Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[zooterkin]

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.

I'm still struggling to understand how you get to your conclusion.

Suppose Derren Brown thinks that NLP as a whole is nonsense, and that its proponents are making money by preying on the credulous, but that one or two of the techniques (which were not necessarily originated by the people behind NLP) can be of some use in certain circumstances; how would you like him to express this differently from how he has done already? Exactly what is he being hypocritical about?

 

[microdot]

I'm still struggling to understand how you get to your conclusion.

Suppose Derren Brown thinks that NLP as a whole is nonsense, and that its proponents are making money by preying on the credulous, but that one or two of the techniques (which were not necessarily originated by the people behind NLP) can be of some use in certain circumstances; how would you like him to express this differently from how he has done already? Exactly what is he being hypocritical about?

I was being a little facetious when I made that particular remark.

The section of the book under discussion here is somewhat ambiguous and thus open to interpretation.

As we're all unique and think in different ways our interpretations may differ.

IMHO the only person who could truly bring clarity to the situation is the author and, unfortunately, I don't think it likely that Mr Brown will provide that clarity any time soon.

 

[Folly]

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.

I have a question for you, microdot. Let us assume for this situation that you think NLP is junk, but happens to have a few bits that, for whatever reason, have some sort of value in some situations and which you may occasionally use. What would you do if you wanted to talk about those specific techniques and situations, without giving the impression that NLP is useful in general? I haven't read his book, but all the quotes given from Brown's book, from both sides of the argument, seem to me to correspond to the situation I outlined. What would you do differently? Is there any specific bit you've read that makes you think otherwise, or is it just the overall impression you got from the whole book?

I'm also more interested in the argument that Brown may be making things worse because people aren't taking him seriously enough when he says "I'm a magician and I'm going to lie to you for the next hour" and instead think that he's really reading or controlling people's minds, adding to belief in things like NLP. Watching bits of his work, I've never gotten the impression that I was seriously intended to believe odd explanations involving mental power. I'm probably not the "at risk" audience, however, so this doesn't help me answer the question. Are more people actually believing in NLP, or is it just that more people who sort of believed in NLP already are doing something about it? If it's the latter, is that still bad?

 

[Tapio]

IMHO the only person who could truly bring clarity to the situation is the author and, unfortunately, I don't think it likely that Mr Brown will provide that clarity any time soon.

Highlited part I agree on, underlined part hope not to be true.

So, what does a good skeptic do in this kind of situation? Of course try to get to the bottom of things! I just sent an email to Coops (Derren's assistant) where I outlined the discussion regarding DB/NLP in this thread and asked for even the tiniest response in helping clear this thing up to those who aren't satisfied by his quite obvious statements in the book and interviews.

Really waiting for their response (even if it takes a long while, I think it's worth it)!

Good night ya'll!

 

[microdot]

Folly:

Whilst generally I'm not averse to to a completely hypothetical discussion I don't think this is the appropriate forum for it and I think it would be off topic anyway.

I also think you'd be much better off reading the book yourself and coming to your own opinions.

Tapio said much the same thing earlier and, on this at least, I'm in full agreement.

 

[Folly]

Folly:

Whilst generally I'm not averse to to a completely hypothetical discussion I don't think this is the appropriate forum for it and I think it would be off topic anyway.

Off topic? You have asserted, as far as I can tell, that Derren doesn't really mean it when he says that NLP is junk. He either believes, himself, or wants us to believe, that NLP works. You've tried to outline a situation, and have even quoted bits of his book. (That is, in the hyperbolic stylings of the thread title, Derren is no better than Uri.)

What I was indirectly saying in my last post, in an ever so roundabout way, was that your arguments are unconvincing. You are free to simply hold your opinion without convincing others, but I was trying to get further support for it from you. So, I proposed a hypothetical situation to you which seems to me to produce exactly the same situations and quotes you gave. There must be some sort of mismatch between the hypothesised world and what you know and feel. What is this mismatch?

I also think you'd be much better off reading the book yourself and coming to your own opinions.

No, I don't think I would be. You seem to be one of a very few people who end up with the opinion that Derren is either pro-NLP or wants the general public to be pro-NLP after reading the book. Given what I've heard Derren say in other interviews, and quotes from the book that I have seen, I suspect I would come to the same opinion most other people have. So this does me no good at all understanding your thoughts.


ETA: poor Coops. Like Tapio, I have also tried contacting Derren for an answer which is as clear as possible.

 

[microdot]

Off topic? You have asserted, as far as I can tell, that Derren doesn't really mean it when he says that NLP is junk. He either believes, himself, or wants us to believe, that NLP works.

Have I really? Don't think I have......

Who knows specifically what he means or wants us to believe?

Do you know?

Or can you, like anyone else here offer only an opinion?

Again:-

The section of the book under discussion here is somewhat ambiguous and thus open to interpretation.

As we're all unique and think in different ways our interpretations may differ.

IMHO the only person who could truly bring clarity to the situation is the author and, unfortunately, I don't think it likely that Mr Brown will provide that clarity any time soon.

What I was indirectly saying in my last post, in an ever so roundabout way, was that your arguments are unconvincing.

Why beat around the bush? If you think something, just say it.

No, I don't think I would be.

Any particular reason you'd care to share?

You seem to be one of a very few people who end up with the opinion that Derren is either pro-NLP or wants the general public to be pro-NLP after reading the book.

Utterly incorrect.

 

[JFrankA]

Been away a bit, sorry, and now I'm at work so I can't look at the book, but my impression was that Derren was saying that paying for an NLP class isn't worth it. In fact, towards the end of the book, he says something to the effect of that NLPers who think that they are very interesting, are very boring because they think they are interesting due to NLP, or something like that. (No offense, Microdot. )

I also remember reading (again, I don't have the book with me, so I have to check it again), that Derren didn't want to be the book to be a "self-help book", but more of an inspriation for people to become stage magicians.

 

[microdot]

In fact, towards the end of the book, he says something to the effect of that NLPers who think that they are very interesting, are very boring because they think they are interesting due to NLP, or something like that. (No offense, Microdot. )

None taken JFrankA

I believe he makes some comment to the effect that some NLPers can be quite fanatical which can be a big turn off for some people.

Does that sound about right to you?

 

[Sunray Breaker]

He explains nearly everything in his first book Pure Effect. Which is hard to find and is out of print. But it's available in e-book format. He throughouly explains a lot of his tricks in that first one.

This thread is seriously rediculous if you're going to compare a self confessed illusionist with a self proclaimed psychic.

Gellar tried to scam people out of money. Scammed people that believed in his woo.

Derren keeps the audience in a constant guessing game, all the while, playing with them to see if they kind find the reality and the woo...

One is serious manipulation of people's goofy beliefs and one is just pure entertainment.

I haven't seen any reason for you to have a problem with Derren Brown, other than he's a magician that doesn't explain his tricks (like most magicians).

 

[JFrankA]

None taken JFrankA

I believe he makes some comment to the effect that some NLPers can be quite fanatical which can be a big turn off for some people.

Does that sound about right to you?

That's one. There was another he mentions just before he ends the book.


...oh, oh hell... I have re-read the book...

 

[psychictv]

Who knows specifically what he means or wants us to believe?

Do you know?

Or can you, like anyone else here offer only an opinion?

This is such wooish nonsense. "We can never really know. That's just your opinion." etc.

There is one person who specifically knows what he means and that's Derren Brown. Fortunately we have some evidence of what he believes as he has put it down in writing. This can be summarized as: He once had an interest in NLP, so he read some books and took some courses. He came to realize that the field was infested with nonsense and fraud and says that it's nothing more than a pyramid scheme. Then he outlines a few of the aspects of NLP that may work and explains how they predate NLP and gives some logical explanations as to why they may work.

Most people here accept this first hand account as reasonable evidence as to Brown's beliefs, as there is no reason to believe he would lie about it. Why you reject this evidence and seem to think it's a matter of personal opinion is baffling.

 

[Azrael 5]

Not that I tihnk he cares,but I forwarded(tweeted)this thread link to Derren.

 

[JFrankA]

Not that I tihnk he cares,but I forwarded(tweeted)this thread link to Derren.

....geez, if he does check out this thread, I hope he doesn't get upset that I might've explained how he did that BMX bike trick......

 

[microdot]

Not that I tihnk he cares,but I forwarded(tweeted)this thread link to Derren.

If he did come along I imagine he would be filled with glee

....geez, if he does check out this thread, I hope he doesn't get upset that I might've explained how he did that BMX bike trick......

LOL - the two of you could have a hypnotize-off

This is such wooish nonsense. "We can never really know. That's just your opinion." etc.

OK, I'll just accept that as your opinion and move on....

There is one person who specifically knows what he means and that's Derren Brown.

OK, something we can agree on

Fortunately we have some evidence of what he believes as he has put it down in writing.

Something else we can agree on

This can be summarized as: He once had an interest in NLP, so he read some books and took some courses.

Agreed

He came to realize that the field was infested with nonsense and fraud and says that it's nothing more than a pyramid scheme.

Can't agree with this is it's not an accurate representation of the source document which constitutes the evidence

Then he outlines a few of the aspects of NLP that may work and explains how they predate NLP and gives some logical explanations as to why they may work.

Agreed, and mentions that he's also used some of them and achieved favourable outcomes

Most people here accept this first hand account as reasonable evidence as to Brown's beliefs, as there is no reason to believe he would lie about it.

To be fair, I think the only way to prove this would be to first define precisely what is meant by most people here i.e. in this thread, in the forums overall etc., and then conduct an opinion poll.

Why you reject this evidence and seem to think it's a matter of personal opinion is baffling.

Sorry - I just don't understand this point at all.

If you'd be kind enough to enlighten me as to it's meaning I'd be happy to respond.

 

[Folly]

Have I really? Don't think I have.....

Hmm. Posts 527, 542, and 547 together seemed to indicate to me that you did believe that Derren either believed in NLP or wanted the general public to do so. You say this is not true. What is your position then?

Who knows specifically what he means or wants us to believe?

Do you know?

Or can you, like anyone else here offer only an opinion?

Then why did you say anything at all? I did say you were free to simply hold an opinion. It looked like you were interested in trying to persuade others it was a good opinion to have, or at least trying to explain why you held it.

Why beat around the bush? If you think something, just say it.

Because I thought it was obvious, and didn't need saying (if I thought your argument was persuasive, I wouldn't have asked questions.) It turns out it wasn't obvious, so I did. Further, it was apparently unclear enough that you still haven't answered the one actual question I had.

Any particular reason you'd care to share?

The entire paragraph that followed the quoted sentence.

Utterly incorrect.

Well aside from pointing out that I did used the word "seems", and it does in fact seem that way to me, which was really the relevant point, I would also be interested in your evidence of at least a sizeable minority that read Derren's book and thought he was pro-NLP or was trying to make others be pro-NLP.

 

[microdot]

Hmm. Posts 527, 542, and 547 together seemed to indicate to me that you did believe that Derren either believed in NLP or wanted the general public to do so. You say this is not true. What is your position then?

In 527 I express an opinion that DB's detailed explanation of a number of NLP techniques and his use of them constitutes an endorsement of those particular techniques i.e. that they work.

Not sure where you're going with 542 but would invite you to read 540 and 542 together.

I think I stated my position in 547.

Then why did you say anything at all? I did say you were free to simply hold an opinion. It looked like you were interested in trying to persuade others it was a good opinion to have, or at least trying to explain why you held it

Do you know what DB wants us to believe?

It's a simple question.

A yes or no answer will suffice.

Further, it was apparently unclear enough that you still haven't answered the one actual question I had.

There were several questions in your original post. To which question are you referring?

Well aside from pointing out that I did used the word "seems", and it does in fact seem that way to me, which was really the relevant point, I would also be interested in your evidence of at least a sizeable minority that read Derren's book and thought he was pro-NLP or was trying to make others be pro-NLP.

If you'll permit me to paraphrase part of what you said you should be able to understand what I was saying you were utterly incorrect about:-

You seem to be one of a very few people who end up with the opinion that Derren is either pro-NLP or wants the general public to be pro-NLP after reading the book.

 

[psychictv]

He came to realize that the field was infested with nonsense and fraud and says that it's nothing more than a pyramid scheme.

Can't agree with this is it's not an accurate representation of the source document which constitutes the evidence

Allow me to quote from page 175 "The pragmatic approach of the originators has now been swamped in a huge industry of daft theories and hyperbole, evangelical mind-sets and endless self-perpetuating courses, to the point where it resembles something of a pyramid scheme, with Bandler sat cheerily at the top."

 

[MikeSun5]

Checkmite - you claimed Derren Brown "peddles" and "promotes" NLP. You claimed there are examples and links to him doing so in this thread. Both of those claims are false. Where are you getting your info? As for the much-referenced, beaten horse of a video you posted...

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.

...not only does he never mention NLP, but Derren Brown didn't post the video himself. Linking him to NLP is an unfortunate byproduct of some dingbat on youtube thinking he had the trick figured out.

You haven't read his books, and you can't find a decent example of him "promoting" or "peddling" NLP. Nobody can. Why? Because there is no decent example of him "promoting" or "peddling" NLP. Posters here make it sound like he's running the Brown NLP Institute of London.

The problem is people selling NLP use Derren Brown's name to advertise. Not the other way around.

I haven't read that book, again - I don't even recall seeing it on the shelf during any of my recent visits to Borders.

Well, you certainly won't find it in the science or reference sections if that's where you're looking...

 

[microdot]

psychictv, in your summary you used this:-

He came to realize that the field was infested with nonsense and fraud and says that it's nothing more than a pyramid scheme.

To represent everything between:-

He once had an interest in NLP, so he read some books and took some courses.

and:-

Then he outlines a few of the aspects of NLP that may work and explains how they predate NLP and gives some logical explanations as to why they may work.

This:-

Allow me to quote from page 175 "The pragmatic approach of the originators has now been swamped in a huge industry of daft theories and hyperbole, evangelical mind-sets and endless self-perpetuating courses, to the point where it resembles something of a pyramid scheme, with Bandler sat cheerily at the top."

Merely seeks to reinforce your earlier point.

This modifier however does not convert your original summary into an accurate representation of the source document which constitutes the evidence