Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[Lothario]

Sorry, I see the word "choring".

Yes and a couple of seconds before you can see "...acing and leading". Gee, i wonder what that is?

 

[rwp]

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.

Where has Derren Brown said he uses NLP or automatic writing to accomplish his effects?

More specifically, has he ever said this in an interview outside of a performance as Uri did?

 

[JFrankA]

Yes and a couple of seconds before you can see "...acing and leading". Gee, i wonder what that is?

....misdirection?

 

[MikeSun5]

I feel that anyone who claims to be a skeptic (what is a skeptic, after all, if not someone who exercises dedication to science, reason and the truth), is nothing less than a hypocrite if they see such a problem growing, and do not take issue with it. They praise it even! Say it's the rubes' fault for falling for his tricks. I find that repugnant.

There, was that so hard? Now I hope you see why I didn't want to do your homework assignment. I wouldn't have gotten all that from your self-proclaimed rambling posts.

Your silly insults aside, I disagree with your point of view. You've constantly ignored the point that Derren Brown doesn't make any money off of woo, yet you compare this thread to battling the likes of:

... Uri Gellar, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Kevin Trudeau, Michael Behe, Kent Hovind, etc., etc., etc

I would like to know what EXACTLY is your beef with Derren Brown. What did he say/do that convinced you he supports/promotes woo?
Was it the NLP? (he never claimed NLP was the method for any trick)
Was it the hypnosis? (some of hypnosis isn't woo)
Was it the automatic writing? (seriously? I mean, really?)

Likewise, Derren's disclaimer, however well-intentioned it may be, doesn't end up affecting the audience in the least.

Not only is this a blatant assumption/guess, but even if it's true, how is that his fault? The disclaimer is there. If you don't believe it or choose to ignore it, that's not Derren Brown's fault. Besides, I'm still wondering why people consider him some sort of authority on science? He's NOT a scientist!!!! He's a magician!!!

Jenny McCarthy says vaccines cause autism, but she's not a doctor. Planning your life around her statements would be completely absurd. Would you consider people who take medical advice from a Playboy Playmate "intelligent?" She is a skeptic too, after all. She's skeptical of vaccines. Of course, Jenny McCarthy doesn't come with a disclaimer. Also, any person dumb enough to take Derren Brown's word without any further research isn't going to be affected as negatively as the dummies who take Jenny McCarthy's word. Why? Because believing McCarthy's views can kill a child, while believing in Brown's explanations for MAGIC TRICKS (that can't be stressed enough) will kill.... um... his explanations would hurt... uhh.... well, they'd definitely make my 9 year old cousin think automatic writing is real. Seriously, find a real fight. Derren Brown deserves scorn for fooling dummies? What?? Derren Brown deserves a medal for exposing their ignorance. He's a goddam trickster. It's what he does.

Think about his lottery bit in terms of TV entertainment: he comes up with an idea of predicting lotto numbers. He does the bit, gets the "oohs" and "aahs" he's looking for and shuts off the camera. The bit lasts all of 30 seconds. That bit is as tired and old as Hugh Hefners ****. He could come out and explain it was a billet switch, a plant, or whatever, but that would ruin the trick and eliminate any mystery. Plus it would catapult magic and mentalism back like 30 years. Instead, he spews all this crazy stuff about automatic writing and body language - which makes the MAGIC seem totally possible. That's the POINT of magic. To make people question what they're seeing and hearing. It's intentionally mysterious. Most (intelligent) people will still realize he's doing MAGIC. Others will get all bummed out and start anti-Derren Brown threads because they can't replicate his results using non-magic.

 

[JFrankA]

I've maintained that it's not necessarily the unforeseen consequences that deserve scorn, but rather what action the person takes when he learns of those consequences. It's the same in this case: If the lame lottery trick, followed by over-the-top outlandish explanation indeed leads to increased skepticism, and in turn leads to his business decreasing...what is his next move?

Why do you assume that if his shows increase skepticism means a decrease of his business? Did that happen to Penn & Teller? I certainly doesn't happen for me. Hell, being a skeptic makes Derren's performances (and other magician's performances) even more fun for me, even though I may know the secret of the trick. That stance makes no sense to me, sorry. I mean, I understand not liking the most recent trick, that's fine. They can't all be gems.

If he decides to go further down the rabbit hole of woo in hopes of increasing his business, he should be scorned.

Notice the first word: IF. Derren hasn't shown any evidence that he's going to pursue the woo side. In fact, I've showed you that his next project is to debunk woo. http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/09/derren-brown-science-scams/

If he accepts that he's pushed his shtick past the breaking point and decides to come clean and work purely above board, then he should be praised.

Sounds like to me that since you didn't like this trick, or because you don't like him, he should just give up the way he's been doing his performances and just follow the Penn & Teller way. Am I understanding this right?

But all of that is working of your view that skepticism is on the rise.

Nope, I've never said that. I asked you to prove that he is "leading people down the dark side". You haven't proven that.

What I've said was that what Derren does is entertainment, he says so in his shows, and if someone watches his performances and starts to believe in woo, then it's not Derren's fault. That person can use other frames of reference other than Derren's performance. Further that person should be able to tell the difference between a science show and a performance.

Conversely, I've read that the next Monday when people went back to work, they got offers to join the office prediction team. Again, obviously anecdotal, but I've never said otherwise.

That's fine, because both of us used anecdotal evidence, but that's my point. There is no way to prove that Derren's style of magic is the reason some people believe in woo. Just as there's no way to prove that Derren's style of magic is the reason people are more skeptical.

To me, saying that "Derren Brown is promoting woo so he should do the right thing and change his style" is just like saying that playing a game like World of Warcraft is going to make kids more violent, so the fighting and killing in the game should be replaced with dances and hugs.

ETA: And thank you so much for playing along, it's such a privilege to even be acknowledged by the likes of JFrankA, but for you to spend pages upon pages debating with me, it's almost like I got to shoot hoops with Jordan. Thank you!

It's been fun!!!

 

[StanBearclaw]

I'm tired, so I'll be blunt.

With Brown's shtick, credulity=customers. The reason that he's so popular is because he's so believable. If that wasn't the case, why wouldn't he be just another lame hack magician working clubs (no offense, buddy)? He plays the skeptic when it suits him, because it earns him trust, then he exploits that trust when it comes time to weave his nonsense. He's created an armor of deniability with his disclaimers and his "I'm just an entertainer!" and "NLP is BS," but he knows exactly what he's doing. He's managed to swindle both the marks and the smarts. He's undeniably brilliant, but he's a goddamn snake. Please wake up.

 

[shuttlt]

There, was that so hard? Now I hope you see why I didn't want to do your Jenny McCarthy says vaccines cause autism, but she's not a doctor. ..... She's skeptical of vaccines. Of course, Jenny McCarthy doesn't come with a disclaimer.

I'm pretty sure Jenny makes it clear that she isn't a doctor and advises people to do their own research. Does this not count as a disclaimer? In any case, if she does, does this absolve her from any responsibility arrising from her actions?

 

[MikeSun5]

He's undeniably brilliant, but he's a goddamn snake.

Correct. And he's dead honest about his snakyness (see his quote in post #194).

Please wake up.

Tell that to the people who get their education from magicians on TV.

 

[MikeSun5]

In any case, if she does, does this absolve her from any responsibility arrising from her actions?

I think she's absolved anyway. It's a free country and anyone can say what they like. If someone decides it's a good idea to take medical advice from a nude model with a high school diploma, that's their mistake.

 

[Kuko 4000]

With Brown's shtick, credulity=customers. The reason that he's so popular is because he's so believable. If that wasn't the case, why wouldn't he be just another lame hack magician working clubs (no offense, buddy)? He plays the skeptic when it suits him, because it earns him trust, then he exploits that trust when it comes time to weave his nonsense. He's created an armor of deniability with his disclaimers and his "I'm just an entertainer!" and "NLP is BS," but he knows exactly what he's doing. He's managed to swindle both the marks and the smarts. He's undeniably brilliant, but he's a goddamn snake. Please wake up.

The bolded part is correct, but of course, there is more to his skills than that. The rest of the post needs some work, good luck.

 

[andycal]

If you were watching 'Mock The Week' on BBC last night (UK) then you will have heard David Mitchell's take on the whole thing. It was insightful, true and one of the funniest things I've heard in the series.

In fact, the whole show last night was a masterclass in comedy, if you can, watch it on iPlayer.

 

[psychictv]

I think it's important to think for a minute about what type of woo Brown is "promoting". Not all woo is harmful. Convincing the public that you're psychic in order to sell your services and defraud little old ladies out of their savings is harmful. Convincing people to forego medical treatment in favor of a sham natural remedy is harmful.

But what about convincing the public that subliminal advertising is real and effective? Where's the harm? Are ad agencies going to suddenly ramp up their use of subliminal messages? So what? Couldn't this actually make the public pay closer attention to marketing messages and help people be more skeptical about advertising?

I know some people sell books and seminars about NLP but is it really that widespread? Again, convincing people that some people are exceptionally convincing people (see what I did there? ) may actually help reinforce skepticism. Maybe if NLP schools start to pop up on every street corner next to the palm reader I'll start to worry, but until then I really don't see the harm.

I also think it's worth looking at the areas of knowledge that these different types of woo corrupt. Derren Brown may be giving people the wrong idea about psychology and how the human brain works but most people have very little knowledge or interest in that field anyway. It's quite a different story to corrupt the public's understanding of basic medicine or fundamental questions of life and death.

 

[Darat]

If you were watching 'Mock The Week' on BBC last night (UK) then you will have heard David Mitchell's take on the whole thing. It was insightful, true and one of the funniest things I've heard in the series.

In fact, the whole show last night was a masterclass in comedy, if you can, watch it on iPlayer.

And I think it provides a good counterpoint to claims that his act overall increases "woo" - what this show seems to have done is to spark huge debate and discussion in the UK about tricks and not believing what someone tells you! I've seen the Mock the Week show you reference above, and also heard it on several radio shows, all talking about how he did the trick, not once have I heard anyone who has thought the "wisdom of the crowds" was how he did it.

 

[shuttlt]

And I think it provides a good counterpoint to claims that his act overall increases "woo" - what this show seems to have done is to spark huge debate and discussion in the UK about tricks and not believing what someone tells you! I've seen the Mock the Week show you reference above, and also heard it on several radio shows, all talking about how he did the trick, not once have I heard anyone who has thought the "wisdom of the crowds" was how he did it.

But this is a fairly new thing in regard to Derren isn't it? In previous shows, how the trick was really done hasn't gotten nearly the same amount of attention. Are we claiming now that he has deliberately changed tack and decided to make his explanations so offensively poor that the true explanation is bound to be heard by anybody who's willing to hear it?

If the national press uniting as one to say "well, that was bollocks, wasn't it" is the effect he was aiming for, then he may be able to take credit for a decrease in woo (not that we have any studies either way to say for sure).

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Please try to comprehend the message before you respond to it.

I very sorry, I didn't realise I had to meet your comprehension target before giving an opinion. Can I impose a similar civility target on you?

 

[shuttlt]

I very sorry, I didn't realise I had to meet your comprehension target before giving an opinion. Can I impose a similar civility target on you?

If you failed to understand something that's your lookout and all consequences arising from that are entirely your responsibility.

 

[Tapio]

Stan, I can't bare to read through all of the thread. I've followed a main part of it, though. Just one question for you.

Have you read Derren Brown's book Tricks Of The Mind?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

If you failed to understand something that's your lookout and all consequences arising from that are entirely your responsibility.

What consequences? Do you mean StanUpshaws little put down? Oh, okay I'll live with it. Somehow.

Then again, perhaps StanUpShaw was either unclear or didn't comprehend how my point related to the previous one.

But yes, if I did fail to understand something that was reasonably clearly stated it is my responsibility not Stans, he's not responsible for me just like Derren Brown is not responsible for people who don't understand that he is an entertainer. Surely that is the point of this increasingly repetitive thread...

 

[microdot]

If you failed to understand something that's your lookout and all consequences arising from that are entirely your responsibility.

Imagine if all the teachers in all the schools in all the world took a view like that.

Where would we all be then?

Common sense also tells me that in the context of debate it's probably to everyone's benefit and to the outcome of the debate overall to assist others to understand the point(s) that you are trying to make.

Or maybe you could just absolve yourself from all responsibility by blaming the other person

 

[JFrankA]

What consequences? Do you mean StanUpshaws little put down? Oh, okay I'll live with it. Somehow.

Then again, perhaps StanUpShaw was either unclear or didn't comprehend how my point related to the previous one.

But yes, if I did fail to understand something that was reasonably clearly stated it is my responsibility not Stans, he's not responsible for me just like Derrin Brown is not responsible for people who don't understand that he is an entertainer. Surely that is the point of this increasingly repetitive thread...

Exactly.

And that's the point.

Part of being a skeptic, (or really a human), is to ask questions. People who are going to believe Derren or Uri or even Jenny on what's been fed to them are just not even bothering to try. Right off the bat the first questions should be "who is this person, what is their background and why are they telling me this".