Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[volatile]

Great - was that video I posted aired before or after he published his book? If before, then some sort of retraction is called for on his show. If after, then I find a little something wrong with his professional integrity.

That video where he doesn't mention NLP once? Why on earth would he "retract" that? And anyway, why on earth would you think that a magician not totally truthfully explaining how his tricks work is a matter of "professional integrity"?

You know that when David Copperfield says he can fly, he's lying, right? Or that Paul Daniels never really sawed Debbie McGee in half, even though he said he did?

 

[Tapio]

The whole theme of the events is "Don't believe what you're told". This is another part of that.

Thanks for the reminder!

 

[vaguely]

It's still on a website run by DB and representing DB. It's a marketing tool for him. If we are discussing whether or not DB perpetuates woo then I think it's fair to show the material he thinks is OK to have on his blog......I think it shows though that Derren is happy to be represented alongside the woo stuff when it suits him and his marketing of himself.The original paper it references is by Jessica Utts, which in it's abstract says:

Somebody with a TV show courting publicity? Burn him! Burn him!

One of the key points that people miss about Brown: he is actually a pretty damned good satirist.

(One of the most interesting things about that post it that it appears to pick a fight with Richard Wiseman, professor of psychology and former magician. These are two people who have worked together (Wiseman on Brown: "great magician but no paranormalist"). Don't be surprised if Wiseman is in on it.)

 

[volatile]

Somebody with a TV show courting publicity? Burn him! Burn him!

One of the key points that people miss about Brown: he is actually a pretty damned good satirist.

(One of the most interesting things about that post it that it appears to pick a fight with Richard Wiseman, professor of psychology and former magician. These are two people who have worked together (Wiseman on Brown: "great magician but no paranormalist"). Don't be surprised if Wiseman is in on it.)

I noticed Chris French wheeled out in the tabloids to decry the lottery explanation, too - I think you're right; I hope you're right! There does seem to be more than a slight involvement from some prominent UK sceptics. More support to the increasingly less-obfuscated "moral" of The Events - NULLIUS IN VERBA!

 

[vaguely]

Harry Houdini repeatedly told Arthur Conan Doyle that he had no special powers - that it was just a trick. Yet Conan Doyle continued to believe as much as he did in the Cottingley Fairies.

I rather suspect that this is very much the point Brown will be driving at. Indeed it is noticeable that Houdini ranks alongside Wiseman and Ben Goldacre in Brown's recommended reading link...

I think those cherry picking Brown quotes are guilty of exactly the same error of thinking as conspiracy wonks: failure to take into account the entire body of evidence.

To conclude (for example) that some parts of the stuff used by NLPers may have utility in the real world is not the same as endorsing NLP. Not even close.

 

[shuttlt]

I hope you guys are right. If so, yay Derren! It's going to be an impressive trick though to find a way to make in abundantly clear it was all a trick without coming across as a giant self-important wanker.

 

[microdot]

To conclude (for example) that some parts of the stuff used by NLPers may have utility in the real world is not the same as endorsing NLP. Not even close.

But it _is_ an endorsement of those particular techniques though, isn't it - yes indeedy

 

[Azrael 5]

It's still on a website run by DB and representing DB. It's a marketing tool for him. If we are discussing whether or not DB perpetuates woo then I think it's fair to show the material he thinks is OK to have on his blog.

It should be clear why it's on his blog, his next TV show is focused around remote viewing so obviously he is going to have a load of different psychic related entries on his blog.

I think it shows though that Derren is happy to be represented alongside the woo stuff when it suits him and his marketing of himself.

The original paper it references is by Jessica Utts, which in it's abstract says:

Ever thought its a discussion topic? No didn't think so.

 

[vaguely]

But it _is_ an endorsement of those particular techniques though, isn't it - yes indeedy

No. His wording (it is quoted elsethread) is very cautious. (But even if it was, so what?)

Your quote of "What appeals to me about these techniques is that they are recreating what you would do naturally anyway..." continues "and we don't have to insist on NLP or any other particular approach". All he is talking about, in fact, is a positive attitude, but your partial quoting conceals that.

Even the bits you quote are a long, long way short of endorsement: "may be of real use to those of you who suffer from a phobia", and in Playing with pictures (p192 in my edition) he merely describes something as "one of the more sensible tenets of NLP..".

And re swish patterns: "This is an NLP technique known as the 'swish' pattern, again created by Bandler. While it is far from being the be all and end all of personal change is can be helpful, if you can be bothered to sit down and go through it." and later "Plenty of people are fully able to make these shifts without recourse to a prescribed technique....when divorced from the exaggerated claims of NLPers tricks like these can be helpful"

Scarcely a ringing endorsement - indeed the tone suggests quite the opposite, a nugget in a pile of turd. To me he is saying something like the old book review: NLP is both good and original, but the bits that are good aren't original and the bits that are original aren't good.

 

[JFrankA]

No. His wording (it is quoted elsethread) is very cautious. (But even if it was, so what?)

Your quote of "What appeals to me about these techniques is that they are recreating what you would do naturally anyway..." continues "and we don't have to insist on NLP or any other particular approach". All he is talking about, in fact, is a positive attitude, but your partial quoting conceals that.

Even the bits you quote are a long, long way short of endorsement: "may be of real use to those of you who suffer from a phobia", and in Playing with pictures (p192 in my edition) he merely describes something as "one of the more sensible tenets of NLP..".

And re swish patterns: "This is an NLP technique known as the 'swish' pattern, again created by Bandler. While it is far from being the be all and end all of personal change is can be helpful, if you can be bothered to sit down and go through it." and later "Plenty of people are fully able to make these shifts without recourse to a prescribed technique....when divorced from the exaggerated claims of NLPers tricks like these can be helpful"

Scarcely a ringing endorsement - indeed the tone suggests quite the opposite, a nugget in a pile of turd. To me he is saying something like the old book review: NLP is both good and original, but the bits that are good aren't original and the bits that are original aren't good.

Very well put. Better than any way I could put it.

This is what Derren meant when he said in that interview:

Well, I not a big a fan of it (NLP), 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.

To be honest, I do some psychological tricks in my show as well. People who use NLP would say "That's an NLP technique" when in actually, it's a simple misdirection that NLP has turned into a "technique".

 

[microdot]

Scarcely a ringing endorsement - indeed the tone suggests quite the opposite, a nugget in a pile of turd. To me he is saying something like the old book review: NLP is both good and original, but the bits that are good aren't original and the bits that are original aren't good.

ROFL

Putting to one side the vitriol and your vulgar language in your post you've rather nicely proven my point for me _and_ reinforced what I've been saying all along.

Just for clarity I'll say it again.

Derren pours scorn on NLP and it's proponents and _then_ goes on to explain in detail to the reader those aspects of NLP that he has found to work.

Therefore, for him to go to the effort of explaining those techniques in the detail that he does _despite_ his attitude to the field overall is actually what makes it such a powerful endorsement, albeit that he adds in some very cautiously worded caveats to avoid being tarred with the same brush he's just used on those other NLP proponents.

Afterall, he wouldn't want to look like a hypocrite now, would he.

This is what Derren meant when he said in that interview:

Are you adding mind reading to your repertoire now JFrankA?

 

[JFrankA]

Are you adding mind reading to your repertoire now JFrankA?

Don't have to add it. I already do it!

 

[microdot]

Cool! What am I thinking now?

 

[shuttlt]

Just for clarity I'll say it again.

Derren pours scorn on NLP and it's proponents and _then_ goes on to explain in detail to the reader those aspects of NLP that he has found to work.

Therefore, for him to go to the effort of explaining those techniques in the detail that he does _despite_ his attitude to the field overall is actually what makes it such a powerful endorsement, albeit that he adds in some very cautiously worded caveats to avoid being tarred with the same brush he's just used on those other NLP proponents.

Afterall, he wouldn't want to look like a hypocrite now, would he.

So he's kind of like an NLP concern troll?

 

[microdot]

So he's kind of like an NLP concern troll?

I don't know what that means

 

[JFrankA]

Cool! What am I thinking now?

....Chicks.

 

[psychictv]

Therefore, for him to go to the effort of explaining those techniques in the detail that he does _despite_ his attitude to the field overall is actually what makes it such a powerful endorsement

Uh, huh...wha..WOW. That's almost like a magic trick what you did right there. Magical logic. He openly denounces NLP and freely shares a few of its "secrets" to explain what it's all about and save you the money and trouble of going to some expensive seminar... therefore he's actually giving NLP a double-secret coded endorsement! Never mind what he says and does, microdot has sussed what he really means.

 

[microdot]

....Chicks.

Plural!

 

[JFrankA]

Plural!

Reading men's minds is easy.

Women's minds....well....that's a LOT harder.....

 

[shuttlt]

I don't know what that means

Given two opposing positions A and B, you go up to a bunch of people who believe B and say you believe B also, thus gaining their trust. You then go on to say that while you hold position B you have these nagging doubts that position A might be true and then go on to argue for position A. All the while position A is your true position.

By taking on a false position you've made it easier for yourself by gaining the trust of your opponents while at the same time making yourself hard to counter by denying that you hold the position you in fact hold.