Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[Meed]

Seriously you didn't know he was a magician?

Many of his tricks do not seem to give off that quality and the detailed psychological explanations he often gives are not something you would ever expect to hear from a magician. It almost comes off as doing a magic trick and then showing the audience how it was done. The explanations are implausible enough that many people can easily tell they're bogus, but yet are they're plausible enough that a great deal of people presume it's real. In this way it's much more dishonest than traditional magic shows in effect if not intention. So no, I didn't realize that I was supposed to know that it was fake. Then again I never watched a full show, so I don't know what the disclaimers are.

 

[Darat]

He might not be Geller .. still he lies. He may be blinking an eye and we all know .. but still he lies.
Randi would say 'I wont tell you how did I do it' .. Geller would say 'I'm a psychic, that's how'. Derren is somewhere between.

Randi has told me to my face that what he did was magic!

Now of course he says this with a twinkle in his eye and a smile - but so does Darren Brown, Uri Geller doesn't. Geller says it with "And my book that shows you how you can heal yourself using your mindpower is available at £12.99".

 

[Darat]

It's the silly statement in the thread title which is ruining this discussion. Of course Derren Brown is different to Uri Geller. He's completely different. Many people here have stated precisely why.

A more interesting (if inelegantly long-winded) question is this: "When Derren Brown gives false explanations for his tricks which could, if taken seriously, reinforce an uninformed audience's passive acceptance of certain forms of modern-day woo, does he have any kind of responsibility (particularly as a sceptic) to signal more strongly to that audience that these explanations are, in fact, just part of the act?"

...snip....


" But could he amplify that a little bit, without losing the effect? Should he?

Good post.

 

[shuttlt]

Surely the thing that differentiates Derren is the implied claim that his act is real in a way that other magic acts aren't? I hardly ever watch magic and so maybe am not as primed as many people here, but in the early days I was taken in by him. You can't spend an hour trying to convince people of nonsense and then undo it with your closing sentence (well, not unless it's "everything I've told you is nonsense, goodnight!").

Maybe the above is bad, and maybe it isn't, but I'd be staggered if Derren wasn't consciously and knowingly taking people in. His act is to make it seem that he really CAN do the impossible. That was definitely undermined by the lottery stunt as the papers were filled with the split screen explanation.

 

[Darat]

I think that is at the heart of the issue for some people and why many of us just can't agree.

To me an entertainer is an entertainer, and one of the things that distinguishes a magician from other entertainers is that they are expected to do things that look "real" but do them by deception. To me that is what is at the heart of a magician's performance.

I see one magician saying

"I have spent many long years in Tibet studying at the feet of mystic masters and from from them I have learnt the ability to bend reality to my will with only the power of my mind and tonight I will...."

to be the exact same type of deception as

"I have spent many long years studying the work of the world's leading psychologists and from them I heave learnt the ability of suggestion by which I can make others do what I want them to do, without them being aware of it and tonight I will...."

It's just how they present their deception, now some people may prefer the magician that dresses up as a mystic or one that dresses up as a psychologist, but the dressing up does not alter what they do, which is fool us with magic tricks.

 

[shuttlt]

I guess for me the difference is that the magician isn't depending on anybody actually believing that they were taught the trick by a Tibetan mystic. There is a hundred year+ old tradition of magicians presenting themselves in this way. Only children believe that Paul Daniels actually cut's the lovely Debbie McGee in half because these acts are being done with respect to a well known formula. We no more believe in the magic of Paul Daniels than we believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger literally IS the Terminator. There are well established conventions that it would be difficult to get through the world without learning.

Derren has gotten to where he is by effectively getting people to believe that perhaps he can do what he claims. Derren steps outside, or appears to step outside all the conventions.

 

[Darat]

I guess for me the difference is that the magician isn't depending on anybody actually believing that they were taught the trick by a Tibetan mystic. There is a hundred year+ old tradition of magicians presenting themselves in this way. Only children believe that Paul Daniels actually cut's the lovely Debbie McGee in half because these acts are being done with respect to a well known formula. We no more believe in the magic of Paul Daniels than we believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger literally IS the Terminator. There are well established conventions that it would be difficult to get through the world without learning.

Derren has gotten to where he is by effectively getting people to believe that perhaps he can do what he claims. Derren steps outside, or appears to step outside all the conventions.

But it's always been an evolution, and magicians follow the fashion of the times and Brown just happens to one of the most prominent fashionable magicians at the moment. (Back in Houdini's days it was spirits, in the 1970s it was psychic powers.)

I consider it like the fashion in TV crime shows. At the moment the fashion is for "science", look at the C.S.I. shows or for something even more akin to Brown's shows - "The Mentalist" and "Lie to Me" - they both wear the clothing of science, but are no more scientific than Brown's shows are.

 

[shuttlt]

But it's always been an evolution, and magicians follow the fashion of the times and Brown just happens to one of the most prominent fashionable magicians at the moment. (Back in Houdini's days it was spirits, in the 1970s it was psychic powers.)

I consider it like the fashion in TV crime shows. At the moment the fashion is for "science", look at the C.S.I. shows or for something even more akin to Brown's shows - "The Mentalist" and "Lie to Me" - they both wear the clothing of science, but are no more scientific than Brown's shows are.

If these people are fooling their audience into believing that it's genuinely possible to do things that aren't possible, then they are indeed doing the same thing as Derren Brown. I don't doubt that there are examples of magicians through the ages who have blurred the line. I'm not an authority on magic history, but Chung Ling Soo comes to mind as potential example, though doubtless I'll be proved wrong.

 

[StanBearclaw]

If you want to see the potential damage that Brown's style of entertainment can wreak, just look at the subject of hypnosis. If you ask 100 people what hypnosis is, you will get 100 different answers. The waters have become so muddied that it is almost impossible for a lay person to know what the facts of the matter are.

Regardless of their intentions, this can be laid 100% at the feet of entertainers. I don't think it's wise to encourage the same thing to happen with the field of psychology. (Edit: As is happening with "The Mentalist" and "Lie to Me")

 

[Edx]

wow, just wow.

derren is a fun magician to watch.

uri is a bad charlatan.

i don't find it as easy to confuse them as the OP does.

Yea Im really confused as how any skeptic can be against Derren. Maybe they havent seen enough of him.

I read in his book where he admitted that his explanations are also part of the trick. I can see how some people might be a bit narked that he gives false explanations as part of his trick but to compare him to Uri Geller is just way over the top.

 

[terry_leopard]

Only children believe that Paul Daniels actually cut's the lovely Debbie McGee in half because these acts are being done with respect to a well known formula. We no more believe in the magic of Paul Daniels than we believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger literally IS the Terminator.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the frustration people feel about Derren's act too, and in fact just a couple of days ago I had a very long conversation with someone at a wedding who kept insisting that he had studied Derren's techniques and could do "all of that NLP stuff"

So let's say a magician is doing the cup and balls act and his explanation for the trick is that the balls are being moved by invisible fairies, as you say only a child would believe him. Now what if the magician does the same act, but this time claims that he is using "ancient wiccan magic" now not only will children believe him, but also a lot of teenagers (and maybe some adults too)

So where do you draw then line, can you only do a magic trick if > 80% of people can see through it?

Derren is the only magician I can remember having ANY audience at all in the U.K. since I was a child, so his choice seems to be.
A) perform a trick that convinces more or less no one and have everyone say "oh he's just another boring magician"
B) Perform a trick that actually convinces some people it's real and have some people say "He's a con artist"

As far as Paul Daniels doing tricks to a well known formula, well so is Derren, and some of the tricks he performs are literally "the oldest tricks in the book" and the only thing that separates him from Daniels at all is the explanations he gives for them.

The only place I can see where a line can be drawn is how the performer represents themselves after the act has finished, which with Derren isn't where a lot of people think it is.

 

[shuttlt]

So where do you draw then line, can you only do a magic trick if > 80% of people can see through it?

I'm not sure one has to be able to point to a line to be able to say that it's there. 0% is definately one side, 100% definately the other.

One could perhaps sidestep the issue by saying that if such deception and belief is central of the act, then it's the wrong side of the line.

Derren is the only magician I can remember having ANY audience at all in the U.K. since I was a child, so his choice seems to be.
A) perform a trick that convinces more or less no one and have everyone say "oh he's just another boring magician"
B) Perform a trick that actually convinces some people it's real and have some people say "He's a con artist"

True, that's almost certainly why he does it. He's doing it for the money and he's doing it for the fame. Having said that, Randi clearly found a way through where he could transend the impression of doing the same tired old tricks without lying to his audience.

As far as Paul Daniels doing tricks to a well known formula, well so is Derren, and some of the tricks he performs are literally "the oldest tricks in the book" and the only thing that separates him from Daniels at all is the explanations he gives for them.

and the fact that he is able to make people believe he isn't doing the same thing as Paul Daniels and isn't part of the same old formula.

The only place I can see where a line can be drawn is how the performer represents themselves after the act has finished, which with Derren isn't where a lot of people think it is.

I disagree. It's all very well to write a book that almost none of your audience will read in which you explain it, but you've still got a situation where he is relying on his audience buying the bull. My view is that he actively encourages people to misunderstand his act, sure he may feel conflicated about it, but his entire act is based on that confusion.

 

[cj.23]

Interesring discussion. My sympathy is with EGArrett - I don't believ a word Derren Brown offers as explanation in his books or in his TV shows for how he does his tricks. BUT I'm not sure that si abad thing. H eis an entertainer. He entertains.

I was down the pub the other night, and made a shot glass pass through the solid table. (OK it wa sunder a napkin, but everyone will tell you it happened.) I was asked how i did it so I whittered about Planck, atomic structures, potergeist effects and materilaisation mediumship, and repeated the trick twic more while they watched.

Yes it was a trick. Of course it was a trick. Everyone knew it was a trick, Everyone knew my aptter on hw I did it was complete nonsense. But it was fun.

And i never did reveal the secret. Am I bad a person for this? If anyone had started to embrace a paranormal belief system on the strength of my conjuring trick I would have immediately said "hey, this is how i did it." As it was i told them where they could buy a book where thye could learn many much better tricks. But was my fake parapsi patter (and being actively involved in parapsychology I like to think I do it well) really immoral?

I sypathise with EGarrett, but I can't believe anyone would take Brown's 'explanations' remotely seriously?

cj x

cj x

 

[Aitch]

As an aside, Geller has just spent an hour or so on QVC (UK) pushing his range of dodgy jewelry. Don't think I've ever seen Derren do that.

 

[Azrael 5]

If these people are fooling their audience into believing that it's genuinely possible to do things that aren't possible, then they are indeed doing the same thing as Derren Brown. I don't doubt that there are examples of magicians through the ages who have blurred the line. I'm not an authority on magic history, but Chung Ling Soo comes to mind as potential example, though doubtless I'll be proved wrong.

I don't think Chung Ling Soo blurred the line, he prented to be Chinese. Different thing altogether.

 

[JFrankA]

If you want to see the potential damage that Brown's style of entertainment can wreak, just look at the subject of hypnosis. If you ask 100 people what hypnosis is, you will get 100 different answers. The waters have become so muddied that it is almost impossible for a lay person to know what the facts of the matter are.

As a stage hypnotist too, I can say that that is not just the fault of entertainers. It's the fault of woo people too - that's like saying that people who believe in NLP all got it from mentalists.

Regardless of their intentions, this can be laid 100% at the feet of entertainers. I don't think it's wise to encourage the same thing to happen with the field of psychology. (Edit: As is happening with "The Mentalist" and "Lie to Me")

With all due respect, how do you think us stage hypnotists supposed to explain hypnosis?

(Remember that stage hypnotists use patter almost the same way magicians do).

 

[shuttlt]

I don't think Chung Ling Soo blurred the line, he prented to be Chinese. Different thing altogether.

I know, I know he's probably not the best example, I just couldn't think of a better example. I guess I thought perhaps he pretended to be Chinese to gain the mystique of the Orient. Perhaps that went as far as believing all sorts of supernatural **** was possible as people appear to have done in the 70s off the back of the Kung Fu boom.

 

[shuttlt]

With all due respect, how do you think us stage hypnotists supposed to explain hypnosis?

The only way to do it is to talk up the woo, same as Derren.

 

[JFrankA]

Interesring discussion. My sympathy is with EGArrett - I don't believ a word Derren Brown offers as explanation in his books or in his TV shows for how he does his tricks. BUT I'm not sure that si abad thing. H eis an entertainer. He entertains.

Actually, his books are quite honest and without patter.

 

[volatile]

I booked a magcian for a cabaret show I run... he did the farly standard "nail under the cup" variant of the cups-and-balls, in which he asked a volunteer to shuffle the cups, only to then "read" the volunteer's "body langauge" in order to avoid smacking his hand down on the nail.

So far, so good.

After the show, a good friend of mine came up and started talking to me about the trick, saying how unimpressed he was because all the magician was doing was "reading body language". It didn't occur to him that what he'd seen was a straightforward magic trick.

I think that's partially Derren Brown's fault. I really do think that some people have taken Derren Brown's in-performance patter for genuine insights into the workings of psychology (which was the point Simon Singh seems to have been making).

Now, I don't hold that against Brown. I think he's amazing. And I agree with Darat - no-one is cross at Copperfield for claiming he can fly, or with Daniels when he says he's sawn Debbie McGee in half. But I think Kiosk's question cuts right to the point: "When Derren Brown gives false explanations for his tricks which could, if taken seriously, reinforce an uninformed audience's passive acceptance of certain forms of modern-day woo, does he have any kind of responsibility (particularly as a sceptic) to signal more strongly to that audience that these explanations are, in fact, just part of the act?"