Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[LandR]

Do you mean people who, of their own free will have freely chosen to:-

a) Go to a theatre to watch him perform
b) Chosen to watch his TV appearances
c) Chosen to take part in his show
d) Chose to read one of his books

I suppose an argument could be made that the people may be being deceived / victims (I think this is too harsh a term myself..) if they believe they are going to see one thing and in reality are seeing another.

For example, someone going to see a singer live, if that singer then mimes to a backing track as long as the audience don't find out they may be happy. If they do find out they would rightly feel aggrieved.

With that analogy in mind, someone going to see Derren Brown on the basis that he is performing psychological tricks, reading body language, influencing people etc may feel similarly aggrieved if they find out he is doing conventional magic tricks.

Ordinarily this would not be a valid argument about magic shows, since by definition, a magician is someone who tricks you. I guess the problem arises if people don't believe in the first place that they are actually going to see a magic show. This goes back to a point I made in a previous post, and I speak here ONLY from personal experience, that some people I have spoken to about Derren Brown's shows will not admit he is a magician AT ALL.

This may be down to embarrassment of not wanting to admit to being fooled, but if a magician is good HE WILL fool you

 

[shuttlt]

Do you mean people who, of their own free will have freely chosen to:-

a) Go to a theatre to watch him perform
b) Chosen to watch his TV appearances
c) Chosen to take part in his show
d) Chose to read one of his books

Are these people who are making an informed choice, or an uniformed one? is everybody who goes to a homeopath making an informed choice, is everybody who goes to a psychic making an informed choice? Do homeopaths drag people off the street, or do they rely on people choosing freely, just uncritically?

 

[microdot]

Are these people who are making an informed choice, or an uniformed one? is everybody who goes to a homeopath making an informed choice, is everybody who goes to a psychic making an informed choice? Do homeopaths drag people off the street, or do they rely on people choosing freely, just uncritically?

The answer is - I don't know.

You seem to know these people better than I do - given that you've framed them all as victims.

The point I was trying to make is that emotive language does little to enhance or contribute to the debate.

 

[Tapio]

microdot. I don't know what to say. In my latest post to you I genuinely tried being as understanding and respectful towards your position as possible. But clearly failed miserably. I am sorry.

 

[zooterkin]

Did you even read his interview with Jamy Ian Swiss, posted earlier in this thread? He says that NLP is part of what he does. I suppose that interview was meant to be a trick on the audience (being, whoever reads it) as well? Was that an instance of his being "paid to entertain?"

NLP covers a range of 'techniques', and the implication is that part of what he does is use some of those techniques. The full quote is:

JAMY: Well, there are differing opinions on NLP. There's not a shred of scientific support for it, outside of its own self-sustaining industry, plus a lot of mentalists.

DERREN: Well, I not a big a fan of it, but I've done it and think in some contexts there's some use--that's a whole other conversation--but it's a dirty word as far as I'm concerned. If somebody came up to me and said, "Look, I really liked your show, and I'm going to go to an NLP course," which I've had happen, I would say to them, "Well, if you want to do that, do that, but here's what you'll get out of it. It's not what I do. It's part of what I do," which is I think true, I think that's fair enough to say.

It's not even clear whether he is claiming to use those techniques to actually pull off the trick, or as part of the misdirection.

ETA: I certainly don't see how that quote can be used to say he supports or promotes NLP in any way.

 

[shuttlt]

Define "victims of woo".

Well, a precise definition is a long thread in itself. In a certain sense I would say being persuaded that something is the case that is not the case causes some minor kind of harm, but it really depends on the person and what they're being asked to believe. Then there is the wider question of whether increasing the directly harmless you make people and society as a whole more susceptible to other forms of woo. Also, some people mind being misinformed and others don't. It just depends.

In the context of my comment though I was reacting to your defense of Derren that people who were fooled by him hadn't bothered thinking critically. I was arguing that I doubt most people who buy into woo think critically. Most of the people on wherestheharm probably weren't thinking critically. Does that mean that all the responsibility for what happened to them falls on them and them alone? If your argument holds, I think a large part of the claimed moral purpose of the sceptic movement collapses.

You can argue that Derren in fact causes no harm, but I don't see how you can argue that none of it matters because anybody who is fooled is lazy and stupid... unless you absolve all the psychics and homeopaths for any negative consequences that there might be from their brand of nonsense.

Yet those same people wonder how he does walk on water.

But there doesn't seem to be so much of a problem with people actually thinking that he actually can literally walk on water. It doesn't matter that people don't know how he did it. The day we start hearing about people thinking he solidifies the water with his mind, or negates gravity using the teachings of a cross dressing deaf-mute yogi, then the situation is similar.

 

[shuttlt]

The answer is - I don't know.

You seem to know these people better than I do - given that you've framed them all as victims.

The point I was trying to make is that emotive language does little to enhance or contribute to the debate.

I certainly wouldn't want to go around describing anybody who was fooled by Derren as a victim. I think the word is accurate, but overly emotive.

 

[Checkmite]

NLP covers a range of 'techniques', and the implication is that part of what he does is use some of those techniques.

No, that's not the implication at all. He refers to NLP as it - a single thing. I've done it. It has some use. It's part of what I do.

Nevermind, because the "techniques" I've seen him demonstrate are still nonsense, whether they're all of NLP or just an obviously recognizable part of NLP.

 

[LandR]

Well he has this article on his blog

Skeptic agrees Remote Viewing is proven

In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

“The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments.” Of course, this doesn’t wash with sceptical scientists.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

Thus, a prominent skeptic agrees that (1) the study of remote viewing is an area of science, which should thoroughly obviate the skeptical epithet of “pseudoscience” once and for all. And (2) that when judged against prevailing scientific standards for evaluating evidence, he agrees that remote viewing is proven. The follow-on argument that this phenomenon is so unusual that it requires more evidence refers not to evidence per se, or even to scientific methods or practice, but to assumptions about the fabric of reality.

Which ties in with his show this week which is Derren attempting to perform a remote viewing experiment with people watching the show. He had a post up a few days ago about the CIA / KGB involvement in remote viewing as well.

I would hope people see this as just a gimmick / advertising for his next show.

 

[Tapio]

Checkmite, thank you for proving my point earlier. I mean this.

Did you even read his interview with Jamy Ian Swiss, posted earlier in this thread? He says that NLP is part of what he does.

NLP covers a range of 'techniques', and the implication is that part of what he does is use some of those techniques. The full quote is:

----

It's not even clear whether he is claiming to use those techniques to actually pull off the trick, or as part of the misdirection.

ETA: I certainly don't see how that quote can be used to say he supports or promotes NLP in any way.

I agree with zooterkin.

Checkmite, I still think it's mainly a semantic problem we got regarding DB and NLP. You call using even some techniques as supporting the whole thing (while Derren himself hasn't claimed this). I disagree here. No problem.

ETA:

Quoting Checkmite:

No, that's not the implication at all. He refers to NLP as it - a single thing. I've done it. It has some use. It's part of what I do.

Because you haven't read the book I understand how you would interpret this the way you do. However, in his book he tells about how he once took part in a NLP training program, and there learned some techniques (mostly useless). He might've meant this in the interview. Doesn't mean he's supporting it, or using it during his shows in any way. He's just telling the truth about his experience.

 

[microdot]

microdot. I don't know what to say. In my latest post to you I genuinely tried being as understanding and respectful towards your position as possible. But clearly failed miserably. I am sorry.

Respectfully accepted.

Nevermind, because the "techniques" I've seen him demonstrate are still nonsense, whether they're all of NLP or just an obviously recognizable part of NLP.

What about the techniques he writes about in Tricks of the Mind?

ETA: I certainly don't see how that quote can be used to say he supports or promotes NLP in any way.

It doesn't.

He's just happy to use the parts of it that work for him

 

[JFrankA]

And yet still, they're not buying books teaching you how to use bogus "scientific methods" to walk on water.

Neither does Derren Brown. His books are about performing magic tricks.

Did you even read his interview with Jamy Ian Swiss, posted earlier in this thread? He says that NLP is part of what he does. I suppose that interview was meant to be a trick on the audience (being, whoever reads it) as well? Was that an instance of his being "paid to entertain?"

Oh, you mean in this part below? I'm sorry I took so long finding it, since the entire interview was filled with tips and talk about performing stage magic, it was harder to find the NLP part....

JAMY: So you're referring to speed reading and memory techniques there.

DERREN: Well, it depends on whose course you take. In the same way I've taken NLP courses and learned some NLP.

JAMY: Well, there are differing opinions on NLP. There's not a shred of scientific support for it, outside of its own self-sustaining industry, plus a lot of mentalists.

DERREN: Well, I not a big a fan of it, but I've done it and think in some contexts there's some use--that's a whole other conversation--but it's a dirty word as far as I'm concerned. If somebody came up to me and said, "Look, I really liked your show, and I'm going to go to an NLP course," which I've had happen, I would say to them, "Well, if you want to do that, do that, but here's what you'll get out of it. It's not what I do. It's part of what I do," which is I think true, I think that's fair enough to say.

Yes, it's part of what he does, but the problem with NLP is that it takes legitimate psychological tricks, tricks that can help confuse someone so that a suggestion may work, and exaggerates it into a "technique that works". That's why he said "that's a whole other conversation". In fact, there's a whole other thread on that very topic.

 

[terry_leopard]

I doubt most victims of woo think critically.


And yet people don't believe Criss can walk on water. Why is that?

Really?

Here's a few comments from the 53387 attached to this youtube video

criss angel is 100% real trust me i know him since we were kids he has always been a beast when it comes to magic...i once saw him teleport from one place to another in less than a second..he can also turn invisible...his nick name back then was...criss the magic boy angel..


so you think hes fake... this im not realy believing in but what about the time he lifted a taxi? what about the time he lay on a bed of nails and an SUV drove over him? even if this is fake he isnt
**** OKAY i ****ing hate all these ppl who won't just sit don't and accept the fact that it's real. okay. Not everything u see on TV is fake. some ppl just have talent.


How can that be FAKE??..explain??

and the best of all

You're right, he's jesus... this is all real. NOT dumbass.

All this is from a trick that I remember being FULLY explained on one of those magic secrets revealed type programs (can't remember which one though)

So is Criss now a woo woo too?

 

[Tapio]

LandR, is that a full quote from his blog? Because if it is, I'm .

 

[LandR]

LandR, is that a full quote from his blog? Because if it is, I'm .

Yes.

I don't seem to be allowed to post links to websites.

derrenbrown dot co dot uk forward slash blog forward slash

Or just google Derren Brown blog and you will find it

3rd entry down.

 

[microdot]

Yes, it's part of what he does, but the problem with NLP is that it takes legitimate psychological tricks, tricks that can help confuse someone so that a suggestion may work, and exaggerates it into a "technique that works". That's why he said "that's a whole other conversation". In fact, there's a whole other thread on that very topic.

I bet that other thread is really interesting

 

[microdot]

I don't seem to be allowed to post links to websites.

You need 50 posts

 

[Tapio]

Do you have any idea who this 'phillis' is, who posted this nonsense?

 

[terry_leopard]

You missed out the part where it quite clearly states the category that this news is posted in

Posted in Freaky Deaky, Interesting Theories, Pseudo-Science to Conspiracy

 

[LandR]

Do you have any idea who this 'phillis' is, who posted this nonsense?

I don't know, I presume it is DBs web admin who manages his blog for him.

I don't believe DB will have the time or inclination to actually post to the blog himself.

In the 1960s, in response to a leaked KGB video, the CIA spent millions of dollars (the equiv of $75m in modern money) on research into psychic abilities and in particular the principle of remote viewing – the ability to see and describe an object that is hidden from view.

For the show’s main Event, Derren will perform a unique, national psychic experiment with viewers able to take part via the phone or on channel4.com. In it, he’ll get them to attempt match a covered drawing hung in the Science Museum. At the end of The Event, it will be revealed if the drawing matches the images the nation have drawn, Friday 25th September at 9pm.

Take part in Derren’s national remote viewing psychic experiment. Simply concentrate on the photos of the covered picture in the Science museum and use the pen and notepad to draw what comes into your mind. Save and submit your picture and then check back after Friday’s show to see if you can remote view!

This is his next trick. I wonder if he will explain that it is 'just a trick'. It should be an good trick none the less. Interesting to see how he actually pulls it off.