Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[microdot]

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

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.

If he does so it's not in the quote you've provided.

Let's take it one part at a time:-

I now have a lot of NLPers analyzing my TV work in their own terms

So he says there are a lot of NLPers who analyze work he has done which has been televised, and that those NLPers use their own terms (presumably NLP terminology) in their analysis.

So, presumably, those NLPers believe DB is using NLP

as well as people who say that I myself unfairly claim to be using NLP whenever I perform

So he says that there are people who say that he claims to be using NLP whenever he performs, and that those people believe those claims to be unfair.

So, presumably, those people believe tha DB isn't using NLP and are agrieved at the claims they believe DB makes.

(the truth is I have never mentioned it).

He says he's never mentioned 'it' (presumably 'it' means NLP).

To confuse things even further, it has recently made a home for itself as a fashionable conjuring technique of dubious efficacy.

So he says that 'it' (again, presumably NLP) has recently made a home for itself as a fashionable conjuring technique of dubious efficacy and asserts that this confuses the situation even further.

What I can't work out is how you turn that into:-

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

No offense

 

[microdot]

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.

At last - someone with a balanced view

Thankyou fredriks

 

[fredriks]

(the truth is I have never mentioned it)

A lot of people seems to think that it is very important that he has not mentioned NLP when he performs. I cant see how that is relevant at all if it seems like he is using NLP when he performs.


It is possibly to use or to suggest that a method is used without saying it explicitly that the method is used.

 

[Garrette]

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.

Yes, he does, but that they existed before NLP and do not justify the claim that NLP as a whole, works.

If I put an egg in dog crap, I can't honestly claim the resulting mixture is nutritious.

"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.

You mean this? Take it to another thread, please, but you'll find your homeopathic claims have been thoroughly and repeatedly dissected, demolished, destroyed, and revealed for the dunderheaded foolishness they are.

To bring it back to something analogous with NLP:

At the entry level, some basic self-help methods offered by Scientology are, in fact, helpful, and yet Scientology is, always has been, and will remain, a complete and utter scam.

 

[Azrael 5]

Whilst no mention of NLP I find this quote of Derren's form Tricks Of The Mind to state his position quite clear.

When I am working I mix psycholgy with conjuring, either often masquerading as the other. SO you'd be wrong to decide that the trick,tests ,stunts rely no morethan a superhuman understanding of non verbal and unconcious communication. However it is impossible to work in the area I do without developing a good knowledge of such things and to utilize them as part of the toolkit..*snip*..so long as you relize that my shows,with all the deception should not be viewed as examples of what mere body language alone can create.

Page 224.

 

[Garrette]

A lot of people seems to think that it is very important that he has not mentioned NLP when he performs.

And that it is important the he says he does not use it when he performs.

I cant see how that is relevant at all if it seems like he is using NLP when he performs.

"Seems like" to whom? When I perform very simple magic tricks it "seems like" to some people that I have invoked the powers of Satan, and I am not exaggerating. Like many magicians who perform for circles beyond friends and family, I have run into more than one person who accused me of collusion with the devil despite my assurances it's just a trick.

It "seems like" you are the equivalent in regard to your stance with Derren Brown.

It is possibly to use or to suggest that a method is used without saying it explicitly that the method is used.

Yes it is. It is also probably that NLP is folderol and that Derren doesn't use it.

Let's summarize your evidence that Derren Brown uses NLP:

1. He doesn't say he uses it
2. He explicitly says he doesn't use it
3. He has a background as a skilled magician
4. Magicians have told you that his effects are achievable through normal magician-type means

I think your argument is far less than compelling.

 

[Garrette]

If he does so it's not in the quote you've provided.

Let's take it one part at a time:-



So he says there are a lot of NLPers who analyze work he has done which has been televised, and that those NLPers use their own terms (presumably NLP terminology) in their analysis.

So, presumably, those NLPers believe DB is using NLP



So he says that there are people who say that he claims to be using NLP whenever he performs, and that those people believe those claims to be unfair.

So, presumably, those people believe tha DB isn't using NLP and are agrieved at the claims they believe DB makes.



He says he's never mentioned 'it' (presumably 'it' means NLP).



So he says that 'it' (again, presumably NLP) has recently made a home for itself as a fashionable conjuring technique of dubious efficacy and asserts that this confuses the situation even further.

What I can't work out is how you turn that into:-



No offense

Thank you for the (tacit) admission that your contention regarding psychictv's statement is incorrect. Your failure to provide any quotation from Derren's books to back up your position is appreciated.

 

[Tapio]

The latest discussion is mainly about the following quote?
....It seems like microdot has looked at the two sentences one at a time and other people has looked at them together.

I think if we're talking about the motives and actions of DB it's very important to evaluate the evidence (DB's work and words) as a whole. Besides, the quote you mention is someones interpretation of his words, that is, not at all valid evidence.

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.

I disagree here. Calling NLP 'nothing more than a pyramid scheme' seems to imply something of it's proponents' motives for making profit, not at all touching on the subject of does NLP work or not. See the difference? NLPs efficacy compared to it's proponent's claims is something Derren writes about in quite extensive lengths in the book. His conclusions are fair and square.

I think these two should not be mixed. The way by which profit is gained through business does not necessarily have anything to do with if it works the way it's proponents claim it does.

I've just re-read the whole of DB's writing regarding him and NLP from TotM. I must say I simply can not understand how someone could interpret it in any other way than the one most posters here have. I knew we are unique and different in our understanding of skepticism, critical thinking and evaluating evidence. But to this extent? I've truly learned a lesson here! Thank you people!

ETA: After my re-reading session it's clear to me that hoping for DB's asked reply on this subject is useless. The extent to which he uses words in describing his stance regarding NLP in the book is completely sufficient as to settle the matter once and for all (even without any interviews and what not on top of it).

 

[microdot]

Thank you for the (tacit) admission that your contention regarding psychictv's statement is incorrect. Your failure to provide any quotation from Derren's books to back up your position is appreciated.

Sorry, must have missed that one

 

[fredriks]

If I put an egg in dog crap, I can't honestly claim the resulting mixture is nutritious.

No but it is very stupid to first say that it has no nutritions in it.

You mean this? Take it to another thread, please, but you'll find your homeopathic claims have been thoroughly and repeatedly dissected, demolished, destroyed, and revealed for the dunderheaded foolishness they are.

What the hell are you talking about? You can't see how a simple example was just an example and that I haven't said anything about the truth value.

At the entry level, some basic self-help methods offered by Scientology are, in fact, helpful, and yet Scientology is, always has been, and will remain, a complete and utter scam.

And still, this is not similar to what it seems like Derren wrote (I haven't read the book) and is discussed here. My homeopathy example is much better. The order matter and the not in the same sections also matter.

"Seems like" to whom? When I perform very simple magic tricks it "seems like" to some people that I have invoked the powers of Satan, and I am not exaggerating. Like many magicians who perform for circles beyond friends and family, I have run into more than one person who accused me of collusion with the devil despite my assurances it's just a trick.

For example all people that write comments on youtube. I have been very clear about that in all my posts.

That was still my point. If someone goes up on stage and start to dance, people are going to say that he is a dancer or at least a person that dance on stage. Your and several other people seems to think that it matter a lot if is load and clear also say that he is dancing. Claims that he was dancing from other people just don't matter unless is says it himself. That at least how I read the many times I have seen. "He has never said that he is using NLP"

Yes it is. It is also probably that NLP is folderol and that Derren doesn't use it.

Let's summarize your evidence that Derren Brown uses NLP:

What about showing me the place where I have said that I believe Derren Brown is using NLP before you show my evidence?

1. He doesn't say he uses it
2. He explicitly says he doesn't use it
3. He has a background as a skilled magician
4. Magicians have told you that his effects are achievable through normal magician-type means

I think your argument is far less than compelling.

My argument? I just looked at a couple of posts that was discussed.

I think it is quite useless to discuss anything with you. I really would have stoped reading when you tought I believe in the homeopati claim.

 

[Tapio]

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.

I understand you feel this way because you haven't read the book. If you had, I'm quite sure you would separate his talk regarding NLP's 'financial side' from it's general 'efficacy'.

 

[fredriks]

I disagree here. Calling NLP 'nothing more than a pyramid scheme' seems to imply something of it's proponents' motives for making profit, not at all touching on the subject of does NLP work or not. See the difference?

I see it different but I haven't read the book so I don't know.

I have just read what is written in this thread and my interpretation of that is mostly in agreement with microdot in this exact case.

Edit: I think I need to retract the sentence above as I don't know. I think I mixed what was direct quotes from Derren and what was explanations of what he said. It make of course no sense to discuss what Derren meant with a sentence if it wasn't a exact quote.

 

[JFrankA]

Sorry, must have missed that one

....by saying that people are attributing his work to NLP, it means he's not using it.

I get this sometimes when I perform. The person swears up and down that the secret to a trick is one thing, when it's not even close. I've even had people claiming they saw me flash a move, when I never ever did that move performing the trick.

I'm afraid you're doing the same thing.

 

[microdot]

....by saying that people are attributing his work to NLP, it means he's not using it.

I get this sometimes when I perform. The person swears up and down that the secret to a trick is one thing, when it's not even close. I've even had people claiming they saw me flash a move, when I never ever did that move performing the trick.

I'm afraid you're doing the same thing.

Returning to your earlier quote:-

I now have a lot of NLPers analyzing my TV work in their own terms,

Had he explicity said/written:-

I now have a lot of NLPers _incorrectly_ analyzing my TV work in their own terms

then you'd be right.

He didn't write that though, did he?

I'm afraid you're doing the same thing.

How exactly?

 

[Tapio]

I see it different but I haven't read the book so I don't know.

I have just read what is written in this thread and my interpretation of that is mostly in agreement with microdot in this exact case.

I understand. Fine by me. One more thing I'd like to point out to you (since you told it makes a difference to you) is that there is no specific 'order' in which he writes about his relationship with NLP in Tricks of the Mind. He dismisses NLP throughout the text, whether discussing it's financial or practical aspects.

 

[Garrette]

Sorry, must have missed that one

Post 593 in which I ask you again to provide some actual quotation from the book to support your position.

 

[fredriks]

Tapio, read my short edit above. I might have misunderstood what was actually discussed.

 

[Tapio]

Tapio, read my short edit above. I might have misunderstood what was actually discussed.

Gotcha! And, might I say, smart move! Respect.

 

[JFrankA]

I illustrated it earlier with his "BMX bike" trick.

He made it seem like he was using either subliminals, PWA or NLP, but in actuality, he didn't. You see what he lead to see so he hides what he really did. That's what magicians do. Period. We make it like we perform this stuff by giving you an explanation as misdirection in order for not to see what we really did.

Often, people will see another misdirection that we have never intended. It's a lucky accident in some ways because the trick is still pulled off. It's unlucky in another because that person is so focused on the wrong secret, that even if you tell that person the secret, they won't believe you.

Basically, that is what you are doing.

 

[microdot]

Post 593 in which I ask you again to provide some actual quotation from the book to support your position.

Sorry, you'll have to elaborate on that one .