic.
How is what I just listed above unrealistic? These are not exactly difficult steps to take if one is advancing ‘da cause’ of skepticism. He *wants* to leave that bit of mystery there for the fun of the show, but it means you do not get a picture of the event that it’s reasonable to find reliable.
You doubt every participant, regardless of whether they are chosen randomly; you question editing techniques, even though every taped show has to make edits; and you want peer reviewed papers on what is an entertainment act. It’s a bit like a creationist looking for a fossil record without “gaps”.
No true, I don’t doubt actually randomly chosen participants.
I do question editing techniques, but what’s wrong with that, exactly? Don’t you notice the incredible number of shots in each scene? It jumps back and forth between at least 2-3 cameras and like I originally noted, it sounds like some audio was inserted in the ‘alien abduction’ scene, right when he first starts explaining his ability.
I want peer-reviewed papers on the methods people keep citing as if they’re established psychology or something we should be able to trust as verified. So there’s something like the fourth blatantly incorrect thing you’ve stated about my position.
It’s not like the creationist rationalizations of “gaps” at all. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, explicit, and easily available. Additionally, the creationist rationalizations concerning gaps both play off of gross ignorance and complete illogic. The only place I can see you *almost* making a connection is by claiming I know less about this than you do, but in that case I’ve been asking for you to show me something reliable for establishing these methods as ‘real’.
There are probably countless papers on hypnosis, and none of which touch on what Derren actually does.
Oh my, I’m going to jump on this one. There are *probably* papers? Weren’t you just claiming how ignorant I was, yet you don’t know of any papers yourself? Please, tell me what Derren actually does and how you’ve verified it to be what he claims in his videos: show me something that verifies his ‘remote viewing’ as it was presented. I suspect you’ve simply believed what he has presented and done a bit of research on what he claims to have done.
Whether you choose to believe participants are stooges is up to you, but please don’t pass cynicism off as skepticism. There is a massive difference. What you are suggesting is a conspiracy theory (actors are in on it, along with every participant, chosen randomly or not). You have offered no evidence that justifies your cynicism.
Of course I do, although it’s skepticism, not cynicism. You seem a bit desperate to demonize me ;). This is a *magician* running an *entertainment* show with lots and lots of dubious editing. Not only this, but for all his shows he claims to blend a combination of personal skill with psychological manipulation as well as misdirection and all the other good stuff. Like I’ve said, I have no serious problems in believing he can cold read.
It’s not much of a conspiracy theory when it’s fairly mundane to doubt its reliability. Seriously, now. It’s a magician.
Clydey:
You are free to doubt all you want. It’s your right. However, I suggest you actually show some proof to back up your claims. Simon Pegg is obviously not a stooge. He is not a random member of the public that could have been paid off (no one has ever come forward claiming to have been a stooge). Could Pegg have been rendered more suggestible when they met prior to taping? Of course. I doubt it, though. The trick needed no further assistance. The pattern interrupt is sufficient to achieve the desired effect.
First, what you’ve listed does not make it somehow unbelievably unlikely that Simon Pegg could’ve been in on the deal. I was a bit iffy on the word ‘stooge’ from the beginning, as all it really takes is someone willing to keep a secret for whatever reason.
Second, I’ve never acted as if him being a “stooge” is the only option. If there’s one think anyone learns from being lucky enough for a magician to expose their secret, it’s that there’s misdirection and metaphorical cards hidden up their sleeves. This is why full video would be a step in the right direction if you’re trying to establish this stuff as real as opposed to entertainment with dubious veracity.
Finally, you’re claiming again that his acts can be explained by these specific methods. Where is the empirical support for these methods? That really doesn’t sound like much to ask for, given the implied efficacy of these things – I would again imagine that you have simply believed that to be what is done based on his claims and learning about what has been claimed.
If you have evidence of stooges being used, by all means share the information. As it is your accusations are baseless. Derren has been on the go for years and not once has anyone come forward as a stooge.
Personally, I wouldn’t see that as very surprising. He wouldn’t require many people for each showing (TV) to be in on the trick, likely only one. People keep saying that if it ever came out that he had used actors it would ruin his reputation, but I somewhat doubt that – the guy’s a magician, people should very much expect dishonesty for the sake of fun!
The evidence for my claim is that I’ve seen no reasonable evidence for the types of hypnotism and suggestion you allege and plenty of examples of actors pretending for this type of thing. When presented with a situation where actors or coaching are likely involved, like the the seance situation or maybe the ‘remote viewing’ (there are other tricks he could’ve used for the latter, actually), it becomes more plausible that there are actors than the idea that he has actual “psychological” abilities. You need to compare plausibilities when weighing them against one another – how have you determined that the probability of an actor/coached person coming forward is greater than him lacking actual abilities to the extent presented?
Let’s take the phone-sleep examples. Now, if there is no acting, he surely has pared down the responses to make it weirder, culling out those people who didn’t respond as he wanted them to. The rest? Who knows, we have no idea what they heard, assuming they are actually random people off the streets. Perhaps they’re some of the few people who would react to, “I’m doing a TV show and will give you $200 if you immediately pretend to fall asleep” ;).
“There are *probably* papers?”
Way to quote selectively. I said there are “probably countless papers”, not “probably papers”. There are undoubtedly papers. I just don’t know how many, so I said “probably countless”. You are grasping at straws. Of course there are papers on hypnosis. It is irrelevant to the point I’m making, however, as Derren does not simply use hypnosis. In fact, I explained in an earlier post that he uses a blend of different techniques.
For example, a pattern interrupt does not necessarily leave someone open to commands. In other words, you can’t do a handshake interrupt and then ask the subject to bark like a dog. It merely leaves open a window of opportunity for suggestion (or the possibility to put them into a deeper trance state). Do I have peer reviewed papers? No. I could always access my Athens account and try to find some. That’s not to say I would find any (I doubt any exist on what Derren does, since it is a rare blend of techniques). You are welcome to do your own research. The fact is I have seen pattern interrupts performed enough times to know that it does, in fact, render subjects open to suggestion. That is subjective, though, and I certainly wouldn’t cite it as being scientific evidence. By all means explain the Simon Pegg clip. Oh, and suggesting that he and every other celebrity are in on the act doesn’t wash. That is pure, baseless conjecture.
“Why is it far from likely, exactly? I think I have every reason to declare that an unsupported assertions that could easily feed from your biases on this subject.”
I am not biased. I disagree with you and have given my reasons why. That certainly does not make me biased. You have yet to counter my arguments. Your best effort is to suggest that stooges take part. I refuted this by pointing towards live stage shows, in which he uses handshake interrupts successfully on random participants (it sometimes doesn’t work, which demonstrates that he is not infallible) and, I would estimate, 70-80% of the techniques he uses on television (the stage show is maybe 2 hours long, so it would be hard to squeeze in every technique).
“I do question editing techniques, but what’s wrong with that, exactly? Don’t you notice the incredible number of shots in each scene? It jumps back and forth between at least 2-3 cameras and like I originally noted, it sounds like some audio was inserted in the ‘alien abduction’ scene, right when he first starts explaining his ability.”
Edits happen for a variety of reasons. I’m watching the French Open right now and the French television director insists on switching to low 45% degree angled shots on occasion. These camera angles serve no purpose and are pretty annoying to look at. The point is I don’t know why editors or directors do what they do. Perhaps they want their television show to look more cinematic or think a certain edit is particularly clever. Edits aren’t necessarily done for practical reasons. Sometimes they are done for aesthetic reasons, to create a certain look. Either way, it is a leap to then cry foul just because you can’t figure out a practical reason for how a show is edited.
“Which techniques, specifically? Remote viewing? Do any of his non-solo tricks involve only people not randomly selected from the audience and himself?”
I can’t get my head around the above question. Either it’s poorly worded or your intention is to give me a headache. I’ll try my best to give a general answer to the first part.
In his act he uses the majority of his techniques. I could be wrong, but I’m 90% sure that remote viewing is used. Although, not in exactly the same way as in the Messiah television special. He also uses pattern interrupts and cold reading. Every audience participant at the live show is chosen at random, as you conceded. Occasionally he’ll get a participant that his trick doesn’t work with. And he’s not shy of showing when he messes up.
I can’t give you peer reviewed papers, if that’s what you’re looking for. The best I can do is explain how certain techniques work and show them being employed. There is only one way you can show that they don’t necessarily work, and that is to prove that participants are in on the act. And since he uses the majority of his techniques at live shows with random audience members, they clearly aren’t stooges.
I am being logical, whereas you want peer reviewed papers on an entertainment act that blends a variety of techniques. You can get some peer reviewed hypnosis papers, but I’m not sure how much help they will be, since he doesn’t technically use hypnosis (I’ve already explained this multiple times). Your best bet is to read up on it further and try look at his techniques objectively.
As it is, you seem to be trying to desperately to prove that he’s a fraud. Skepticism is welcome, but you are being cynical. At the moment, evidence supports my argument. And please don’t start going on about empirical evidence. We base most of what we believe on experience. Such evidence is suitable for certain beliefs. I don’t need peer reviewed papers to tell me that the sun will rise tomorrow. I know it will based on experience Evolution requires evidence (and has mountains of it). Making logical inferences based on knowledge of a performer’s techniques does not require such evidence.
You are the one making unsubstantiated claims. Either support your baseless assertions or admit your skepticism isn’t based on logic or evidence.
Hahaha, I just watched the ‘dog race’ one again, forgot that it had a star wars reference. “This is the dog you’re looking for”. Derren Brown is a Jedi! :D
I’m done discussing this with you, mate. I have discussions with reasonable people who are open minded.
You think stooges are involved, both celebrities and members of the public. This is despite Derren doing the very same techniques during a live show, with no editing and random participants.
You want peer reviewed evidence on what is a variety of techniques blended together, that only a handful of people do. To get such papers, one of the few performers who do what Derren does would need to take part.
Simply suggesting that participants may be paid off just doesn’t suffice, mate. You have nothing to base it on. Why would he pay off participants for television if he does the same thing live with random participants? I’m begging you to explain that.
Clydey:
Way to quote selectively. I said there are “probably countless papers”, not “probably papers”. There are undoubtedly papers. I just don’t know how many, so I said “probably countless”.
I quoted you in full… bah, it’s not worth my time messing with someone who’s going to miss my points so often. I’m just going to see how many times you misrepresent me…
You have yet to counter my arguments. Your best effort is to suggest that stooges take part.
I believe I’ve countered every or almost every one of your points, including your explanation of how stooges are unlikely. If we’re talking selective quoting, you skipped over big parts of my argument.
I haven’t put much effort into the “stooges” bit because it isn’t necessary: this guy is a magician, the evidence he presents is flimsy for all the reasons I’ve listed and he explicitly states that his tricks are a combination of psychology, misdirection, and essentially magic tricks. Based only on the flimsy evidence it is easy enough to doubt that what we get is what is accurate, and it would not be hard *at all* to provide convincing evidence.
Either way, it is a leap to then cry foul just because you can’t figure out a practical reason for how a show is edited.
Completely and obviously misrepresents my position. My claim is that due to the editing, one cannot be confident in what one sees. I understand very well that these edits make the show more exciting and are often done to show what he’s doing.
I am being logical, whereas you want peer reviewed papers on an entertainment act that blends a variety of techniques.
I’m going to take this as rank dishonesty, as I directly said this was not the case and explained why in my last comment. You keep saying that you understand the techniques he uses and you give them specific labels, and all I’m asking for is some decent outside support. The fact that you haven’t supplied anything whatsoever is more than enough for me to conclude that you’ve merely been gullible so far as Derren Brown is concerned.
Of course, it also isn’t terribly “logical” to believe what a magician tells you without decent evidence (his shows). They are masters of misdirection. I’m obviously not going to be getting any from you, and I have been reading up on the topic.
As it is, you seem to be trying to desperately to prove that he’s a fraud.
Completely and obviously false. My statements have been about believability and again, he’s a magician. I really don’t consider having a stooge even when you’re claiming they aren’t one to be “fraud” when a magician is concerned.
I’m not trying to prove he’s a fraud by any means – he is doing an entertainment show. Am I alleging that he’s doing tricks “under the hood”? Absolutely. Need I point out his profession again?
Skepticism is welcome, but you are being cynical. At the moment, evidence supports my argument.
It seems all you have to support that is an intense desire to label me with a pejorative. You are technically correct that some evidence supports your argument, but it’s very unreliable evidence. There’s evidence supporting my argument as well and I’ve named it (note: remember, it’s not just about stooges).
And please don’t start going on about empirical evidence. We base most of what we believe on experience. Such evidence is suitable for certain beliefs. I don’t need peer reviewed papers to tell me that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Now who sounds like a creationist, obfuscating on evidence? I’m sorry, but Derren Brown’s tricks are fantastic and amazing, nothing nearly so mundane as the sun rising tomorrow. If they weren’t, it wouldn’t be entertaining. Perhaps I should start quoting some Sagan at you.
Making logical inferences based on knowledge of a performer’s techniques does not require such evidence.
And your inferences are not logical given the evidence presented. The existence of people in on the gag, culling the crowd down and showing the random success, and of course magician’s tricks are all reasonable alternate explanations for what is presented. Your choice, not “logical inference”, has been to believe what the magician sells you.
You are the one making unsubstantiated claims. Either support your baseless assertions or admit your skepticism isn’t based on logic or evidence.
I have done so. My claim is not unsubstantiated, we all know that magicians lie for our entertainment in the various ways I’ve listed (I don’t hold it against them). Having plausible and more mundane explanations for seemingly paranormal abilities is entirely what skepticism is about. Take the “psychic punching” from behind as an example ;). Suspecting shenanigans is a logical inference.
I’m done discussing this with you, mate. I have discussions with reasonable people who are open minded.
Awesome. I am clearly very open-minded, but you have nothing to offer me. That isn’t a fault of mine ;). Good job on using another creationist/woo-style rationalization, though.
You think stooges are involved, both celebrities and members of the public. This is despite Derren doing the very same techniques during a live show, with no editing and random participants.
Another example of an obviously false statement. I’ve been withholding belief that they’re *not* stooges and asking about the techniques he presents on stage precisely because I’m more inclined to believe they’re non-coached if he does them during performances.
You want peer reviewed evidence on what is a variety of techniques blended together, that only a handful of people do. To get such papers, one of the few performers who do what Derren does would need to take part.
Ah, so here you make it clear, then. Everyone keeps alluding to these things with specialized terms, seemingly to give them greater validity (common with woo). I assumed that this hinted at some outside resources. Now it’s just a handful of performers, eh? ;)
Looks like I went on a bit too much for writing you off.
I’ll leave with my same basic points, since you didn’t address them.
1) The way the show is set up makes it unreasonable to believe what he presents to be accurate without already knowing how plausible his “methods” are. There simply isn’t decent evidence in those videos. Psst, no one may have told you, but he’s a magician and explicitly says he’s going to use magician’s tricks.
2) I can’t find anything outside of random commenters or not full of woo that supports many of the methods, the more impressive ones.
Here’s a nice little video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsutU4U4Vls ;).
Sure, it’s a minor difference, but we can see that a bit of skepticism is warranted.
“2) I can’t find anything outside of random commenters or not full of woo that supports many of the methods, the more impressive ones.”
I have already stated explicitly that I know, for the most part, which bits of his act are tricks and which are not. I’ll give you an example. In his stage show he appears to lower his heart rate gradually, eventually to a halt. He tries to dress up the trick by referring to “The Great Prestoni” and how he used to perform this stunt years ago(he tends to leave such hints when having fun at the expense of the audience). Of course, The Great Prestoni isn’t a real person. If memory serves, it’s a character from The Dick Van Dyke Show.
He also has a trick at the end of his stage act (it’s the big finish), which is very impressive. Still, he tries to explain that he has been planting subliminal messages throughout the course of the act and shows an edited video of certain parts of the show, where he apparently plants subliminal messages. However, by the end of the trick it is obvious that it had little to do with subliminal messages. It was just a magic trick. One of the best I’ve seen, but still a magic trick.
The point I’m making is that it is very easy to tell when he is using magic and when he’s not. And he often leaves little hints that give the game away.
“1) The way the show is set up makes it unreasonable to believe what he presents to be accurate without already knowing how plausible his “methods” are. There simply isn’t decent evidence in those videos. Psst, no one may have told you, but he’s a magician and explicitly says he’s going to use magician’s tricks.”
No one denies that he uses magic tricks. You are under the impression that I simply trust what he says. I have demonstrated, above, that I most certainly do not. I’ve pointed out magic tricks that he tries to pass off as psychology. The amount of research I have done on the subject should also demonstrate that I do not take him at his word. I am a skeptic by nature. I had no problem telling my family that I am an atheist, despite being raised a Catholic. And I assure you I am no more invested in Derren Brown’s act than I was in Catholicism. If I don’t buy his act, I’ll be quick to say as much.
“Ah, so here you make it clear, then. Everyone keeps alluding to these things with specialized terms, seemingly to give them greater validity (common with woo). I assumed that this hinted at some outside resources. Now it’s just a handful of performers, eh? ;)”
The above gives the impression that you feel I’ve contradicted myself. In fact, I have said over and over that he uses a variety of techniques and that what he does is not technically hypnosis. And yes, only a handful of performers I know of actually do what he does. There are many people who practice “Mentalism”, but his act is not Mentalism. There’s not really a term for it. That’s how uncommon it is. Psychological Illusionist is the one that seems to have stuck, but even that isn’t accurate.
The fact is his act is a mixture of various things, like psychology, hypnosis (again, for lack of a better term), magic etc.
“And your inferences are not logical given the evidence presented. The existence of people in on the gag, culling the crowd down and showing the random success, and of course magician’s tricks are all reasonable alternate explanations for what is presented…”
No, they are possible explanations. They are not reasonable explanations. I have already shown that people do not have to be in on the tricks for them to work. There is nowhere to hide on stage. There are no sneaky edits and participants are chosen at random, yet somehow his act still works just as well as it does on television. Oh, I forgot. He may be using magicians tricks. I hadn’t thought of that. Here I was thinking you were giving vague arguments, but “magician’s tricks” is a rather more specific explanation.
Shall we agree to disagree? This is going nowhere.
“Here’s a nice little video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsutU4U4Vls ;).
Sure, it’s a minor difference, but we can see that a bit of skepticism is warranted.”
It is common knowledge that in the first series it didn’t matter which card you chose. They were ambigrams and he would do whatever stunt he had planned no matter which card they chose.
In several episodes, he even turns a card after one has been chosen (which I suspect he does here, but is missed by the edit). For example, in one episode a participant chooses the treat card. The camera then switches to behind Derren and we see him rotate the card (much like in that clip) so that the card says “trick”.
I’m simply guessing, though. I couldn’t say for certain what was going on. Either way, I don’t think it impacts on his act. That’s not to say I’m not curious about it, but it’s a small detail.
Brown freely admits selecting his subjects. Specials like The Heist and Russian Roulette have very carefully selected subjects, and we are shown (at least partly) how they are selected. The conversion special included a self-selecting sample of people, further pared down as people left. With some tricks that’s not possible, such as the shopping mall linked above – everybody goes to malls.
Brown also freely admits to using magic tricks, part of his introduction to his shows.
He shows some of his failures on TV, but there’s no way of knowing what proportion of his attempts succeed.
However he has always expressly denied using stooges/plants. For him to do so would be on an entirely different level of dishonesty, breaking the audience’s trust. It would also hugely cheapen his act. Any amateur actor could do it then. That many of his most impressive tricks he performs live (I’ve not been to a live show, although I’ve seen the televised Something Wicked performance) strongly implies to me that he does no such thing. One was “think of an animal” to a random audience member; he correctly guessed “mouse”. Another was isolating a single word from the day’s newspapers, using many audience members. He explained later that he had been using suggestive language to influence them; statements that did not make sense, thereby sticking in the memory, and that lead on to the decisions they made. I expect there were other techniques he used that he didn’t share. There’s examples of this language technique in the Pegg video, and also the shopping mall (“We hope your experience has been an uplifting arm…”).
Another clip I like, with a voodoo doll:
Pedantry: Voodoo does not claim to do this. It is a European witchcraft myth, the dolls being called poppets.
Gah! He got me.
amk,
I’m about 90% sure the big finish was a magic trick. I suppose I could be wrong, though. I’m not certain, but I’m pretty confident it was a magic trick. I think what did it for me was when she had to unconsciously tear around the word “influential”. I think that was too far fetched to be achieved through suggestion. The trick is mind blowing, though, no matter how he did it.
Clydey: Well, I suppose we’re not too good at writing each other off, eh?
The point I’m making is that it is very easy to tell when he is using magic and when he’s not. And he often leaves little hints that give the game away.
At first I was wondering what this had to do with my point 2), but then I figured it out: the existence of these tricks in shows means there’s evidence outside of woo and the TV shows for what he does. But I’m wondering about the more amazing ones, and I’ll cite a couple. For example, do you think that for the more amazing things, like the instant sleep phonecalls or ‘remote viewing’, are explained by psychology? (Outside of the money offer I listed ;) ) You’ve stated that you think the Simon Pegg video was accurate in that he truly made him believe he wanted a BMX bike with instant induction methods (or something along those lines) and interrupts, etc, right? Are there examples of him doing that in his live shows as well, with a random audience member?
I seem to have overinterpreted your explanations as implying that you believe everything he says. Sorry for that!
I think my comment 1) still holds as well, though. The videos don’t constitute convincing evidence for all kinds of reasons, beginning with the multiple cuts and the fact that he’s a magician (and doesn’t go into showing it all explicitly, so there’s still some fun mystery). The live shows with truly random audience participation would be much better.
The above gives the impression that you feel I’ve contradicted myself. In fact, I have said over and over that he uses a variety of techniques and that what he does is not technically hypnosis. And yes, only a handful of performers I know of actually do what he does. There are many people who practice “Mentalism”, but his act is not Mentalism. There’s not really a term for it. That’s how uncommon it is. Psychological Illusionist is the one that seems to have stuck, but even that isn’t accurate.
The fact is his act is a mixture of various things, like psychology, hypnosis (again, for lack of a better term), magic etc.
Yes, I was implying that you were contradicting yourself by using technical-sounding jargon (not necessarily a bad thing) to describe what he does without apparently being able to support it outside of the context of the videos. Ths led me to believe that the things you referenced were likely learned without any other outside support for the actual results, and as I keep asking for it and not getting any, I think that was fairly reasonable.
I have taken your point about him using a variety of methods to heart, though, and of course strongly agree. In the acts where it’s a bit more simple to see some of the tricks, he clearly involves psychological manipulation, misdirection, and actual paranormal-seeming abilities (like the cold reading). But I’m asking for what you might say is reductionist support for the specific things you are citing, like his use of an interruption in the Simon Pegg video and all that stuff. So far the best support I can find for such things outside of the show is Wikipedia! :D
You accept that he’s often misleading his audience with his claims, which also apparently extends to claiming various psychological manipulations which aren’t actually in effect, so what is keeping that from being the case in the Simon Pegg video? Worded another way, where is the evidence for what that video presents being the case? So far it seems to be rhetorical arguments based on incredulity at the idea of him being in on the joke, but as Derren Brown is a skilled magician, there are all kinds of things that could be at play that we aren’t aware of and for me it’s tough to ignore all the camera cuts.
No, they are possible explanations. They are not reasonable explanations. I have already shown that people do not have to be in on the tricks for them to work.
Let’s restrict this to the three cases I’ve listed or ones very similar to them: what he implied he did in the ‘remote viewing’ example, the Simon Pegg video, and the instant-sleep phonebooth video. I fully accept that many of his acts can be explained with straightforward magic and some sneaky psychological tricks (playing with statistical likelihoods of what people will imagine, etc).
I think my explanations are pretty reasonable, actually. What’s unreasonable about someone being in on the gag? That they didn’t come forward? I’m not sure how one could make that argument reliably as I don’t know how much journalists have looked into it. The existence of various tricks aside from the hypnosis-like methods you cite could also explain various aspects – take the ‘remote viewing’ example, for instance, where it’s implied that he gave subliminal messages to her. Without people in on the trick, there’s still straightforward ‘magic’ explanations, like having a hidden camera and someone telling him what she was drawing, etc. I’m sure there are more explanations than that, as magicians always have ingenious ways of coming up with this kind of trickery. Unedited video would go a long way towards establishing this stuff for me, or a citation of these specific types of feats in the live shows.
It is common knowledge that in the first series it didn’t matter which card you chose. They were ambigrams and he would do whatever stunt he had planned no matter which card they chose.
I know ;)
In several episodes, he even turns a card after one has been chosen (which I suspect he does here, but is missed by the edit). For example, in one episode a participant chooses the treat card. The camera then switches to behind Derren and we see him rotate the card (much like in that clip) so that the card says “trick”.
I’m simply guessing, though. I couldn’t say for certain what was going on. Either way, I don’t think it impacts on his act. That’s not to say I’m not curious about it, but it’s a small detail.
I can say with a high degree of confidence what is going on: editing together disparate clips of video to make it look like a continuous sequence. And this change wasn’t on anything important, either, as I’ve been saying – the fact that they’re ambigrams makes it an even more superficial difference. What it shows us is that there was likely either something in between those two clips they didn’t want us to see or they had to stop the scene to move the camera around and get a new angle, the set up the scenario again, something along those lines. They could’ve multiple takes of the exact same thing fo rall we know. It shows us the power of editing, though – how would anyone have noticed that cut without the simple directional cues of the cards? There’s smooth audio editing as well to make it less obvious.
So like I said, it’s a small thing to notice and the card switch itself isn’t important to the outcome of the sequence, but it lends credence to being skeptical when we have all of these bits spliced together. How different was that cut from a lot of the other ones we see, how different was it from the ones in the Simon Pegg video? In the latter video, there’s constant switches from close-ups on Derren Brown’s hands to an angle somewhat behind Simon Pegg to an angle somewhat behind Derren Brown.
amk:
Brown freely admits selecting his subjects. Specials like The Heist and Russian Roulette have very carefully selected subjects, and we are shown (at least partly) how they are selected. The conversion special included a self-selecting sample of people, further pared down as people left. With some tricks that’s not possible, such as the shopping mall linked above – everybody goes to malls.
The shopping mall clip has the convenience of two things: 1) He tells us there’s been the bit going on for half an hour. Could be true, could be false, I suspect it’s all part of suggestion and misdirection. In any case, we don’t know what was happening for that time if most of what he says about it is true.
2) lots of clips edited together, just a couple interviews. Rather than requiring a suggestible crowd, what he primarily needs is the ability to omit the interviews that weren’t so supportive ;). In fact, he could’ve culled the crowd in his messages concerning the bits we don’t know (as per 1) by giving them the location to go to if they followed the message.
However he has always expressly denied using stooges/plants. For him to do so would be on an entirely different level of dishonesty, breaking the audience’s trust. It would also hugely cheapen his act. Any amateur actor could do it then.
Hmm, you’re likely correct about the cheapening. People seem to like that claim that he doesn’t use stooges. It wouldn’t be any different than Criss Angel/David Blaine stuff, though. I’d still watch him.
I’ve seen the voodoo doll and naturally suspect shenanigans :D.
I liked his “walking on glass” trick, too ;). I like the parts that I think I can figure out, like where he gets stepped on (with a gratuitous foot on the head and gratuitous noises on his parts, when all of the weight would clearly be on his back).
“For example, do you think that for the more amazing things, like the instant sleep phonecalls or ‘remote viewing’, are explained by psychology?”
It depends on how broadly you define psychology. The best I can do with the instant sleep phone call trick is to make an educated guess. This would depend to some degree on editing, but not dishonest editing. It is almost certainly a type of hypnosis (he used to be a stage hypnotist), since he doesn’t use stooges. However, it would have a low success rate on random passers by. My guess is that they keep rolling until it works on someone and edit out the phone calls that don’t work.
As for the remote reading, I’m inclined to think that it was subliminal suggestion. Placing hidden cameras and whatnot completely undermines what he is trying to achieve. It really would be pointless trying to debunk remote viewing by placing hidden cameras etc. The point of the Messiah special was to highlight how easily these charlatans can achieve their effects. Going to the trouble of placing hidden cameras really would defeat the purpose.
“You’ve stated that you think the Simon Pegg video was accurate in that he truly made him believe he wanted a BMX bike with instant induction methods (or something along those lines) and interrupts, etc, right? Are there examples of him doing that in his live shows as well, with a random audience member?”
He does use pattern interrupts in his live shows, albeit to achieve a different effect than what you see in the Pegg video. Here’s a tip. Whenever you see Derren shake hands with a possible participant, watch the handshake closely. They are rarely without purpose.
“Yes, I was implying that you were contradicting yourself by using technical-sounding jargon (not necessarily a bad thing) to describe what he does without apparently being able to support it outside of the context of the videos. Ths led me to believe that the things you referenced were likely learned without any other outside support for the actual results, and as I keep asking for it and not getting any, I think that was fairly reasonable.”
I stated earlier that my evidence is subjective and certainly would not cite it as being scientific evidence. I have seen pattern interrupts used in person and on television. And being an enthusiastic psychology student, I understand the and accept why it works. Basically, my acceptance of it is based on 2 things.
1) I have seen it work not only on television, but in person.
2) Having seen it work, I have studied the explanations for how it is supposed to work. And I view those explanations as being very plausible.
“You accept that he’s often misleading his audience with his claims, which also apparently extends to claiming various psychological manipulations which aren’t actually in effect, so what is keeping that from being the case in the Simon Pegg video? Worded another way, where is the evidence for what that video presents being the case? So far it seems to be rhetorical arguments based on incredulity at the idea of him being in on the joke”
I certainly don’t think the celebrities are in on it. They may subconsciously want him to succeed, but I don’t think there’s any chance they are “in on it”. His credibility would be shot, given the vast number of celebrities he has used as participants. In fact, there was a special called “The Gathering” which was a stage show that used celebrities who made up the vast majority of the audience. As the big finale, he made them forget the show when they left. It worked on some and didn’t work on others. Again, I don’t think there is any way that they were in on it. Such wide knowledge of dishonesty really would kill his credibility stone dead.
“I think my explanations are pretty reasonable, actually. What’s unreasonable about someone being in on the gag? That they didn’t come forward? I’m not sure how one could make that argument reliably as I don’t know how much journalists have looked into it.”
If they were in on the act, Channel 4 would know about it and would consciously be giving air time to a fraud. Given how many participants he has used, there is simply no way dishonesty on that level could be kept a secret, particularly given how famous he is in the UK. All it takes is for one person to come forward (out of the countless participants he has used over the years). It hasn’t happened. Therefore, it isn’t a plausible explanation.
Large chunks of the British media like nothing better than to bring down a celebrity, and they’ve proven good at it. When Brown did the Russian Roulette special, he gained notoriety, becoming a household name. Many people were shocked and horrified at the stunt. At that stage, a newspaper could have gained a lot of attention and sales by discrediting him.
It depends on how broadly you define psychology. The best I can do with the instant sleep phone call trick is to make an educated guess. This would depend to some degree on editing, but not dishonest editing. It is almost certainly a type of hypnosis (he used to be a stage hypnotist), since he doesn’t use stooges. However, it would have a low success rate on random passers by. My guess is that they keep rolling until it works on someone and edit out the phone calls that don’t work.
My guess is similar to yours, only I think there are alternate explanations. I still kinda like my one involving cash and peripheral fame ;).
As for the remote reading, I’m inclined to think that it was subliminal suggestion. Placing hidden cameras and whatnot completely undermines what he is trying to achieve. It really would be pointless trying to debunk remote viewing by placing hidden cameras etc. The point of the Messiah special was to highlight how easily these charlatans can achieve their effects. Going to the trouble of placing hidden cameras really would defeat the purpose.
Yes, it would undermine the point. So would leaving it ambiguous and forcing viewers to trust Derren Brown rather than providing us with the details, which he also clearly did ;).
He does use pattern interrupts in his live shows, albeit to achieve a different effect than what you see in the Pegg video. Here’s a tip. Whenever you see Derren shake hands with a possible participant, watch the handshake closely. They are rarely without purpose.
OK, pattern interrupts and that sort of thing alone don’t seem terribly crazy, but did he do anything like what we saw with the BMX bike? Convincing someone of what they specifically want without mentioning it is pretty impressive, but I don’t trust the film.
What have you seen in person, concerning pattern interrupts? I’d be interested in that :). Also, if you’re a psych student and convinced of that stuff, it would make a very interesting project to do some randomized studies.
I certainly don’t think the celebrities are in on it. They may subconsciously want him to succeed, but I don’t think there’s any chance they are “in on it”. His credibility would be shot, given the vast number of celebrities he has used as participants. In fact, there was a special called “The Gathering” which was a stage show that used celebrities who made up the vast majority of the audience. As the big finale, he made them forget the show when they left. It worked on some and didn’t work on others. Again, I don’t think there is any way that they were in on it. Such wide knowledge of dishonesty really would kill his credibility stone dead.
OK, but the comment you were replying to was actually an attempt to deflect that topic a bit – even if he isn’t a stooge, with Derren Brown’s history both as a magician and specifically in misleading people as to which ‘mentalist’ effects are as he says they are, why can’t that also be the case here? There could certainly but other, more mundane ways of communicating the idea, I would even find sneaky subliminal messages more convincing than Derren Brown saying things that sound kinda like BMX and touching him. There’s turning wheels and such in the background and it’s all so manufactured that I wonder if he wanted us to think that ;).
All it takes is for one person to come forward (out of the countless participants he has used over the years). It hasn’t happened. Therefore, it isn’t a plausible explanation.
I’ve ommitted a little context, but not in an effort to be dishonest. Now, the question is whether it’s more implausible for that to have happened or for the hypnosis-style/mentalist-style tricks to be real, if we’re going to be comparing that dichotomy.
Then again, he has that newspaper/word trick. I have no idea how he did that ;).
The point of the Messiah special was to highlight how easily these charlatans can achieve their effects.
I wouldn’t call what Darren Brown does “easy”!
I mean, yes, great things can be done by great tricks, but he’s not demonstrating how every-day not-too-extraordinary charletons are likely to do their tricks. He’s showing how Darren Brown the best bloody magician in England and superstar mentalist would out-do their tricks twenty times better than the charletons ever would. I see how the best bloody magician in England can pretend to be psychic but I don’t see how an oily carny can pretend to be psychic. Hence, no debunking.
Well, ‘carnie’ psychics tend to cold read, don’t they?
Woozy:
“I see how the best bloody magician in England can pretend to be psychic but I don’t see how an oily carny can pretend to be psychic. Hence, no debunking.”
He tells you how they do it: cold reading.
He shows how easily they can achieve their effects by doing it, as you say, twenty times better. They don’t have to be nearly as good as him to get away with it. I actually thought he was pretty clear in the psychic segment, as opposed to the remote viewing segment. It’s common knowledge that psychics rely on cold reading and hot reading. He simply demonstrated how much more accurate someone who claims to have no psychic powers can be.
Shirakawasuna:
“My guess is similar to yours, only I think there are alternate explanations. I still kinda like my one involving cash and peripheral fame ;).”
Again, it’s possible but not probable. At least not in my eyes. The British press would have found out very quickly. I’ll give you an example. You’ve no doubt heard of his Russian Roulette special. It was claimed that Derren would use live ammunition. However, they couldn’t do that without breaking the law. It didn’t take long for the press to find out that Derren was using blanks for the stunt. I assure you, the press are all over him if there was even a hint of dishonesty.
Of course, what wasn’t widely reported about the whole Russian Roulette controversy is that the show had to use blanks to comply with the law. They also failed to mention (in about 99% of stories on the subject) that blanks would almost certainly still have killed him at that range.
He has been on television for quite a few years now and the press pays better to get such stories than Channel 4 would to hide them. Only one needs to come forward to make a quick buck by telling them they were approached by Derren to be a stooge. It really is very, very unlikely the guys who fell asleep at the phone were paid off. For a high profile performer to keep such a dark secret is almost unthinkable in today’s Britain. The press are ruthless and don’t miss much.
“OK, pattern interrupts and that sort of thing alone don’t seem terribly crazy, but did he do anything like what we saw with the BMX bike? Convincing someone of what they specifically want without mentioning it is pretty impressive, but I don’t trust the film.”
You can judge for yourself. I’ll give you a link to his special “The Gathering”. He performs at least one pattern interrupt (on the first man, who is a well know British celebrity). I haven’t had a good look at what he does to the girl, but I have a feeling he performs a more subtle pattern interrupt. He would have to, since she saw what happened when the celebrity shook his hand. He doesn’t go for the same effect as in the Pegg video, but it’s impressive in its own way.
“What have you seen in person, concerning pattern interrupts? I’d be interested in that :). Also, if you’re a psych student and convinced of that stuff, it would make a very interesting project to do some randomized studies.”
Just stage stuff. Less convincing than Derren’s since participants weren’t visibly chosen at random. At the same time, I have no reason to doubt that they were random volunteers. There just wasn’t a random process whereby they were selected. I haven’t been to any NLP courses to see them in action. Those would be far less persuasive anyway, given how unscrupulous many NLP practitioners are and how much easier it is for them to a plant. Tony Robbins, anyone?
“There could certainly but other, more mundane ways of communicating the idea, I would even find sneaky subliminal messages more convincing than Derren Brown saying things that sound kinda like BMX and touching him”
Those were subliminal messages. And the touching had a purpose. In fact, the whole thing would have fallen apart without the anchoring. He anchored those touches to a positive emotion. So yes, that whole speech was filled with “sneaky subliminal messages”. The rest of the process just made Pegg far more receptive to them.
As for the turning wheels, the segment would have likely worked without those. It was a bit like the trick he did with the advertising folk and the various subliminal messages spread throughout the taxi route to meet Derren (watch that one if you haven’t already).
“I’ve ommitted a little context, but not in an effort to be dishonest. Now, the question is whether it’s more implausible for that to have happened or for the hypnosis-style/mentalist-style tricks to be real, if we’re going to be comparing that dichotomy.
Then again, he has that newspaper/word trick. I have no idea how he did that ;).”
Nor do I. I’m fairly certain it’s a magic trick, though.
The stooge explanation is far more implausible, as his tricks have been seen on stage with, as I unfortunately keep saying, random participants.
Clydey: This thing’s off on page 2, so I’m voting for “agree to disagree”. Perhaps next time we’ll start with a more civil discussion ;).