Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[microdot]

Well put, microdot! I really mean that. I'm happy you took the time to give actual references, as one sided as they were. Regarding my 'personal spin', I think it's fair to say that I have an excessive need to defend anybody who's being misrepresented. And now I don't mean interpretation-wise, but more like accurate phrasing and context. I understand if it bugs you. Nothing personal, ok?

One sided?

There was nothing one sided about it!

Would you have me reproduce the entire book for you?

In any case to do so would contravene copyright law.

Feel free to explain, if you can, exactly how anything in my post could be construed as misrepresentation given that everything I quoted is there in black and white in the book for everyone to see?

When you criticised my view in an earlier post I referred you to the book. It seems that you chose not to take my advice but instead continue to tout your own one-sided interpretation of what is written in the book.

Ergo I chose to post some excerpts which can be verified by anybody who wishes to do so. All they have to do is get the book and see for themselves that everything is there in black and white.

Have you tried the three techniques DB explains in his book?

Yes.

How about the stuff on memory? Probabilities? Critical thinking? Hypnosis?

Some of the stuff, yes - is there a point to these questions?

I'm sorry to go on with this, but I still feel you're giving the three NLP-related techniques (used in other psychology as well) too much attention compared to how many pages they are from the total.'

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

And if you're correct when you say those techniques _are_ used in other psychology as well I can only assume that's because they work!

I've made a post which I believe is relevant to the context and content of this thread and I'm quite happy for the mod's to delete my posts if they think differently.

ETA: If I remember correctly, it is not only before these techniques are presented that Brown gives NLP a good bash, but in the midst and in the end as well. Might be wrong, though. Don't have the book with me here and now.

Yes, yes he does, and despite pouring derision on NLP and it's proponents he STILL sees fit to educate his readers on those parts of it which he has found to work.

AND and BUT I do think there's too much confusion going on regarding DB and NLP and I hope he will address this as soon as possible and in a clear as possible way, preferably through the internet so as many as possible would get the message.

Well I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not the slightest bit confused.

Nor do I think it's likely any time soon that Mr Brown will reveal and make transparent all of his techniques, do you?

 

[Azrael 5]

To clarify, I don't know enough about NLP do know if he is "using" it or not. It is clear to me is that he is suggesting that he is using psedo-psychology in many of his tricks, for example the BMX.

Magician's suggest they hypnotize their assistants before sawing them in half,so? It's performance theatre.

*snip*. Have he ever said in public for example that the bmx trick was a simple magic trick and not psychology? *snip*

Yes at the beginning of every show. See my signature.

 

[Tapio]

One sided? ...Feel free to explain, if you can, exactly how anything in my post could be construed as misrepresentation given that everything I quoted is there in black and white in the book for everyone to see?

I'm sorry, I must've been too vague. I didn't mean to imply your posts are misdirecting, on the contrary. Hope you can understand I have nothing against you or your position. It's just that I was worried that in citing only certain parts of his writing (especially on a Forum where many members do know what BS most of NLP is) you were giving an inadequate and unfair view into the whole context from which those examples are just a tiny part. Thus possibly alienating people from reading the book, people who could genuinely find it educating in ways I think most of us can agree to be worthwhile.

So I would've hoped you could've cited also some of his warnings and not too flattering lines on NLP as well. Nothing more. Please, let's not start a hassle over this. I appreciate what you did. Would've only added something more to make it a bit more balanced in my perspective. No need to pursue this matter further.

When you criticised my view in an earlier post I referred you to the book. It seems that you chose not to take my advice but instead continue to tout your own one-sided interpretation of what is written in the book.

But I did re-read the discussed parts and still find myself feeling the same way. Could you elaborate on how what I've written here seems one-sided? It has definitely not been my intention.

Some of the stuff, yes - is there a point to these questions?

The point was to bring into public attention (for those who haven't read the book) a small fraction of the large amount of topics DB touches in his writings besides NLP. And to try to steer the discussion away from the NLP-business, because I felt it's been chewed on enough. Also, I've found most techniques in all areas covered in the book to be very useful. As have other critical thinking-inclined people I know. I was curious to your experience as well.

And if you're correct when you say those techniques _are_ used in other psychology as well I can only assume that's because they work!

Exactly, and that's why it's all the same from where or from whom those techniques originated from. What is important though, is DB's constant reminding of what the rest of NLP claims are about...and that's something Penn &Teller could probably have a sweet comment on .

I've made a post which I believe is relevant to the context and content of this thread and I'm quite happy for the mod's to delete my posts if they think differently.

I think your post was good.

Yes, yes he does, and despite pouring derision on NLP and it's proponents he STILL sees fit to educate his readers on those parts of it which he has found to work.

And this is one of the reasons I value him (and feel the need to defend him). Critical thinking in essence is the opposite of taking a black or white stance. To me critical thinking is roaming around the extremes and everything in between while trying to get an ever clearer picture of what works as a whole. Bits and pieces from various different sources are weld together to form a solid base which to build your view on. It demands courage to do this, and I think Derren has shown a great example.

I know it's easy to condemn him because of his vagueness. That annoys me too sometimes. And were it not that he'd written Tricks Of The Mind, I think in this regard I'd be standing next to Stan. But he has written it. And in that book gives more of himself than in any single show or interview could ever be possible. So when people start flipping about him being 'the real deal', the book's always there to (hopefully) bring them back to their senses.

Well I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not the slightest bit confused.

You do seem rather well based in reality, I admit that. Good for you (and us for the chance to talk with you)!

Nor do I think it's likely any time soon that Mr Brown will reveal and make transparent all of his techniques, do you?

Couldn't say anything about that. I'm here in the cold north and even in these days of instant communication it still feels rather far away. And this is why I hope we could bury this subject rather soon. So many woods basking in glorious autumn colors awaiting to be hiked, not much time to sit staring at a screen!

Cheers!

 

[Checkmite]

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?

Yes; is the same as if I were to claim that I've learned how to astrally-project my soul without the use of psychic powers.

 

[fredriks]

Magician's suggest they hypnotize their assistants before sawing them in half,so? It's performance theatre.

I have tried to be clear above what I consider to be the problem with Derren Brown. It is clear that you think it is ok for an entertainer to lie all the time. I am not sure that is a good thing and that it result in problem while at the same time saying to be a skeptic.

Yes at the beginning of every show. See my signature.

I know about that but I am not sure that a disclaimer is enough. I was asking about where he actually admit that psychology was not a part of for example the bmx trick.

Derren Brown could very easily go out and debunk in clear words many of his (for many people) misunderstood tricks but he choose to not do that for a pretty obvious reason, he is famous because many people believe in his misdirection.

Another point is that I don't live in the UK and have never seen his show and have never seen the disclaimer. The disclaimer is not included in the youtube videos I have seen.

I also see a large difference between using a general disclaimer and actually saying what parts of the shows are just lies.

 

[Darat]

Here, I'll help you out a bit.

Watch this video:



What exactly is Darren Brown demonstrating in this video?

Neuro-Linguistic Programming



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.

I can't view that one in the UK.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, yes he does, and despite pouring derision on NLP and it's proponents he STILL sees fit to educate his readers on those parts of it which he has found to work.

Do you disagree that the techniques which he covers work? If not, then I don't see what your point is. Why shouldn't he pass on the bits that are useful?

 

[Tapio]

Yes; is the same as if I were to claim that I've learned how to astrally-project my soul without the use of psychic powers.

I think this analogue would be valid if you would've proved, several times, that you really can astral-project your soul. There's the difference. The three techniques DB explains in his book work in the context he presents them in. Some other psychological stuff he does works as well, no mystery, no secret. It's not paranormal, neither does he claim it to be. So in my eyes your 'claim' is not the same as his. Maybe you could come up with a better analogue so I could understand your point? I'm trying, but it seems to me you're just accusing him of something he has never done.

So, how about that evidence of him claiming to use and support NLP as a whole?

I know about that but I am not sure that a disclaimer is enough. I was asking about where he actually admit that psychology was not a part of for example the bmx trick.

Of course psychology was a part of the trick, that's what he says in his disclaimer! But he doesn't claim it to be all based on psychology. This is a problem I notice with several other posters as well. Maybe I interpret you wrong here...so please, help me understand why you think it has to be an either/or issue. Why is it hard to accept that his tricks are built up from various different elements, and that usually there is a part of them that by itself is valid and works?

Derren Brown could very easily go out and debunk in clear words many of his (for many people) misunderstood tricks but he choose to not do that for a pretty obvious reason, he is famous because many people believe in his misdirection.

As it is with all entertainers . The better they are in it, the more popular they get. But as I've stated so many times before, his book is out there, and in it he sets the record straight. Only explaining a few tricks, but certainly leaving the reader with quite a clear picture of what this guy is about.

Another point is that I don't live in the UK and have never seen his show and have never seen the disclaimer. The disclaimer is not included in the youtube videos I have seen.

Now I understand why your attitude is as it is. Do you find it immoral to use torrent downloads? All his stuff is there. First recommendations in this discussions context would be 'The Messiah', 'Evening Of Wonders', 'The Seance' and one of his early lectures in a magic convention (can't recall the name). Maybe they would help clear what he's about.

I also see a large difference between using a general disclaimer and actually saying what parts of the shows are just lies.

I understand and agree. But then, that's the difference of an entertaining mentalist and a performing educator.

 

[Tapio]

I can't view that one in the UK.

No matter. He doesn't mention once NLP or anchoring in the video.

 

[Darat]

Apparently many people believe that the characters in their favourite soap opera are real, that the bad things that happen to them actually happen, so much so that the actor who plays a "bad 'un" in a soap will be harangued in the street.

Do the people that do not accept that Brown is a magician and the rules of magic is that they lie to their audience, also believe that after each scene in a soap opera, the programme should be paused whilst the actors explain that they are just acting? Or in a CSI, after each so called "scientific" test, the programme is paused whilst it is explained that the test wasn't "real" and they provide an explanation of the actual science it was based on?

If not then what is unique about magicians that they cannot entertain within the usual conventions?

 

[fredriks]

Of course psychology was a part of the trick, that's what he says in his disclaimer! What's your problem with that? He doesn't claim it to be all based on psychology. This is a problem I notice with several other posters as well. Maybe I interpret you wrong here...so please, help me understand why you think it has to be an either/or issue. Why is it hard to accept that his tricks are built up from various different elements, and that usually there is a part of them that by itself is valid and works?

I don't understand what you mean. The trick was probably just a ordinary magic trick where he change envelopes or something like that (I don't know any magic) and I doubt that did the real trick was even filmed. The whole section we see is just misdirection where he is suggesting in many several ways that he did the trick with the help of psychology.

The problem I see is that people believe in the psychology part (this is one of his first tricks that came up when searching on Derren Brown) and Derren Brown have done almost nothing (except the book) to say that the explanation was just BS.

All his stuff is there. First recommendations in this discussions context would be 'The Messiah', 'Evening Of Wonders', 'The Seance' and one of his early lectures in a magic convention (can't recall the name). Maybe they would help clear what he's about.

I am only interested in how he is perceived by other people. I realized pretty soon after searching around what Derren Brown was all about.

 

[fredriks]

No matter. He doesn't mention once NLP or anchoring in the video.

I have no idea why you think this is important because it is so clear what he is trying to suggest in the video.

It just like saying that there are absolutely no problem when Chopra et all talk about quantum whatever if the don't clearly state that for example quantum healing is based on the rigorous scientific theory of quantum mechanics.

 

[fredriks]

Apparently many people believe that the characters in their favourite soap opera are real, that the bad things that happen to them actually happen, so much so that the actor who plays a "bad 'un" in a soap will be harangued in the street.

It doesn't seem that you have understood many peoples posts in this thread.

Do those people that do not accept that Brown is a magician and the rules of magic is that they lie to their audience,

I know but I can't see why we are not allowed to be skeptical when people bye is lies.

also believe that after each scene in a soap opera, the programme should be paused whilst the actors explain that they are just acting? Or in a CSI, after each so called "scientific" test, the programme is paused whilst it is explained that the test wasn't "real" and they provide an explanation of the actual science it was based on?

I believe it would be different if people actually believed everything in the CSI are real. Now when I wrote this I remember hearing about the CSI effect. That people actually believe in much of what is shown on the CSI and that jury's has freed people because the lack of for example GSR because the jury believes it must be there due to CSI.

If not then what is unique about magicians that they cannot entertain within the usual conventions?

What I think is that Derren Brown saying he is a skeptic should be much more clear about his methods when he realize that a lot of people actually buy his BS explanations.

 

[Darat]

It doesn't seem that you have understood many peoples posts in this thread.

...snip...

I disagree - people say "yes he is an entertainer but..." and then go on to treat him like he wasn't an entertainer.

I know but I can't see why we are not allowed to be skeptical when people bye is lies.

If you mean we should tell people who have mistaken entertainment for fact that they are mistaken then I don't think anyone would disagree with you.

I believe it would be different if people actually believed everything in the CSI are real. Now when I wrote this I remember hearing about the CSI effect. That people actually believe in much of what is shown on the CSI and that jury's has freed people because the lack of for example GSR because the jury believes it must be there due to CSI.

And from that do we conclude that CSI is "as bad" as someone who tampers with evidence before a case gets to trial and therefore condemn CSI for not stopping the programme every so often to explain that it is fiction?

What I think is that Derren Brown saying he is a skeptic should be much more clear about his methods when he realize that a lot of people actually buy his BS explanations.

And CSI?

 

[Mashuna]

With all this talk about what's real on TV and what isn't, I'm starting to doubt whether Dr Who actually is a documentary.

 

[fredriks]

I realized that my example with the CSI back fired to some extent I don't know enough about people misunderstanding that program to have an opinion actually except that I believe CSI and other programs should try to be clear what is true or not.

Once again.

What I think is that Derren Brown saying he is a skeptic should be much more clear about his methods when he realize that a lot of people actually buy his BS explanations.

Do you see no problem with Derren Brown because of this? Do you believe he is a good skeptic when he does almost nothing to stop misunderstandings due to his performances?

 

[Tapio]

I don't understand what you mean. The trick was probably just a ordinary magic trick where he change envelopes or something like that (I don't know any magic) and I doubt that did the real trick was even filmed. The whole section we see is just misdirection where he is suggesting in many several ways that he did the trick with the help of psychology.

Might well be, won't deny that. But your feeling of him implying towards NLP is based on your knowledge of NLP. And if you're interested in NLP, then you'll want to know why/how DB uses it. Then you'll buy the book and be disappointed. That is, if you have a mind to critical thinking. To the average viewer it's just a trick with great entertainment value.

I am only interested in how he is perceived by other people. I realized pretty soon after searching around what Derren Brown was all about.

Sorry, but do you actually, literally mean what you wrote above? You base your opinion on someone on other peoples opinion? Really? Maybe you want to elaborate a bit? You claim you've 'realized what he's about', but haven't seen even one of his shows, specials nor read his books....hmm....

 

[fredriks]

With all this talk about what's real on TV and what isn't, I'm starting to doubt whether Dr Who actually is a documentary.

But where is the problems with Sylvia Brown, Uri Geller and homeotapi?

Shouldn't every one be smart enough and/or able to use google to realize that it is just BS?

 

[Mashuna]

But where is the problems with Sylvia Brown, Uri Geller and homeotapi?

Shouldn't every one be smart enough and/or able to use google to realize that it is just BS?

It's a good question. I'll just meditate over my Derren Brown healing crystals, then phone the Dr Who answer line (yes, it's £250, but it's worth it to get the answers from an actual Time Lord).

 

[fredriks]

To the average viewer it's just a trick with great entertainment value.

Really? Have you read the youtube comments below many of the videos of his tricks? A lot of people believe he does his tricks using psychology.

Sorry, but do you actually, literally mean what you wrote above? You base your opinion on someone on other peoples opinion? Really? Maybe you want to elaborate a bit? You claim you've 'realized what he's about', but haven't seen even one of his shows, specials nor read his books....hmm....

We are clearly talking past each other. The only reason I care about writing in this thread is what I believe is other peoples beliefs regarding his tricks. To me it seems that Derren Brown have manage to get a lot of people to believe that he can use psychology to control other people, i.e. they believe that the things he is doing in his shows is real.

I have neither any interest in watching every tv show that Sylvia Brown has participated in simple because my interest in Sylvia Brown is not her performance but that people actually believe in what she is saying.