Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[EGarrett]

If you're going to think like that, then why aren't you saying Movies = Uri? Watch any action or adventure movie and they actively mislead the public into believeing in woo-woo too.

If they came out later and said that they were able to do their stunts via woo-woo instead of wires and CGI, they would be just as bad.

The other difference is that Derren will own up once the lights are off. Derren doesn't have his website filled with books or videos he's selling to help you find ways of getting wealth or some such nonsense.

So what if he doesn't come out and say "this is woo, it's a trick" while onstage. That's the stage. Not real life.

His explanation of the trick, given after the fact on Friday, was woo-woo.

Now if you don't like his style, fine, that's one thing. If you prefer the "in-you-face-this-is-fake", okay.

If someone asks how you do it, you can reply, as Randi does, "quite well, actually." If you reply "I used automatic writing and the power of the human mind," combined with a long BS explanation of how it works. You're misleading the people. Do it on a large-scale for years, and you become as bad as Gellar.

My reply to the rest of your post is the same.

 

[terry_leopard]

From my point of view

Derren tells you he is a magician, he then performs a magic trick in which his "patter" suggests that the trick was achieved using a method which wasn't used at all, he then tells you once again that what you have just seen is a trick.

Uri tells you that he is a psychic, he then performs a magic trick in which his "patter" suggests that the trick was achieved using a method which wasn't used at all, he then tells you once again that he is a psychic.

I note that in the trailer for "the event" series Derren says he is going to be doing an episode entitled "how to be a psychic spy" I can only imagine the amount of trouble that one is going to cause on these boards

 

[EGarrett]

I was lucky to have lunch with Randi once and he showed some sleight of hand magic and when asked how did he do it - he answered "magic".

That's an omission of information. He knows you understood that magic wasn't real. I can show you multiple actual videos of him giving the "quite well" response also.

Now, can you say that the public knows that automatic writing, NLP, and post-hypnotic suggestion aren't real?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

His explanation of the trick, given after the fact on Friday, was woo-woo.

If someone asks how you do it, you can reply, as Randi does, "quite well, actually." If you reply "I used automatic writing and the power of the human mind," combined with a long BS explanation of how it works. You're misleading the people. Do it on a large-scale for years, and you become as bad as Gellar.

My reply to the rest of your post is the same.

Which is not what Derren Brown does outside of his performance, this so simple to me - an entertainer entertains; that he is so good at his performance that you keep forgetting he is an entertainer is a credit to his showmanship.

 

[Darat]

That's an omission of information.
...snip...

No it wasn't, that was the answer he supplied for how he did what he showed us.

He knows you understood that magic wasn't real.

...snip...

One would hope that everyone knows what a magician does is not real...

...snip...

Now, can you say that the public knows that automatic writing, NLP, and post-hypnotic suggestion aren't real?

So a magician should always put a disclaimer up so that "the public" know what they are seeing is a trick?

 

[JFrankA]

If they came out later and said that they were able to do their stunts via woo-woo instead of wires and CGI, they would be just as bad.

I don't hear any movies saying things like "Well, there's no such things as ghosts." or "no, you really can't survive from a falling airplane by simply sitting in a life raft" or "no, you really can't dodge bullets".

His explanation of the trick, given after the fact on Friday, was woo-woo.

Because that was a SHOW. That was a performance!! What? Are you disappointed that he didn't give you a for-real explanation or really expose a trick?

If someone asks how you do it, you can reply, as Randi does, "quite well, actually." If you reply "I used automatic writing and the power of the human mind," combined with a long BS explanation of how it works. You're misleading the people. Do it on a large-scale for years, and you become as bad as Gellar.

Have you looked at his stuff outside of the show? Have you ever looked has his web page? Have you read his books?

Very different from Uri's. I'm sorry, but it sounds like to me that you are judging a book by it's cover.

My reply to the rest of your post is the same.

Same as what? So you are saying I'm as bad as Uri because I don't say that Numeric Psychological Linguistics is something I made up?

 

[EGarrett]

No it wasn't, that was the answer he supplied for how he did what he showed us.

You're purposefully wasting time and if you think this is valid then there's no point in me continuing to discuss this with you.

Which is not what Derren Brown does outside of his performance, this so simple to me - an entertainer entertains; that he is so good at his performance that you keep forgetting he is an entertainer is a credit to his showmanship.

Here's a final example.

One of the tricks I use to imitate psychic phenomenon is photographic memory.
...
DB: It's knish. K-N-I-S-H. Is that right?
Librarian: That's correct?
DB: Now do you know how I did that?
Librarian: I cannot imagine how you did it unless you memorized the whole dictionary.
DB: Which is exactly what I've done. It goes knish, and then, um, knit bone.
Librarian: Knitbone, that's correct.
DB: It's a technique called photo-reading and the idea, it's amazing. You can just make a mental photograph of huge chunks of information which you can then recall later. What I hope is interesting about this besides it being a colossal waste of time is that it took me just under 20 minutes to do that, to learn that dictionary.

Now, was that an omission of information, or did he EXPLICITY lie about how he did the effect and go out of his way, outside the bounds of entertainment, to mislead this person, and the audience, about reality?

(the way this conversation is going, I'd say it's 60% likely there will be some completely tangential reply about how some people really do apparently possess this ability so it's not woo, missing the point entirely)

 

[JFrankA]

Now, can you say that the public knows that automatic writing, NLP, and post-hypnotic suggestion aren't real?

Funny thing about the automatic writing. If I remember correctly he explained it as something that just let your mind wander and not pay attention to what your hand is doing. To try to get your hand to use idiomatic movements to make markings. Idiomatic movements are real. Nothing paranormal there. He didn't say "contact the dead".

From my memory, he never mentioned NLP and hypnosis in the show, so I don't know where you got that from. What he did mention is suggestion which is very real.

And what he said about fear is right. You get someone to be afraid, or confused and that person might be more open to suggestion than if they are not.

Not an "NLP" thing, just the way people are.

 

[Darat]

Now, was that an omission of information, or did he EXPLICITY lie about how he did the effect and go out of his way to mislead this person about reality?

(the way this conversation is going, I'd say it's 60% likely there will be some completely tangential reply about how some people really do apparently possess this ability so it's not woo, missing the point entirely)

Why shouldn't he explicitly lie about a trick and how he did it?

That aside, have you looked at Geller's website that I linked to above? You really think Brown is doing the same as Geller?

 

[EGarrett]

Same as what? So you are saying I'm as bad as Uri because I don't say that Numeric Psychological Linguistics is something I made up?

If someone asks how you do it, you can reply, as Randi does, "quite well, actually." (or simply say "magic" which we know means 'I'm not going to tell you.') If you reply "I used automatic writing and the power of the human mind," or some other fringe woo that can potentially confuse people, combined with a long BS explanation of how it works, you're misleading the people. Do it on a large-scale for years, and you become as bad as Gellar.

 

[JFrankA]

You're purposefully wasting time and if you think this is valid then there's no point in me continuing to discuss this with you.

Here's a final example.



Now, was that an omission of information, or did he EXPLICITY lie about how he did the effect and go out of his way, outside the bounds of entertainment, to mislead this person, and the audience, about reality?

(the way this conversation is going, I'd say it's 60% likely there will be some completely tangential reply about how some people really do apparently possess this ability so it's not woo, missing the point entirely)

It's in a show, he is performing. It's a trick.

I know what you're trying to say, but sorry, it doesn't fly. And it doesn't because it IS a trick in the middle of a performance. I don't care if he says space aliens made his brain bigger. It's a trick in the middle of a performance.

 

[JFrankA]

If someone asks how you do it, you can reply, as Randi does, "quite well, actually." (or simply say "magic" which we know means 'I'm not going to tell you.') If you reply "I used automatic writing and the power of the human mind," or some other fringe woo that can potentially confuse people, combined with a long BS explanation of how it works, you're misleading the people. Do it on a large-scale for years, and you become as bad as Gellar.

Oh... see, Randi's answer is AFTER THE PERFORMANCE.

The explanation that you are quoting from Derren is DURING THE PERFORMANCE.

Uri uses woo explanations for his tricks AFTER THE PERFORMANCE. Derren doesn't.

See the difference????

 

[EGarrett]

Why shouldn't he explicitly lie about a trick and how he did it?

Before I continue...I have to first be sure. In that clip, do you recognize my point? Of course it's entertaining which is fine, and of course he used a magician's effect. The problem is that he went out of his way to mislead the person and give them a false picture of reality after the fact. Especially using something that is on the fringes of science and can easily be mistaken for the real explanation.

Before I continue, do you understand this above point that I am trying to make by posting and quoting that video?

 

[Darat]

You're purposefully wasting time and if you think this is valid then there's no point in me continuing to discuss this with you.


...snip..

To address the part you edited in after I had quoted your original post.

It was you that made a claim and used Randi as an example, I provided a counter point to that from my own personal experience with Randi doing what you object Brown doing i.e. not telling me the truth about how he did a trick when asked.

 

[EGarrett]

Oh... see, Randi's answer is AFTER THE PERFORMANCE.

The explanation that you are quoting from Derren is DURING THE PERFORMANCE.

Uri uses woo explanations for his tricks AFTER THE PERFORMANCE. Derren doesn't.

See the difference????

See the video I just posted. After he does the effect he goes out of his way, with a completely straight face, to bring up the topic of how he did the effect and then mislead the person, and thus the viewing audience, about reality.

 

[JFrankA]

Before I continue...I have to first be sure. In that clip, do you recognize my point? Of course it's entertaining which is fine, and of course he used a magician's effect. The problem is that he went out of his way to mislead the person and give them a false picture of reality after the fact. Especially using something that is on the fringes of science and can easily be mistaken for the real explanation.

Before I continue, do you understand this above point that I am trying to make by posting and quoting that video?

I get your point and it's invalid.

 

[JFrankA]

See the video I just posted. After he does the effect he goes out of his way, with a completely straight face, to bring up the topic of how he did the effect and then mislead the person, and thus the viewing audience, about reality.

But the explanation is occuring DURING A PERFORMANCE.

You are really fooled by him, aren't you?

 

[EGarrett]

To address the part you edited in after I had quoted your original post.

It was you that made a claim and used Randi as an example, I provided a counter point to that from my own personal experience with Randi doing what you object Brown doing i.e. not telling me the truth about how he did a trick when asked.

I'm not going to pursue this thread because if you don't understand the difference between "it's magic" and "it's automatic writing, here let me explain", (or "it's genuine psychic powers") then talking to you is a waste of time.

I think the video I posted clears this up anyway.

 

[EGarrett]

But the explanation is occuring DURING A PERFORMANCE.

He did this after the effect and stopped the performance to do so, and afterwards there was no counter-explanation offered.

You are really fooled by him, aren't you?

If I wanted to, I could condescend to you about this in a very biting fashion. Very biting. But I try to avoid sinking to ad hominem attacks.

 

[JFrankA]

I'm not going to pursue this thread because if you don't understand the difference between "it's magic" and "it's automatic writing, here let me explain", (or "it's genuine psychic powers") then talking to you is a waste of time.

I think the video I posted clears this up anyway.

It didn't prove your point. The video is from a performance. The ENTIRE video. Period. It's not intended to be educational. It's intended to be entertaining. Do you know that just "doing the magic" is only a small part of the performance? When the lights are on and the camera is running, you have to stay in "performance mode" throughout or you are a bad performer.

Have you gone to his website? Have you read his blogs? Have you read his books?

I ask because you are basing your opinions on performances. If you want to say his performances are like Uri's. Well, okay. I would disagree, but it's your opinion, but to say he's just like Uri based on his performances is like saying that Anthony Hopkins is just like Hannibal Lector based on his performance.