Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[Garrette]

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

I'm sure psychictv can fend for himself, but allow me to chime in:

Yes, it does.

 

[microdot]

I'm sure psychictv can fend for himself, but allow me to chime in:

Yes, it does.

In what reality is that true

 

[Garrette]

In what reality is that true

This one, unless I misunderstand what you're saying.

psychictv said (paraphrasing): "Derren Brown said X about NLP, and this extract from his book demonstrates it."

You said (paraphrasing): "The extract doesn't demonstrate that at all."

So let's take it piece by piece, as you did in your post:

He came to realize that the field was infested with nonsense and fraud

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.

So that part matches.

and says that it's nothing more than a pyramid scheme.

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.

And that part matches.

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

Not addressed in the quotation, but you have stipulated to this already.

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.

Not addressed in the quotation, but you stipulated to this.



So of the four pieces you agreed to two, and the other two are mirrored in the quotation.

What's the issue?

 

[fredriks]

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.

No he is not saying that but he neither has (possibly changed in his latest show) made a good job saying that his explanations are false.

Some people think this make it a problem some other don't think it is a problem because he is just an entertainer.

To me it seems like Derren Brown has changed "tactics" regarding his performances. It seems like (for example from the Sing article) that he started out trying to claim that the psychology explanations where true but that he later started (probably also had to) to make it more clear that everything is just tricks.

I don't believe Derren Brown believes in NLP but I believe that much of his fame is a result of the fact that other people believes he is using NLP and other psychological methods and this make it bad business for him to clearly state that he isn't using those kind of methods.

 

[LandR]

I don't believe Derren Brown believes in NLP but I believe that much of his fame is a result of the fact that other people believes he is using NLP and other psychological methods and this make it bad business for him to clearly state that he isn't using those kind of methods.

I agree with this, it's why I don't think the last reveal in the events series will be anything to do with encouraging people to think critically or show that it was all tricks and how easily people are fooled. He would risk alienating and losing too many fans who believe his psychology shtick.

 

[microdot]

This one, unless I misunderstand what you're saying.

psychictv said (paraphrasing): "Derren Brown said X about NLP, and this extract from his book demonstrates it."

You said (paraphrasing): "The extract doesn't demonstrate that at all."

So let's take it piece by piece, as you did in your post:



So that part matches.




And that part matches.



Not addressed in the quotation, but you have stipulated to this already.



Not addressed in the quotation, but you stipulated to this.



So of the four pieces you agreed to two, and the other two are mirrored in the quotation.

What's the issue?

You misunderstand what I'm saying.

Derren Brown _did_ say X about NLP (as you put it) and the extract from the book that psychictv provided demonstrates that.

These are facts that we can all agree on

The point I made is that Derren Brown didn't _only_ say X about NLP.

He said a lot of other stuff which isn't reflected in any way in psychictv's original summary.

And thus my point is both valid and accurate.

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

Does that clear things up for you?

 

[vaguely]

He said a lot of other stuff which isn't reflected in any way in psychictv's original summary.

He also says a lot of things that weren't reflected in your summary upthread (and ever since). When these omissions were pointed out you moved from hoping no-one would check the source material to trying to dismiss the extra information as "very cautiously worded" (they we no such thing) and other goalpost moving. In fact all you have done is repeat the same mantra over and over, without ever engaging with others - while affecting to detect 'vitriol'.

Back in the Usenet days there was a term coined for that approach to discussion (I won't dignify it with debate, since you are patently not interested in that). It is still in common use today.

 

[microdot]

He also says a lot of things that weren't reflected in your summary upthread (and ever since).

Correct, which is exactly why I repeatedly referred people to the book so they can gain a _full_ appreciation for themselves and come to their own _balanced_ opinion.

When these omissions were pointed out you moved from hoping no-one would check the source material to trying to dismiss the extra information as "very cautiously worded" (they we no such thing) and other goalpost moving. In fact all you have done is repeat the same mantra over and over, without ever engaging with others - while affecting to detect 'vitriol'.

Nonsense. I refer you to my previous paragraph.

Back in the Usenet days there was a term coined for that approach to discussion (I won't dignify it with debate, since you are patently not interested in that). It is still in common use today.

Cool

 

[Garrette]

You misunderstand what I'm saying.

Derren Brown _did_ say X about NLP (as you put it) and the extract from the book that psychictv provided demonstrates that.

These are facts that we can all agree on

The point I made is that Derren Brown didn't _only_ say X about NLP.

He said a lot of other stuff which isn't reflected in any way in psychictv's original summary.

And thus my point is both valid and accurate.



Does that clear things up for you?

Yes, in the sense that I now understand the semantics. No, in the sense that you've not shown psychictv wrong.

I own all Derren's books (now that I'm typing this I realize I misstated which book the quotation came from; my apologies).

psychictv did not summarize all of the book; that is true. He did, however, summarize all the parts relevant to Derren's experience with NLP. Nothing else in the books runs counter to what psychictv paraphrased or to the small part he quoted.

Do you have examples to indicate otherwise?

 

[microdot]

Yes, in the sense that I now understand the semantics. No, in the sense that you've not shown psychictv wrong.

I own all Derren's books (now that I'm typing this I realize I misstated which book the quotation came from; my apologies).

psychictv did not summarize all of the book; that is true. He did, however, summarize all the parts relevant to Derren's experience with NLP. Nothing else in the books runs counter to what psychictv paraphrased or to the small part he quoted.

Do you have examples to indicate otherwise?

Again, in the interests of clarity:-

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

Does not represent an _accurate_ summary of all the parts relevant to Derren's experience with NLP.

This discussion is going around in circles.

The book is out there for those who want to read it so they can gain a _full_ appreciation for themselves and come to their own _balanced_ opinion.

 

[Garrette]

Again, in the interests of clarity:-



Does not represent an _accurate_ summary of all the parts relevant to Derren's experience with NLP.

This discussion is going around in circles.

The book is out there for those who want to read it so they can gain a _full_ appreciation for themselves and come to their own _balanced_ opinion.

Again, if you'd like to show counter examples, please do. I own all of Derren Brown's books and have copies of most of his shows. (Sadly, I cannot access them now, so I am reliant on memory for a while).

Here's the status of the discussion:

psychictv presents claim with evidence

microdot presents claim without evidence

Garrette asks for microdot's evidence

microdot presents claim without evidence


It isn't circular in the slightest. It's straight as the spine of the devil's picturebook.

 

[microdot]

The evidence is in the book Garrette, not in an individual's polarised view.

 

[Garrette]

The evidence is in the book Garrette, not in an individual's polarised view.

The evidence to support psychictv's position is, indeed, in the book.

The evidence to support your contention is not. If I am mistaken, it should be a simple matter for you to demonstrate it.

If you simply tell me again that the evidence is in the book, then I will take it as an admission that your contention is incorrect.

I'll say it for the third time: I own all of Derren Brown's books. And in case the implication isn't clear: I've actually read them.

 

[fredriks]

The latest discussion is mainly about the following quote?

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.

It seems like microdot has looked at the two sentences one at a time and other people has looked at them together.

To me it seems like the two sentences contradicts each other. You can't first say that it is only a pyramid scheme and later claim that some of it are true. It is of course a little better that he write that the good parts was actually know before but still just a little better in my opinion.

The quote sounds to me something like "homeotapi is just a scam. Homeotapi cure A works for logical reason B"

 

[volatile]

I agree with this, it's why I don't think the last reveal in the events series will be anything to do with encouraging people to think critically or show that it was all tricks and how easily people are fooled. He would risk alienating and losing too many fans who believe his psychology shtick.

Have you seen The System, which basically "encouraged people to think critically [and] show that it was all tricks and how easily people are fooled"? Why do you think he'd suddenly have changed his approach in the year since that was aired?

 

[JFrankA]

Microdot, I don't think it can be any clearer that Derren thinks that NLP is nonsense. He uses psychological tricks that NLP has taken, exaggerated, and in some cases, twisted them to turn them into their own "techniques", but he is not promoting it.

The quote I was looking for from "Tricks of the Mind" was this:

"There was a real irony to the NLPers I knew who prided themselves on their communication skills yet because of the their need to let everyone know how engaging they were, they were among the least engaging people I have ever known. In on extreme, we see this in the Christian fanatics who stand on the street and preach the word of their Lord, unaware that for every one rare, impressionable soul who might respond positively to their shouting and intrusion there are many hundreds of others in whom they have merely confirmed a belief that all Christians must be nutters."

He also states quite clearly he doesn't use NLP, nor preaches it as true:

I now have a lot of NLPers analyzing my TV work in their own terms, as well as people who say that I myself unfairly claim to be using NLP whenever I perform (the truth is I have never mentioned it). To confuse things even further, it has recently made a home for itself as a fashionable conjuring technique of dubious efficacy.

He states right out that he doesn't use it, that others attribute NLP to his work, that others claim to use it, and he doesn't promote it.

 

[Garrette]

The latest discussion is mainly about the following quote?

About that and whether or not it is an accurate summary of Derren Brown's position on NLP as described in his book(s).

It seems like microdot has looked at the two sentences one at a time and other people has looked at them together.

That would be funny, since microdot is suggesting that he is the only one looking at context.

To me it seems like the two sentences contradicts each other.

There are three sentences.

You can't first say that it is only a pyramid scheme and later claim that some of it are true.

Nonsense. Amway products probably, for the most part, actually do what they claim, but it's still a pyramid scheme (that's not technically the correct word, but it's close enough). You need to separate efficacy from money-making-method.

It is of course a little better that he write that the good parts was actually know before but still just a little better in my opinion.

??

The quote sounds to me something like "homeotapi is just a scam. Homeotapi cure A works for logical reason B"

Wrong analogy. A more accurate one would be:

Homeopathy is a scam, even though the idea of treating the whole person is a good one.

 

[zooterkin]

The evidence is in the book Garrette, not in an individual's polarised view.

Is it simply that you are objecting to the absolute nature of this statement:

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

(My bolding.)

 

[fredriks]

So nothing more than a pyramid sceme is not supposed to mean a complete scam? I really can't see how Derren just talk about the economy either.

Homeopathy is a scam, even though the idea of treating the whole person is a good one.

ohh? This has a complete different meaning compared to what Derren writes. It seems like he quite clearly says that some methods that is today found under the NLP umbrella works. "Treating the whole person is good" is just a general statement and has nothing to do with what I meant with homeopathy, that some of the actuall homeopathy drugs or other homeopathy treatments works.

 

[JFrankA]

ohh? This has a complete different meaning compared to what Derren writes. It seems like he quite clearly says that some methods that is today found under the NLP umbrella works. "Treating the whole person is good" is just a general statement and has nothing to do with what I meant with homeopathy, that some of the actuall homeopathy drugs or other homeopathy treatments works.

Again, NLP is deceptive because it takes real, working psychological tricks, exaggerates them, twists them, add a dash of something that sounds good but hasn't been proven, spread with a lot of confidence and you've got an "NLP technique".

And that's the problem. The basis of what NLP may be true, but not nearly as powerful as they claim. Not only that, any mentalist/hypnosis tricks that are done, are claimed by NLPers as NLP.