Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[fredriks]

I am surprised about this thread because it is quite different compared to other old threads about Derren Brown I have read. Things might have changed.

Here are some points that I think is relevant.

1. It seems clear that a lot of people buy his explanations and I would say that having people believing in his explanations is almost the only thing that make the tricks good and Derren Brown popular. The bmx trick, Russian roulette and sublimal advertising are good if you buy the explanations but not really that good otherwise except maybe the roulette.

2. I believe Simon Singhs critic was to same extent a result of that Derren Browns show was actually forecasted as science and not entertaining at the beginning if I remember correctly.

3. The warning at the beginning of the show was neither there when the show started but came later.

Derren Brown at least seemed to had a good reputation that made people believe he did a lot with the use of psychology, also people that is in other cases pretty skeptical.

I haven't seen his show but just parts on youtube so it is possibly that you got a different impression if you see the show. Still Simon Singh is a pretty clever guy and I believe his writtings was very relevant at that time. Things might have changed though.

 

[microdot]

Just a small point but his name is Derren Brown.

 

[fredriks]

I know and I also wrote Derren at least 3 times but did a mistake one time

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I know and I also wrote Derren at least 3 times but did a mistake one time

Yeah, and I typed 'Derrin' and didn't notice before I hit submit. Typo.

 

[microdot]

That Edit button comes in really useful

 

[shuttlt]

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 surely the argument is that if people don't understand a message then that's their fault. Derren deliberately avoids explicitly stating what is and isn't a lie in order that people will believe in his act in a way they don't in a normal magic show. He knowingly and deliberately makes his disclaimer ambiguous and yet I am told it's the audiences responsibility to correctly understand and select the true meaning of the disclaimer. StanUpShaw may have been inadvertently unclear. Why is it not your responsibility to correctly interpret his unclear message here, but it is the audiences responsibility to correctly interpret Derren's message?

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.

But Derren deliberately makes his warning ambiguous in order to encourage people to believe in what he does. If Stan's message was ambiguous we presumably aren't claiming that he intended it to be so.

Surely that is the point of this increasingly repetitive thread...

I agree things are getting repetitive.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Hi ShutIt,


I guess that's the core of the disagreement. I've always been happy to accept that the statement at the begining of the show applies to the whole show and that everything within it is part of the act, including false information fed to participants. I do understand, and to a degree sympathise with your position but I take 'I am reading subtle tensions in your body' the same way as I would take 'the hat is empty' or 'Teller has loaded the bullet into the gun' or 'I will now dematerialise and pass through the Great Wall of China', it may be true, it may be false but either way it's part of the show.

I think I'm going to give this one a rest now. Work to do.

 

[StanBearclaw]

Let us please not forget that the evidence it the case of StAnUpShAw is readily available a mere page and a half back in this thread. However that might be interpreted as deliberate obfuscation, and we wouldn't want that, now would we? So, in the interest of ****ing clarity, here is the conversation:

I really don't think there's helping some people so why bother? ¹

If that applies in this case, then why doesn't apply to the devotees of Uri Gellar, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Kevin Trudeau, Michael Behe, Kent Hovind, etc., etc., etc.? Aren't those battles are worth fighting? I thought that was the point of the skeptical movement. Perhaps I was mistaken.²

The difference as I see it is that these people (the devotees) are being deliberately misled, there is a big difference between opposing people who consistantly make false claims and opposing someone because a proportion of their audience don't believe the disclaimer. What are you going to do, claim it's all tricks? He'll agree with you!³

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

The guy was claiming that the people who got misled were beyond saving. Why does it matter who they were misled by, don't they all deserve to be steered in the right way?⁴

1. The original point raised by andycal. Seeing the logical inconsistency, I replied with:
2. An expertly crafted parry, stopping his mind in its tracks, shattered by the rhetorical "PWNage" he just got dealt
3. Guy comes along and sees the names of bad, scary people and must attack, without grasping what is actually being said
4. As clever as he is wise, StanUpshaw takes the time to add a cutting jape, but then goes on to reiterate the point he was making, removing any possible ambiguity.

As you can see, the anti-StanUpshaw camp doesn't have a leg to stand on.
But don't worry, I don't expect you to beg my forgiveness, I'm far too magnanimous for that.

 

[andycal]

Page 16 onwards of Tricks of the Mind is pretty clear about what he does and doesn't do. He is also clear at the beginning of each TV show and each stage show.

His DVDs have out-takes of when things didn't work. Obviously only the stuff that works makes it to the telly - I'm sure Channel 4 make it pretty clear they want 26 minutes of quality mind-bending entertainment so they ensure they edit it.

What you're asking for is impossible. Using your position, I could argue that the Jref doesn't do enough to promote skepticism.

This is not an argument looking for an answer anymore, it's simply a point being made over and over and you have made it pretty clear you're not willing to listen or understand the opposite view. I therefore decree that WC Fields was right.

Good chatting to you though, some of what you said made sense.

 

[psychictv]

Derren deliberately avoids explicitly stating what is and isn't a lie in order that people will believe in his act in a way they don't in a normal magic show.

But what's a "normal magic show." A bad magic show? Are you telling me that audiences didn't believe that Houdini was a master of locks who could hold his breath for a long time and break out of any box? They always knew that the cuffs and crates were gimmicked?

 

[JFrankA]

Derren deliberately avoids explicitly stating what is and isn't a lie in order that people will believe in his act in a way they don't in a normal magic show.

(I'm sorry for the next line. Please don't take offense. I just couldn't resist... )

Uhm duhh....it's called "patter".

And everyone does it differently.

What about magicians who do tricks silently? They don't even say a disclaimer.

 

[StanBearclaw]

But what's a "normal magic show." A bad magic show?

Honestly, I think that gets down to the crux of the issue. Overall, magic is pretty lame BECAUSE no one is really fooled anymore. He's popular (good) because he does fool people.






vvvvvv Will do, chief! vvvvvv

 

[P.J. Denyer]

1. The original point raised by andycal. Seeing the logical inconsistency, I replied with:
2. An expertly crafted parry, stopping his mind in its tracks, shattered by the rhetorical "PWNage" he just got dealt
3. Guy comes along and sees the names of bad, scary people and must attack, without grasping what is actually being said
4. As clever as he is wise, StanUpshaw takes the time to add a cutting jape, but then goes on to reiterate the point he was making, removing any possible ambiguity.

"a cutting jape"? Really? And there I was thinking you were just trying to be patronising.

Still, since you can't see the relevence of drawing a distinction between perpetrating outright deception with a view to taking money from the vulnerable and people not realising that a show labeled as entertainment is simply that, as a response to a comment about which battles are worth fighting then I guess I'll just not bother further.

Continue to believe that your words of wisdom shine like the sun before us if it makes you happy and write your own little monologue about this response if you like. After all, even if you can't persuade us of your point you can still persuade yourself that you won. Enjoy.

 

[Tapio]

Stan, since you didn't bother to answer my question, I'm inclined to think you haven't read his book.

So, although I can sympathize with most of your arguments (though don't agree with many of them), I want to press you a bit on one of the accusations, already made in the OP. Even for simply the sake of getting a more clear view of your knowledge of the person you're publicly going against (meaning your avatar).

This:

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.

If you'd read his book, you'd know he's not claiming the highlited part.

As I recall, he is clearly stating most of the outlandish claims the NLP proponents like to present are BS, but that there are some ideas worth spending time with. This might seem like a little thing to point out to you, but in my eyes your argument relies on these kinds of little things. So maybe you should get the base of your argument a bit more solid before giving too much wheight on it (speaking of skepticism) .

 

[StanBearclaw]

Stan, since you didn't bother to answer my question, I'm inclined to think you haven't read his book.

So, although I can sympathize with most of your arguments (though don't agree with many of them), I want to press you a bit on one of the accusations, already made in the OP. Even for simply the sake of getting a more clear view of your knowledge of the person you're publicly going against (meaning your avatar).

This:



If you'd read his book, you'd know he's not claiming the highlited part.

As I recall, he is clearly stating most of the outlandish claims the NLP proponents like to present are BS, but that there are some ideas worth spending time with. This might seem like a little thing to point out to you, but in my eyes your argument relies on these kinds of little things. So maybe you should get the base of your argument a bit more solid before giving too much wheight on it (speaking of skepticism) .

Why would I... A) Support a fraud by buying his book, or B) Believe anything that he has to say, on stage or in print? No, I prefer to get my information from legitimate sources, thanks though.

 

[shuttlt]

But what's a "normal magic show." A bad magic show? Are you telling me that audiences didn't believe that Houdini was a master of locks who could hold his breath for a long time and break out of any box? They always knew that the cuffs and crates were gimmicked?

You know what. This is an excellent point. There are a lot of stunts that to this day people believe he did for real. Certainly the escaping from chains and straight jackets stuff. Did he tell people how he did it and were those explanations genuine?

I don't know the answer to that last question. You've made me wonder about whether Houdini has got me fooled about how he did his stuff all these years after the event. I'm aware that he sometimes concealed tools to pick the locks. Did he not really escape from straight jackets in the way he appeared to?

In any case, Houdini did a heck of a lot for rationalism. I find it hard to believe he wasn't way ahead on points.

 

[shuttlt]

(I'm sorry for the next line. Please don't take offense. I just couldn't resist... )

Uhm duhh....it's called "patter".

And everyone does it differently.

What about magicians who do tricks silently? They don't even say a disclaimer.

I don't think Derren's disclaimer serves any purpose, so I certainly don't think a silent magician is necessarily any worse for not having one.

 

[AndyD]

I guess the difference between Brown's act and most stage magic is that he does claim to explain the trick to you - most other magicians don't. Last Friday's show was billed as just that - a revelation of the prediction method. That he then uses psycho-babble as the explanation is what's apparently causing concern for many.

That is a concern for me too but I never got to see the show so can't comment on the extent of any disclaimer. But we have seen excerpts of the show here in Oz - including quite a bit of coverage now of the 24 people, auto-writing, wisdom nonsense.

We didn't get to see any up-front disclaimer. There was a couple of seconds of "If anyone asks, I'll say it was a trick" but that was it. Although, Channel Seven who showed it here treated is sceptically - which is amazing given their tendency to promote "genuine psychics" at every opportunity.

My concern, such as it is, is that because he has this reputation of debunking psychics, et al, when he then says "this is how I do it", people will assume he's being truthful - but he isn't. He's just tricking them.

If I'm reading the dissenters correctly, this is the part that concerns them - that he dismisses nonsense as nonsense but then, in his own shows, fills in the blanks with his own brand of nonsense - but at least it doesn't involve dead people or alignments of planets - which is apparently naughty, bad nonsense - it just involves untruths and half-truths about psychology or, in this latest case, psycho-mathematics.

But again, I've only seen what I've seen. Never an entire show.

 

[Tapio]

Why would I... A) Support a fraud by buying his book, or B) Believe anything that he has to say, on stage or in print? No, I prefer to get my information from legitimate sources, thanks though.

Whoa...sounds like you do have something personal against this guy. Ok, can't say anything about that. Hope you get it all cleared.

I would be glad to hear what you consider as 'legitimate sources' in this case, if his own book isn't such. What could possibly be a more legitimate source to know a persons opinion on a subject than the persons own expression of it? I mean, could you lead me to a more legitimate source from where to find out your opinion of Derren Brown than a place (ie this Forum) where you express this opinion? And, if I'd find such a source regarding your opinion on DB, would find out you actually hold an opinion counter to that which you've posted here? How would I be able to differentiate between which source is more legitimate?

Anyway, I'd be glad to learn more, if you have some secret insights on to what DB thinks of NLP. Thanks.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I guess the difference between Brown's act and most stage magic is that he does claim to explain the trick to you - most other magicians don't.

Most magicians do claim to tell you how it's done, be it by magic, psychic powers, mysteries of the orient etc, etc, etc. With most of them we know it's patter and neither they, nor we, take it seriously. I don't think the problem is that he claims to explain the trick, it's that his explainations are convincing that causes this argument. People who wouldn't fall for 'magic words' have been taken in by his equivilent, but then some people won't believe that magicians like Randi don't have 'real' powers. Where do you draw the line? Personally, I draw it where the show ends, and off stage Derren Brown has been upfront about his methods. That puts him in the good guy camp as far as I'm concerned.