• 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.

Checkmite said:
I've come to see no fundamental difference between Geller and Brown as well. And yes, I was initially fooled into thinking he was a skeptic - shame on me, I guess.

I'm sorry for feeling the way I do, but I feel there's a difference between a magician who refuses an explanation, or makes some curt and obviously tongue-in-cheek quip about unspecified skills learned from mental masters of the Orient, or surrounds his magic with vague mystery. and a person who blatantly declares that his magic is the result of a specific set of woo. Brown and Geller both do that. I don't care if he "only does it on stage"; the fact is, that's where everyone sees him. And he's clearly filled his earlier shows - while "on stage" - with enough skeptical lip-service to lead people to believe that he is honest and trustworthy while on stage. It does not matter if he is "not an educator, but just an entertainer"; he has deliberately drawn around himself the veneer of the former, so he cannot escape down that little side-alley, and neither can his apologists.

And finally, I consider the attitude that "well, if some people just aren't clever enough to have figured out that his skeptic shtick is just shtick, that's their problem"[/i] to be reprehensible and counter to the mission of an organization such as the one whose message board we use. We ridicule the common woo plea that "I am/was a skeptic, but...". Darren Brown doesn't get off the hook simply because he dresses the phrase up with a few more words.
Click to expand...
No, I think you're getting some things wrong. Derren Brown does surround his magic in a vague mystery, but he excludes the possibility of woo! He doesn't believe in woo and has come out openly and said that.
 
Azrael 5 said:
I disagree. He was of his day and that day has gone, but he was by no means crap. :(
Click to expand...

I was being flippant, I do hope Debbie doesn't read here(!)

I agree, he was of his day and in fact he was an 'entertainer' too. I remember watching one of his shows as a wee lad. I was probably somewhere between 7 and 12, in those days Saturday night TV series seemed to go on for years, and I never, ever once thought that anything he did wasn't anything but a 'trick'. I wanted to learn those tricks because I knew that he wasn't actually making stuff disappear.

However at school, some kids thought he was in league with the devil (maybe because he also managed to bag Debbie McGhee).

Anyway, my point is this: Yes, there are some people who will think that DB is a freak of nature that channels spirits, however, as some will also think that Paul Daniels is doing the same by being able to magic pigeons out of boxes then really, there's nothing that can be done.

Other than ban magicians. Should we ban magicians?
 
StanUpshaw said:
I'm not sure what you mean. You're saying it's contradictory? How so?
Click to expand...

I don't think they're contradictory, just that there's a huge middle ground that's crucial. "Truth for truth's sake" sounds like an absolutist position -- Brown is no different from Gellar who is no different from creationists who are no different from a BBC historical drama that massages some facts to make for a more entertaining story.

If you truly believe in truth for truth's sake then your "down with Brown" crusade seems quite arbitrary considering the massive number of untruths floating around in the world. On the other hand, if you accept that "some untruths are of greater consequence than others" then we're back to the thrust of this debate: what is the harm done when Brown perpetuates falsehoods for the sake of entertainment?

You can't suddenly retreat from that debate and say "well maybe Brown's lies aren't harmful but it's all about truth for truth's sake, innit?".
 
andycal said:
Anyway, my point is this: Yes, there are some people who will think that DB is a freak of nature that channels spirits,
Click to expand...

When I read things like this it doesn't seems like people in this thread are talking about the same thing. I doubt many people think DB is a freak of nature that channels spirits but there seems that there are a lot of people that believe in his psychological explanations.

People probably buy is psychological explanations because there are at least a shred of truth in them, it is possibly to manipulate people to same extent, there are people (mostly autistic I believe) that can remember almost everything.

I believe the critics of Derren Brown care about this psychological stuff.

Derren Brown might have change and I doubt many people believe in his explanations for the lottery but many people have believed many of his other explanations.

Other than ban magicians. Should we ban magicians?
Click to expand...

In some sense I found it strange that a group of people "should be allowed" to lie about everything when they are on tv and on the scene.
 
Isn't it quite hard to determine what lies are harmful and what lies aren't? It may well be impossible in Derren's case to make any kind of meaningful assessment. For me the question is, do we think it is generally better for a person to believe in some pseudo-scientific woo or not? I had previously been under the impression that it was generally better if people didn't believe in pseudo-scientific woo. If this thread is anything to go by the forum actually believes that pseudo-scientific woo is basically neutral.
 
c4llum said:
No, I think you're getting some things wrong. Derren Brown does surround his magic in a vague mystery, but he excludes the possibility of woo! He doesn't believe in woo and has come out openly and said that.
Click to expand...

He does not. Everyone in this thread has said it - he "explains" his tricks, by saying "this was sleight of hand" and "that works for such and such a psychological reason". And he has on occasion specifically referred to NLP as being the mechanic behind some of his tricks.

NLP is woo. And the most Darren Brown has distanced himself from it is by saying that it's "only part" of what he does.
 
Checkmite, I suspect you haven't read DB's book Tricks Of The Mind. Am I correct?
 
psychictv said:
I don't think they're contradictory, just that there's a huge middle ground that's crucial. "Truth for truth's sake" sounds like an absolutist position -- Brown is no different from Gellar who is no different from creationists who are no different from a BBC historical drama that massages some facts to make for a more entertaining story.

If you truly believe in truth for truth's sake then your "down with Brown" crusade seems quite arbitrary considering the massive number of untruths floating around in the world. On the other hand, if you accept that "some untruths are of greater consequence than others" then we're back to the thrust of this debate: what is the harm done when Brown perpetuates falsehoods for the sake of entertainment?

You can't suddenly retreat from that debate and say "well maybe Brown's lies aren't harmful but it's all about truth for truth's sake, innit?".
Click to expand...
Saying "I believe in truth for truth's sake," is no more absolutist than saying, "I believe in freedom of speech." Every ethic you hold is conditional and incremental, and is in frequent conflict with your other ethics. Even something as seemingly absolute as, "Causing bodily harm to another human is wrong," has dozens of possible exemptions. Like you said, the devil is in the details.

Here are the details, from my point of view:
1. He seems to have caused people to, at the very least, be confused of where the truth lies concerning the science of psychology. I find this more objectionable than if he were pushing pure woo, because it intentionally perverts knowledge that should be --for lack of a better word-- sacred. It feels like a slap in the face to the people who dedicate their lives to furthering that knowledge.
2. It's amplified simply by the size of his audience.
3. There is a lot of potential damage to be done, because the ever-growing force known as NLP is inextricably linked with the message he presents.
4. Obviously Brown isn't as important as the anti-vax fight, but think of the venue we're in. We're almost all skeptics, toeing nearly the same line. If I was bitching about Jenny Mccarthy, I'd be the 8000th one to do so, and I'd just be preaching to the choir. Instead, I'm going to focus where there is actually some controversy.
 
Tapio said:
Checkmite, I suspect you haven't read DB's book Tricks Of The Mind. Am I correct?
Click to expand...

Your suspicion is correct.

Now I suspect you're about to tell me that a snip from this book manages to completely absolve all of Brown's (just on stage!) peddling and promotion of NLP to the public. Am I correct?
 
Checkmite said:
Your suspicion is correct.

Now I suspect you're about to tell me that a snip from this book manages to completely absolve all of Brown's (just on stage!) peddling and promotion of NLP to the public. Am I correct?
Click to expand...

I've never seen Brown "peddle and promote NLP to the public" - I admit I haven't watched all of his stuff as I'm not an avid fan so he may have done, but if he has it's escaped me so far.
 
I have watched all of his stuff (apart from the last of The Events), and never ever heard/read him even whisper towards NLP as being nothing but a load of outlandish claims with no evidence to back it up. In his book he describes a few elements of NLP that are similar with other stuff used in different fields of psychology. But at all times he keeps reminding the reader to be very cautious towards any claims. His book has one of the best chapter on critical thinking I've read. It's really unfathomable to me the way some posters here try to badmouth this guy regarding his attitude towards NLP.

It's also frustrating to hear people claiming something about a person (no matter who) with no actual support for their claim. As always, I'm completely ready to be proven wrong. So Checkmite, maybe you can provide us some evidence?
 
Last edited:
ETA: Checkmite, saw your post after I wrote mine. Dang it, I haven't the time to read through it all now. But I will, if there is actually valid evidence supporting the claim DB is in some way promoting NLP as a whole. Because if that is so, and I have missed it, I want to know!
 
Derren Brown.

I agree with StanUpShaw to a point. I think Derren takes his mind-reader / influencing / reading people act too far.

I've had conversations with lots of people about his shows, after all they are interesting shows and he is super showman, but I would say that 90% of people I speak to really believe that he is doing the things he says is. They look insulted when you tell them it's just tricks.

I've met one person who flat out refused to acknowledge that Derren Brown was even a magician and was not even open to the possibility that he performs Magic Tricks.

I'm sure Derren is well aware of this misunderstanding by his audience, I would bet a lot of his audience would not go to see him if they knew that he was performing conventional magic tricks wrapped up in a mentalism patter.

I have also encountered, unfortunately, people who recommend NLP books / courses etc because it's what Derren Brown does. So, even if Derren Brown doesn't attribute his skills to NLP there seems to be, in my experience, a widespread belief that this is how he accomplishes his act.

I can understand that this is difficult to blame Derren Brown for as it's largely out of his control how people interpret and mis-represent his work, but I do think he definitely takes advantage of that misunderstanding to keep getting people into theatres to watch his show.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I've never seen Brown "peddle and promote NLP to the public" - I admit I haven't watched all of his stuff as I'm not an avid fan so he may have done, but if he has it's escaped me so far.
Click to expand...

Here, I'll help you out a bit.

Watch this video:



What exactly is Darren Brown demonstrating in this video?

Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Anchoring

Anchoring is the process by which a particular state or response is associated (anchored) with a unique anchor. An anchor is most often a gesture, voice tone or touch but could be any unique visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory or gustatory stimulus. It is claimed that by recalling past resourceful states one can anchor those states to make them available in new situations. A psychotherapist might anchor positive states like calmness and relaxation, or confidence in the treatment of phobias and anxiety, such as in public speaking.[67] Proponents state that anchors are capable of being formed and reinforced by repeated stimuli, and thus are analogous to classical conditioning.
Click to expand...

Wait a second - he doesn't seem to use the phrase "NLP" in that video does he? No matter, because that's what it is - and further, everybody seems to understand that's what it is except some people in this thread.
 
Tapio said:
I have watched all of his stuff (apart from the last of The Events), and never ever heard/read him even whisper towards NLP as being nothing but a load of outlandish claims with no evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

I have really no idea what you mean. Look for example at the bmx trick. Derren says he is using methods used in NLP. It is of course a only a trick and his explanation is BS but he definitely says nothing that is against NLP.
 
StanUpshaw said:
Saying "I believe in truth for truth's sake," is no more absolutist than saying, "I believe in freedom of speech."
Click to expand...

Good analogy. It's as though we're discussing a death threat against the president and debating whether or not the threat was actually realistic and after a while you give up and say "freedom of speech." But that's beside the point because it seems that you agree that lies can vary in the degree of harm they do.

StanUpshaw said:
1. He seems to have caused people to, at the very least, be confused of where the truth lies concerning the science of psychology.
Click to expand...

And it's worth pointing out those untruths and reminding people that NLP doesn't work, hypnotism isn't real and Derren Brown simply performs age old magic tricks. To me the offense doesn't take anything away from the entertainment of Brown's performance though and it doesn't justify an anti-Brown crusade.

StanUpshaw said:
3. There is a lot of potential damage to be done, because the ever-growing force known as NLP is inextricably linked with the message he presents.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any convincing evidence for that assertion. The only time I've ever even heard of NLP is through other people referencing it in connection to Brown. Maybe it's more prevalent in the UK? Still it seems to me like you should attack the people who actually profit from NLP seminars. It's a bit like ignoring fortune tellers but attacking a magician who uses a crystal ball as a prop while saying he's not psychic and it's just a trick.

StanUpshaw said:
4. Obviously Brown isn't as important as the anti-vax fight, but think of the venue we're in. We're almost all skeptics, toeing nearly the same line. If I was bitching about Jenny Mccarthy, I'd be the 8000th one to do so, and I'd just be preaching to the choir. Instead, I'm going to focus where there is actually some controversy.
Click to expand...

That sounds suspiciously like trolling.
 
Seems to me there's a semantic problem here. DB has claimed to use methods used in NLP (as well as other psychology), yes. But he has not claimed to use/practice NLP as a whole. See the difference? The fact that he uses methods used also in other areas does not automatically make him a 'believer' or a proponent of the whole from which these tiny pieces have been borrowed. At least not to me.

During his show, of course there isn't time every single moment to explain in a thorough manner what's behind the methods he uses. That would be absurd. But never, when given the time to discuss it, have I seen/heard him endorse NLP or claim it has any of the advantages it's proponents claim it has (except for a tiny fraction of ideas used also in other psychology). On the contrary, he has explicitly stated (in his book) his position on NLP as a whole (which is BS according to him), while covering the hows/whys to the parts which he's found useful. This is what I meant. Sorry to have been in a hurry on my earlier post.

If, for example I believe that some phrases in a 'holy book' of some religion are beautiful and well worth thought and even putting to practice, that doesn't make me religious. Get my drift?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom