Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[Lothario]

It's a video where Derren Brown never mentions NLP but the person who posted it on YouTube put "NLP" in the title.

Yes, but Derren deliberately makes it seem like he's using NLP. No doubt about it. There's even a part in "The Heist" where he's teaching the group of people he gathered for the show a bunch of NLP concepts.

 

[JFrankA]

Yes, but Derren deliberately makes it seem like he's using NLP. No doubt about it. There's even a part in "The Heist" where he's teaching the group of people he gathered for the show a bunch of NLP concepts.

I haven't seen "The Heist", so I have to ask does he just imply NLP or does he actually say NLP?

Remember that a magician's bread and butter is misdirection. Derren is extremely good at misdirection and confusion. As a magician, I feel it's okay to imply anything to get the effect you want, so long as when the performance is over, you remind everyone that what you did is a trick, and you really can't believe everything said. Derren does do that.

 

[Lucky]

EGarrett, I agree with you, and also with Simon Singh's opinion:

You might ask, "What's the harm? Leave the poor guy alone. It's only a bit of fun."

There are three problems. First, any TV performer has a contract with the audience. In this case, Derren's contract is based on a claim to perform effects based on psychology, but this is simply not the case .... Viewers are left with a false understanding of psychology and an exaggerated idea of what is achievable through the power of the mind.

Derren says, "Giving explanations, which we do some of the time, is not about patronising people. It's about playing to people's intelligence." It is actually about misleading people. Having spoken to several very bright people, it is clear that they are completely taken in by the false explanations....
The second problem is that Derren's show taints the science of psychology. He makes statements about psychology and what can be achieved with the human mind, but they directly contradict scientific knowledge.
...
In one programme, Derren places twins in a "heightened state of synchronicity". One twin thinks of a number between 1 and 1,000 and the other, with her eyes closed, writes down the same number! The clear implication is that this is an illustration of some deep scientific psychological phenomenon ... Derren is making a mockery of science. Furthermore, the fake demonstration even takes place in a laboratory to give it the veneer of authority.

The third and most serious problem is that this programme taints factual television. Channel Four makes dozens of brilliant factual programmes each year, but this series misleads and appears to elevate magic to the level of science.

See the highlighted point. Whenever there's a thread here about Derren Brown, people will vehemently deny that the bogus explanations are meant to be taken seriously, and to mislead about science - while in the very same thread other posters will be vehemently arguing that the 'explanations' are real!

He hasn't claimed they are the result of NLP.
Everyone alway assumes he has said this (or they assume he is using it) but he states in his book Tricks of the Mind that he has never claimed to use NLP.

I haven't read Tricks of the Mind, but in that case he told a demonstrable, barefaced lie (which I find seriously unsurprising). To take the first example that came to hand, there's this interview with Jamy Ian Swiss in 2003:

JAMY: What's the difference between people's unhealthy decisions based on a self-described psychic's claims, or people making life decisions based on their misunderstanding of what are in essence a mentalist's super-normal psychological claims?
DERREN: Years ago the issue was whether or not you told people it was psychic because people were prepared to believe in psychic ability--and how far down that road do you take them. Now we're in a situation where we're into pop psychology, and NLP [Neuro Linguistic Programming], all these huge industries, and people are prepared to believe in that, and maybe in a way that's the new psychic realm.
JAMY: Right. A substitution of one set of false claims for another set of false claims.
DERREN: Yes, in one way, but no in another way.
JAMY: Well, I want to take a course in photo-reading. I want to take a course in body language. Is that more or less misleading or dangerous than now I want to take a course in how to improve my ESP? What's the difference? Is there a difference?
DERREN: The difference is presumably that you can do a course on body language and you can do a course on photo-reading and you will learn a bit about body language and learn about photo-reading.
JAMY: What exactly would you learn in a course on photo-reading?
DERREN: I've done a course on photo reading and you learn "photo reading"--speed reading techniques.
JAMY: So you're referring to speed reading and memory techniques there.
DERREN: Well, it depends on whose course you take. In the same way I've taken NLP courses and learned some NLP.JAMY: Well, there are differing opinions on NLP. There's not a shred of scientific support for it, outside of its own self-sustaining industry, plus a lot of mentalists.
DERREN: Well, I not a big a fan of it, but I've done it and think in some contexts there's some use--that's a whole other conversation--but it's a dirty word as far as I'm concerned. If somebody came up to me and said, "Look, I really liked your show, and I'm going to go to an NLP course," which I've had happen, I would say to them, "Well, if you want to do that, do that, but here's what you'll get out of it. It's not what I do. It's part of what I do," which is I think true, I think that's fair enough to say.

I've always considered Geller and Brown to be two sides of the same coin (and was taken aback at the depth of loathing of Geller and adulation of Brown that I found in this forum). Geller and Brown are showmen - magicians with a brilliantly successful personalised schtick. As a side-effect of their success and their favoured mode of deception, both are (unfortunately) powerful purveyors of pseudoscience. Brown's shtick is particularly clever, because it uses a deception-within-a-deception - the pretence of being a friend to scepticism by honourably eschewing 'paranormal' claims, but substituting equally bogus 'psychological' explanations.

 

[Azrael 5]

If you insult another member and make no attempt to address the argument or ongoing discussion, you are violating rule 12.

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

 

[kdogg]

My dad was pissed at me when I said that Derren doesn't know what people drew on a piece of paper because they drove past a jar of mayonnaise three days ago and it sunk into their heads unconciously, he does the trick the same way Paul Daniels or Uri Gellar would do it

and he's a real skeptic too, most of the time

Lucky is very right here:

Whenever there's a thread here about Derren Brown, people will vehemently deny that the bogus explanations are meant to be taken seriously, and to mislead about science - while in the very same thread other posters will be vehemently arguing that the 'explanations' are real!

 

[JFrankA]

Having spoken to several very bright people, it is clear that they are completely taken in by the false explanations.

So your beef is that smart people have been fooled by explainations that are on his shows? Then those people forgot he's not an educator but an entertainer. Sorry, those smart people should be smart enough to do a little research before believing a performance.

DERREN: Well, it depends on whose course you take. In the same way I've taken NLP courses and learned some NLP.
JAMY: Well, there are differing opinions on NLP. There's not a shred of scientific support for it, outside of its own self-sustaining industry, plus a lot of mentalists.
DERREN: Well, I not a big a fan of it, but I've done it and think in some contexts there's some use--that's a whole other conversation--but it's a dirty word as far as I'm concerned. If somebody came up to me and said, "Look, I really liked your show, and I'm going to go to an NLP course," which I've had happen, I would say to them, "Well, if you want to do that, do that, but here's what you'll get out of it. It's not what I do. It's part of what I do," which is I think true, I think that's fair enough to say.

It's true that Derren has taken NLP lessons. In fact, he goes into great detail about in the book you mentioned that you didn't read. If I may suggest you read that book and know what you are talking about before you speak. You also didn't highlight the words "I not a big fan of it".

And yes it's part of what he does, (again you ignored the line before that), because part of being a magician is knowing how to misdirect, lie and confuse. A lot of NLP stuff takes old confusion techniques and turns it into a "method".

 

[MikeSun5]

To repeat a point already made...

I would respect him if he simply stated that his tricks were illusions...

He states at the beignning of most of his TV and stages shows, that it's all mixture of "magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship."

Like it's been said already, the guy is an entertainer who needs a paycheck.

Lucky and EGarrett - If "bright" people believe his explanations, that's their fault. They're obvioiusly not as "bright" as you (or they) think they are. Sometimes, his explanations are part of his misdirection. If you're upset because you fell for it too, well... it happens. Don't be upset that Derren Brown is clever enough to trick you as well. He's damn good at what he does.

As for the comparison to Uri Geller?

DB never claimed to work for the CIA.

 

[Civilized Worm]

A magician not being entirely honest about how he achieves his results? I am shocked I tell you, shocked!

 

[Stray Cat]

The two are poles apart.... but Derren does a piss funny impersonation of Geller in 'The Gathering'

 

[terry_leopard]

When I first started watching Derren I bought in to a lot of the psychological explanations that he would surrounded his performances with, and they really intrigued me. They intrigued me so much that I went off and bought a book about how to perform mentalist magic (one that was recommended on this very forum)

Now here's the weird part. After I read the book I felt a little annoyed, I felt like I had been tricked, I felt conned, I even felt a little dirty
After a few weeks of brooding about this situation I had another realization, I was angry at a magician for tricking me I suddenly saw how completely nuts I was being, I was getting annoyed at someone for doing his job, and doing it better then I had ever seen anyone else do it, ever!

I never believed for a second that David Blaine could levitate, I never saw anyone make a woman disappear where I believed it was actually happening, but for a brief moment Derren Brown actually made me believe that I lived in a world where you really could win a bet with a losing ticket, or use blank paper as cash.

Surely a magicians whole job is to instill that sense of wonder in people, where just for a moment you think, Oh my god did he really do that?

I would no more expect Derren to tell the audience how his tricks are REALLY done then I would expect a prop magician to come and stage after a performance and say, "look there's a mirror under this bit, and then theres a trapdoor back here" etc etc.

 

[Olowkow]

Welcome to the JREF Terry. I think what you say is kind of like where I was coming from the first time I saw a bunch DB videos. I didn't buy a book, but I started thinking about how odd it would be if all this psychological stuff could actually work on people. I used to be a hypnotist, but even that does not explain the results he got. My favorite is still the multiple chess game.

It's pretty much a mystery to me, he is very good at what he does, and yes, there is a big difference between him and Gellar, the idiot.

 

[Lucky]

So your beef is that smart people have been fooled by explainations that are on his shows? Then those people forgot he's not an educator but an entertainer.

I didn't actually say I had a beef - that would be putting it a bit strongly. I agree that he's an entertainer, and is under no obligation to educate the public about the deceptions of stage mentalists and magicians. I do find it a trifle annoying that so many skeptics are fooled by both his pseudoscientific 'explanations' and his pretensions as a skeptical educator. The extent to which the educator thing is a deliberate deception on his part (rather than skeptics fooling themselves about it) is debatable, I suppose.

Sorry, those smart people should be smart enough to do a little research before believing a performance.

And yet, as we know from many studies in cognitive psychology (and as Derren Brown brilliantly exploits), people who are neither stupid nor ignorant can easily have their judgement manipulated and subverted, in very predictable ways. It's precisely because Brown makes a big parade of claiming no 'psychic' powers, and the methods he claims have some basis in science (though not in his distorted and exaggerated version), that intelligent, educated people can be fooled.

Now, kindly explain to me why your argument (gullible audience deserves to be fooled) doesn't work for the general run of con-artists. In particular, why doesn't it work for Geller? I have never got a satisfactory answer to that question here.

It's true that Derren has taken NLP lessons. In fact, he goes into great detail about in the book you mentioned that you didn't read. If I may suggest you read that book and know what you are talking about before you speak. You also didn't highlight the words "I not a big fan of it".

And yes it's part of what he does, (again you ignored the line before that), because part of being a magician is knowing how to misdirect, lie and confuse. A lot of NLP stuff takes old confusion techniques and turns it into a "method".

I think you are being deliberately ... erm ... disingenuous. Of course it's true he uses the kind of audience manipulation techniques that are sometimes attached to the pretentious label of 'NLP' - just like any magician. That in itself is not a dishonest claim. But it's a very different matter to claim that a particular trick, like Simon Singh's example of the self-working poker trick, uses NLP-style manipulation rather than standard magic techniques. And that's a major part of his schtick.

Lucky and EGarrett - If "bright" people believe his explanations, that's their fault. They're obvioiusly not as "bright" as you (or they) think they are. Sometimes, his explanations are part of his misdirection. If you're upset because you fell for it too, well... it happens. Don't be upset that Derren Brown is clever enough to trick you as well. He's damn good at what he does.

No, I was never fooled by Derren Brown (in the sense of accepting his faux psychology 'explanations'). However, I have suffered the frustrating experience of arguing with intelligent people who take his 'explanations' of various tricks at face value, and being unable to convince them of their error. This is because:
1. His admirers refuse to believe that he 'cheats' (however they happen to define that).
2. In many cases, even though I know a trick is a trick, I don't know how it's done.

 

[StanBearclaw]

He's a magician, he's always been. It's not his mission to debunk all the woo, that wasn't what he's ever tried to do. Randi and Penn & Teller are magicians who also want to debunk woo.

Also, I think saying that he uses skepticism as a marketing ploy is unfair. He may use it as a misdirection, that I'll agree with. But a marketing ploy?

I mean no offense to you with this next statement but maybe he didn't disappoint you, maybe you expected him to be something he's not.

I'm not a Brit, so perhaps I don't fully appreciate how he's cultivated his image, but yeah, as far as I was concerned, he was cast in the Randi mold.

And I believe that's why he's so popular in these circles. If he's "just a magician," then why aren't there 20-page threads on Criss Angel? He's a huge star, he's banging playboy bunnies and his show is in its fifth season. Brown has clearly weaseled his way into our good graces by doing stuff like "Messiah" and appearing on Dawkins' specials. He's endeared himself so much that apologists are actually praising him for continually adding more and more lies dressed up as science (which, frankly, is way more insidious than anything Geller did).

Making a buck on magic is one thing. Unscrupulously muddying the waters of science is another.

Power to the people.

Down with Brown.

 

[EGarrett]

It's a bit difficult to construct replies to people in this thread because most of them don't seem to address my initial point. Derren Brown leads people to believe that woo-woo is real. So does Gellar. It's not a matter of a magician's license. He actively misleads the public into believing in woo-woo. David Copperfield doesn't do this. Randi never did this. Houdini and Penn and Teller do not do this.

Lucky and EGarrett - If "bright" people believe his explanations, that's their fault. They're obvioiusly not as "bright" as you (or they) think they are. Sometimes, his explanations are part of his misdirection. If you're upset because you fell for it too, well... it happens. Don't be upset that Derren Brown is clever enough to trick you as well. He's damn good at what he does.

If you go back quite a bit, probably several years, you'll find me saying the exact same thing in a thread on this forum the very first time I saw Derren Brown.

Don't ever assume you know more than the person with whom you're speaking.

 

[MikeSun5]

When I first started watching Derren I bought in to a lot of the psychological explanations that he would surrounded his performances with, and they really intrigued me. They intrigued me so much that I went off and bought a book about how to perform mentalist magic (one that was recommended on this very forum)

Now here's the weird part. After I read the book I felt a little annoyed, I felt like I had been tricked, I felt conned, I even felt a little dirty
After a few weeks of brooding about this situation I had another realization, I was angry at a magician for tricking me I suddenly saw how completely nuts I was being, I was getting annoyed at someone for doing his job, and doing it better then I had ever seen anyone else do it, ever!

I never believed for a second that David Blaine could levitate, I never saw anyone make a woman disappear where I believed it was actually happening, but for a brief moment Derren Brown actually made me believe that I lived in a world where you really could win a bet with a losing ticket, or use blank paper as cash.

Surely a magicians whole job is to instill that sense of wonder in people, where just for a moment you think, Oh my god did he really do that?

I would no more expect Derren to tell the audience how his tricks are REALLY done then I would expect a prop magician to come and stage after a performance and say, "look there's a mirror under this bit, and then theres a trapdoor back here" etc etc.

 

[MikeSun5]

And I believe that's why he's so popular in these circles. If he's "just a magician," then why aren't there 20-page threads on Criss Angel?

Criss Angel's shows (like Copperfield's) are obvious magic. That Masked Magician dude already revealed a bunch of his methods. Derren Brown is a magician and a mentalist. Mentalism is more *mysterious,* hence all the discussion.

Brown has clearly weaseled his way into our good graces by doing stuff like "Messiah" and appearing on Dawkins' specials. He's endeared himself so much that apologists are actually praising him for continually adding more and more lies dressed up as science (which, frankly, is way more insidious than anything Geller did).

I disagree. Messiah was him debunking paranormal crap using magic to duplicate paranormal feats. He used magic tricks instead of science. I think the Dawkins thing you're talking about is Enemies of Reason. I haven't seen it in a while, but I don't think Derren Brown was being interviewed about science. He was discussing cold reading. DB never claimed to be a scientist, so it's strange that so many people accept his statements as scientific.

The fact people take DB's comments out of context while forgetting he's a goddam magician is not his fault.

No, I was never fooled by Derren Brown (in the sense of accepting his faux psychology 'explanations'). However, I have suffered the frustrating experience of arguing with intelligent people who take his 'explanations' of various tricks at face value, and being unable to convince them of their error.

Do the "intelligent" people you argue with always just listen to one person and take their word as truth? And a magician at that? Magicians lie, dude. It's what they do. Fish swim.

This is because:
1. His admirers refuse to believe that he 'cheats' (however they happen to define that).

And Ken Ham's admirers refuse to believe in evolution. Some people you can't save.

2. In many cases, even though I know a trick is a trick, I don't know how it's done.

Isn't knowing it's a trick enough? I don't think explaining the method would deter people who already believe something else.

Don't ever assume you know more than the person with whom you're speaking.

I don't. That's why I used the word "if."

 

[EGarrett]

Yeah, just as I was saying. You completely ignored the first paragraph of my post.

 

[MikeSun5]

Fine, I'll address your initial points:

Uri Gellar lied to people and told them that his tricks were the result of psychic powers. Derren Brown lies to people and tells them that his tricks are the result of NLP, automatic writing, auto-hypnosis and so on.

Magicians lie. Both Uri and Derren are magicians, so yes. In this particular aspect, the title of this thread is accurate. Congratulations.
EGarrett - 1, DB - 0.

I would respect him if he simply stated that his tricks were illusions, a la David Copperfield, instead of leading people to believe that things like auto-writing actually work.

Well, he does say they're tricks. This is where he is unlike Uri Geller, who says there are no tricks involved.
EGarrett - 1, DB - 1.

The constant undercurrent of trying to get the public to believe that he's a genius is also very grating.

Nobody's forcing you to watch, but you do anyway.
EGarrett - 1, DB - 2.

We have a winner.

Derren Brown leads people to believe that woo-woo is real. So does Gellar.

Magicians do lie, yes. Of course, Derren hasn't claimed to work for oil companies and covert government programs. Derren also doesn't concentrate on superstitious cultures and countries for audiences.

It's not a matter of a magician's license.

I disagree. An illusion wouldn't work unless there was intentional misleading on the part of the illusionist.

He actively misleads the public into believing in woo-woo. David Copperfield doesn't do this.

So you think he actually made the Statue of Liberty vanish?

Randi never did this.

...you think he really cut Alice Cooper's head off?

Houdini and Penn and Teller

...dematerializing? ...catching bullets?

All of the people you listed intentionally mislead and manipulate their audience. They are all LIARS -- and very good ones at that. They have to be in order to be successful.

As far as magicians misleading their audience, you are right. Derren Brown is no different from Uri Geller. The difference is that Derren Brown specifically says has no paranormal abilities. Uri Geller says he does. Uri Geller also performs in countries where paranormal things are paid more attention to. I think Geller does far more damage than Derren Brown.

Your problem with Derren Brown seems to be him telling "intelligent" people stuff like automatic writing and NLP are real sciences. I think that if these "intelligent" people actually believe that tripe like NLP is a real science, then they deserve to be tricked by Derren Brown. I would reassess their "intelligence," or at least their critical thinking skills.

Like I said, DB is not a scientist. People taking his word as scientific fact isn't because of his deception, it's because of their gullibility. It doesn't take much research to learn that his "explanations" are bogus. Seriously. One or two google searches. Are these "intelligent" people that lazy?

For crying out loud, he's an entertainer. Be entertained, or change the channel.

 

[Darat]

Uri Gellar lied to people and told them that his tricks were the result of psychic powers. Derren Brown lies to people and tells them that his tricks are the result of NLP, automatic writing, auto-hypnosis and so on.

I've been saying this for years, especially given the blatant use of stooges in some of his acts and the sheer ludicrousness of what he leads people to believe makes it possible, but maybe Friday's blatant lowering of the public IQ disguised as an "explanation" might back this up enough to make it clear to those who didn't get it.

I would respect him if he simply stated that his tricks were illusions, a la David Copperfield, instead of leading people to believe that things like auto-writing actually work. The constant undercurrent of trying to get the public to believe that he's a genius is also very grating.

Uri Geller claims his act is achieved by his "real" psychic/magic powers outside of any performance; he also makes claims that his powers can heal you (he has slightly modified his healing claims over the last few years to keep on the right side of the law in the UK). Geller has ran promotions with national newspapers to obtain your own "healing crystals".

How is that at all similar to the entertainment shows that Darren produces?

 

[Darat]

If that is how people see him, then that's fine. Personally, I don't give a spit about magic. It brings me no joy, I'm just not that kind of guy. However, I considered myself a Derren Brown fan from the first time I saw him, which was "Messiah." I saw a guy fighting superstition, and he happened to use magic as his weapon.

That's why I went into the program last night expecting that he'd turn it into something worthwhile. I figured he'd come clean with the video techniques and use the opportunity to educate. The way it turned out, of course, showed me that I had been fooled. Magic/Entertainment/Showmanship/Whatever you want to call it...that is what this guy cares about.

I have now stopped thinking of him as a skeptic whose medium dictates that he cross the "woo" line here and there, and instead think of him as a magician who used skepticism as a marketing ploy.

Are you sure that's not you who was projecting something into him that wasn't there? I've always thought he was just another magician, but one with a more up-to-date modern twist on "abracadabra" and "it's all done with mirrors". I think some people are "disappointed" in him because they projected what they wanted him to be and when of course he doesn't live up to that they feel he has let them down. He's not an educator, not a debunker (in his professional life), he's a magician producing and performing in very success mass-media TV magic shows and sell-out national tours.

And this is why I don't think he can be compared to likes of Geller or Sylvia Brown or Peter Popoff and so on - he does not makes claims outside his performance about having "magic" powers or being able to make people rich, give them advice on their real life problems, or that he can heal them and the like.