• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

shuttlt said:
Surely promoting scepticism is, at least in part, part of the persona and merely intended to make his own "entertainment" woo claims more believable. Given all the bluring of expectations as to what he's doing that goes on, what's to say that this isn't entertainment just as much as the tricks?
Click to expand...

So are you asking if Derren is still in persona even after the show is over?

If I got that right, I can tell you he isn't. In his books, "Pure Effect" and "Absolute Magic", he reveals not only his technique, but the secret to some of the tricks he created. "Tricks of the Mind" is not only a very personal book, but I call it a "Magic 101 for non-magicians" instructional course.

If he was keeping up his onstage persona off stage, he wouldn't be revealing the actual secrets of his tricks. He'd be giving patter.
 
AndyD said:
I'm in Oz so we don't usually see Derren Brown. This week was different. This event was promoted and discussed here on commercial TV.

So, my current view is based on what I've learnt so far about this latest event - and a bit of prior "Youtube" knowledge.

I sympathise with the view that Brown is going beyond "magic" and into woo territory. Maybe it's supposed to be entertainment but that's a blurry line for anyone who doesn't explicitly understand Brown does not claim to be doing anything other than standard magic with a presentation twist.

People keep saying "he's an entertainer and illusionist" - but what was the illusion here - a simple camera trick that dates back to the earliest days of film? Maybe the ongoing debate is the entertainment?

Last year in Oz we had "The One", a psychic talent show. Seven psychics competed for the title "most gifted". Resident sceptic on the show, Richard Saunders, kept reminding disgruntled sceptics it was "just entertainment" but the reality is those contestants now travel the country selling tickets to psychic performances that are not billed as "just entertainment." People believe it was real and pay for more. Should we give those psychics a break because they were on a TV show where a sceptic kept telling people it was standard cold reading?
Click to expand...

Again, here's the difference. Once the show is over, the psychics would take clients that believe they will get "the truth" from them. John Edwards, for example, may say he has an "entertainment only" show, but then he lines up clients that pay specifically for him to "help them contact loved ones on the other side". Further, psychics will firmly say, even in their private lives, that they have "powers". Some try to "bring out those powers" in others .....through a list of courses costing $599.....

People like Derren Brown don't have clients seeking "the truth". The people that hire him are looking for entertainment and that's it. If someone wants to learn his "powers" he turns them away, (unless those people want to learn sleight of hand and misdirection). He freely admits to having no powers, and in his shows, admits he has none. His disclaimer goes way beyond "for entertainment purposes only".

Yes, it's a small distinction, but as Psychictv pointed out, it makes a huge difference. It's also something that Penn & Teller call the difference between "a real lair" and an "honest lair".
 
EGarrett said:
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?
Click to expand...

In DB's defence you have to also understand that his 'explanation' is part of the act.

I think in the lottery case it wasn't a very good explanation but in other shows he has been very entertaining when providing explanations (even if they weren't true!)

I'm not sure if you actually had a conversation with DB off the stage whether he would still maintain that automatic writing etc can predict the lottery numbers.
 
I had assumed that the stupid explanations for the lottery trick were all about attracting, then selecting suggestible people for his next show on Friday, which is all about audience control.

I wouldn't be surprised if he reveals that afterwards at some point, and shows how he used cheap digital trickery for the lottery trick.

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't either :)
 
I think the reason I thought "this is fake" rather than "neat magic track" is because so many of his TV routines simply wouldn't be interesting without thinking they were real. I'm sure he does a better show live, but watching him on TV is very annoying. Half the time I don't know whether to be impressed, because it's a TV production. Some of his stuff I did like, there's just too much crap mixed in. I mean blackjack? Come on.

I've heard many people talk about Derren Brown casually and none of them have said to me "Have you heard of Derren Brown? He's a cool magician." It's always been "Geez, I can't believe stuff like that works." or "This shows how effective NLP is" or "Darn, I was trying out a Derren Brown trick on you. It didn't work." This includes a graduate psychology student btw.

Do I care? Not really. I don't think he's a bad guy or "no different from Uri Gellar" or intentionally "promoting woo". If he does inspire some woo it's least it's not alternative medicine or something. Some NLP people get some new money/followers, but all in all no big deal. I just don't care for the shows I saw.
 
JFrankA said:
If you pick up his book "Tricks of the Mind", you will see that he says that NLP has no credibility.
Click to expand...

Does he really say that and only that? :p
 
I think in the lottery case it wasn't a very good explanation but in other shows he has been very entertaining when providing explanations (even if they weren't true!)
Click to expand...

This is my biggest problem. I expected a plausible but incorrect answer, not a ridiculous one and not one based on wooish principles.

Here's something that's relavent to this discussion:

http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/20...science-scams/
Click to expand...

Ahh, so after promoting "wisdom of the crowds" woo, he's gonna head out and knock some other woo on the head. Sounds like he's just trying to eradicate the competition. :)
 
AndyD said:
This is my biggest problem. I expected a plausible but incorrect answer, not a ridiculous one and not one based on wooish principles.
Click to expand...

These programmes are all part of a series.. the lottery thing is at the beginning to load his audience up with people who are attracted by the idea that you can influence the outcome of things with your mind (or who are appealed by the fantastic idea that Derren is a master criminal), whilst simultaneously alienating those with a sensible head on their shoulders. Congratulations - you just got filtered out. You are less likely to be watching him next week.

Why would he do that?

I dunno... perhaps he's going to try some kind of mass audience influence/participation trick that he traditionally couldn't do on TV, because he can't select his TV audience. Something perhaps like having his entire audience stuck to their seats.

If I'm right, the truth will be revealed, just not until he's had a bit of fun with the audience.

If I'm wrong, I'll buy the next round.
 
AndyD said:
This is my biggest problem. I expected a plausible but incorrect answer, not a ridiculous one and not one based on wooish principles.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Let me ask you, assuming that Derren Brown used a camera trick to predict the lottery, what would be a "plausible but incorrect answer" not based on woo? Trained Ants? Really?

By definition, ANY patter he would give WOULD be based on wooish principles.

Don't get me wrong, I understand not liking the patter or the trick, I get that, and that's cool. But saying "he shouldn't base his patter on wooish principles" is absurd. It sounds like people think that all magicians shouldn't be allowed to perform unless they do what Penn & Teller or the Masked Magician does. Not all performers are like that.

Ahh, so after promoting "wisdom of the crowds" woo, he's gonna head out and knock some other woo on the head. Sounds like he's just trying to eradicate the competition. :)
Click to expand...

No, the competition is other magicians not "psychics". Please understand the difference.
 
EGarrett said:
If it was only one time I wouldn't care that much. He makes a habit of this, going out of his way to imply that fringe woo about which people are easily confused (watch his video where he "hypnotizes" the guy playing the zombie video game), and thus misleading the public. David Copperfield doesn't do this, Randi and Houdini didn't do it, Penn and Teller don't do it.
Click to expand...
Your argument is "Derren Brown is not like <these magicians I like>, therefore he is exactly like <this magician pretending to not be a magician>"

That is a clear False Dilemma logical fallacy. The fact that Derren Brown does not operate similarly to David Copperfield, Randi, Houdini, or Penn & Teller, does not in itself make him exactly like Uri Gellar.

Distinct differences between Uri Gellar and Derren Brown have been raised. You must answer those differences. The other magicians are only a red herring. Derren Brown does not have to be like them in order to not be like Uri Gellar. There are many other options.
 
What I find really fascinating is how much his lottery prediction method has been openly discussed here which is supposedly against the rules. This implies that even the skeptics and magic fans of the forum at some level engage with his act as though it were a attempted or claimed demonstration of real powers rather than a magic trick. To me that's a clear demonstration of the strength and power of his performance and the way he is able to blur the lines between fantasy and reality.

AndyD said:
This is my biggest problem. I expected a plausible but incorrect answer, not a ridiculous one and not one based on wooish principles.
Click to expand...

I didn't really enjoy the show much but in retrospect I think his explanation was great in the way that it worked on three levels. First of all he gives the real explanation right at the beginning of the show and at the very end repeats "it was just a trick." The segment of the audience that was aware of that reality probably enjoyed the show the least. Although I agree with others who speculate that this is part of a larger buildup throughout the whole series.

Then there is the bulk of the show where he sets up the various mentalist tricks to sell the "wisdom of crowds" idea. Some viewers probably bought into that explanation, but the holes in it were pretty obvious and I think most people would be highly skeptical.

So for the people who saw through those holes, that brilliantly leads to the third explanation of rigging the lottery which is the most improbable and audacious. That was like the standard explanation/non-explanation that Brown or Penn and Teller often do. I think that the small segment of the audience that truly believed in that explanation would have been pretty thrilled and entertained.

So you can either have been amazed and fooled into believing some pretty outrageous things, you can walk away simply baffled and unsure what to believe, or you come away a skeptic. Considering all of the people who are saying the explanation wasn't good, it sounds like most people came away from the show skeptical. So rather than using that as a criticism, as though Brown tried and failed to sell the audience on woo, think of it the other way around. He intentionally set up a scenario that leaves a good chunk of the audience questioning and skeptical.
 
AndyD said:
This is my biggest problem. I expected a plausible but incorrect answer, not a ridiculous one and not one based on wooish principles.
Click to expand...

Think about the bigger picture. He "told you how he did it", except, of course, he didn't. What's the lesson there?

Cross-posted from the other thread:

Just had a great chat with a friend of mine about the possible payoff - the moral, if you will - of the Lottery Prediction (and the Events in general).

Think about the tricks in Friday's show - the mouse trick and the knife trick. Whilst they were, essentially, fairly basic force-selection tricks, the lesson he used them to present was never to trust what you're told. There was no mouse, there was no knife. He said, straight out and in as many words "I lied to you".

Then consider the Wisdom of the Crowds, and the "good vibes" spin on Penney's Game. The basic effects were real, but the spin he put on them distorted them beyond all recognition. There was a kernel of truth, but a whole lot of falsehood. The lesson here is independently verify things you're told.

And so, the lottery: Derren "explained how he did it". Except, of course, he didn't. That's the point. The whole absurdity of the explanation is part of the larger picture.

I am now convinced that the whole point of The Events is the same as The System was - to encourage critical thinking. We're all scratching our heads a little after the lottery show, but the clues all seem to be there - I'm sure that the last show of The Events will pay off into a lesson in scepticism.

ETA:
If you haven't seen the trailer videos, which set the "bigger picture" for the whole series, see http://vimeo.com/6457581 and follow the links.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom