Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[microdot]

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.

If this is for me JFrankA then no I'm not.

I disected a quote that you provided which you claimed said something which it actually didn't.

 

[Garrette]

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

psychictv did not say that in regard to NLP (more accurately, in regard to Derren's description of it). He said "it is infested with nonsense and fraud." You are the one claiming an absolute that isn't there (in respect to "working." In respect to pyramid scheme, psychic tv does use an absolute).

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.

I saw it as an example; I also saw it as a claim about homeopathy. I was mistaken on that second part. My apologies.

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.

I find it odd that you continue to make such claims about something you haven't read and about one comment regarding what you haven't read. Your understanding of the comment was mistaken (see above). What then gives weight to your opinion of Derren's writings?

And, no, your homeopathy example is not better than the Scientology example for at least a couple of reasons, but let's stick with it anyway since you seem hooked on it.

Derren Brown on NLP:

It's a pyramid scheme.

It's a load of bollocks.

Some small parts it didn't invent might have value. These small parts are not controversial, have long been recognized in other fields, and their veracity do nothing to overturn, or add to, what is known in psychology already. Further, the veracity of those small parts do not support the concept of NLP as being legitimate as a whole.


Hypothetical Derren Brown on Homeopathy:

It's not a pyramid scheme.

It's a load of bollocks.

One homeopathic cure actually works which means the concept behind homeopathy is, in fact, true, which overturns what we know of chemistry, biology, and medicine.


Nope. Not a good analogy at all.

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

You've mentioned youtube in your posts? I think not.

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"

A more accurate hypothetical would be a man wears tap shoes and walks across the stage. Tap dancers in the audience cry out "He tap danced!"

They would be wrong, regardless if the tap-shoe wearing person said he were tap dancing, jazz dancing, or swimming.

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

?? Did I say I was going to show your evidence?

ETA: Going back, I see that I did, on the assumption that you agrees with microdot. If you do, then my posting stands. If not, then please disregard.

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

And made some spectacular leaps from those couple of posts.

I think it is quite useless to discuss anything with you.

Depends on your objectives. If you want something to go by unchallenged, then yes, it's useless.

I really would have stoped reading when you tought I believe in the homeopati claim.

Your choice. I apologize again for misunderstanding that part.


Edited for reason given in text above.

 

[Garrette]

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

Paraphrase of my post 593:

psychictv has provided evidence to support his postion; you have provided no evidece to support yours, only claims that it's in the book.

I asked again for you to actually provide the evidence (i.e., quote the relvant portions of the book).

I said if you did not do this I would take it as an admission that you cannot do this and therefore as a tacit admission that your position is incorrect.

 

[Tapio]

Fredriks, It's a shame we have to think about copyright laws. I'd be happy to quote even the whole chapter for you. You seem like a sensible person who has simply fallen for one guys (microdot) misinterpretation. Don't you find it odd that microdot is the only one here (who has read the book) who has interpreted it's content as he has? Do you really think Garrette, JfrankA, psychictv, Azrael 5, vaguely and I all have it wrong?

 

[JFrankA]

If this is for me JFrankA then no I'm not.

I disected a quote that you provided which you claimed said something which it actually didn't.

Exactly. You saw what you wanted to see and completely missed what was said. (ETA: Or implied, actually, sorry)

 

[microdot]

I said if you did not do this I would take it as an admission that you cannot do this and therefore as a tacit admission that your position is incorrect.

Erm, no you didn't.

Let's look at what you actually said:-

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.

You cannot simply morph reality to get the results you're looking for.

If you want to _imagine_ that I made some sort of admission then that's your prerogative I suppose.

Can't see what useful purpose it serves though?

 

[microdot]

Exactly. You saw what you wanted to see and completely missed what was said. (ETA: Or implied, actually, sorry)

Mind reading again, on both counts.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Do you really think Garrette, JfrankA, psychictv, Azrael 5, vaguely and I all have it wrong?

Add me to the list.

microdot, please provide the evidence you've been asked. We can all look from the book, true, but the thing is, we can't find anything that supports your view. The best way for us to understand your position is for you to quote straight from the book. Do that and we can move on, wherever it may lead.

 

[Garrette]

Erm, no you didn't.

Let's look at what you actually said:-



You cannot simply morph reality to get the results you're looking for.

I ask for X and say that Y will not be sufficient and will cause me to do Z. You do nothing at all and think I'm playing games by doing Z anyway.

Got it.

If you want to _imagine_ that I made some sort of admission then that's your prerogative I suppose.

Absolutely, nor is there anything unusual about it except that I admitted it up front. You drew conclusions from your (alleged) reading of Derren Brown. That's your prerogative.

Can't see what useful purpose it serves though?

Nothing of consequence, really. Just an indication to me and to others that you not only cannot support your contention but that you refuse to admit it.

I begin to doubt that you have even read one of Brown's books.

 

[microdot]

In his book TRICKS of the MIND Derren explains to the reader in detail the following NLP techniques:-

Swish Patterns - (which he calls Playing with Pictures - pages 190 to 194)
Fast Phobia Cure (which he calls Phobia Cure - pages 195 to 202)
Swish Patterns again (in a section on Self Confidence - pages 210 to 212)

He also explains the results that the reader should get and indicates where he has used these techniques successfully in the past.

I take these points as evidence that he believes these particular techniques can work.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Tapio]

Ah, here it is. Let's settle this.

Quote from Tricks of the Mind (p. 186 paperback [thanks for the loan Kuko4000]):

As I have suggested, if we remove from the NLP equation the grinning, flaccid course-junkies, delusional flower-fairies and ridiculous tactile businessmen, and some of the taken-as-real wild claims made by NLPers at all levels, there are some sensible enough tools and techniques from that world which are worth knowing about, as long as you don't become a True Believer.

He then shortly goes to explain the three techniques earlier referred to. It's important to remeber he's before in the book dissected various real NLP claims (the three techniques mentioned are not NLP inventions), giving them a fair evaluation and concluding them to be a bunch of something Garrette would stick an egg in . However, as a good skeptic he's also calling for more scientific research. He's also giving a devastating account of the NLP course he went to and what happened after that (not at all flattering to the NLP movement). He also spends a while explaining how NLP was 'invented' in the first place and how all the stuff he has found useful in it are techniques actually borrowed from elsewhere (Checkmite and microdot, have you ever thought maybe that's why he doesn't call these techniques by their NLP names? Because they are not originally a part of NLP and he doesn't want to give NLP undeserved credit for them?)

I think the above quote is a great one, showing a fine example of critical thinking.

 

[Tapio]

He also explains the results that the reader should get and indicates where he has used these techniques successfully in the past.

I take these points as evidence that he believes these particular techniques can work.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Understood. Agreed. But how on earth you arrived to the conclusion that by explaining these useful techniques he promotes/endorses/encourages NLP? While at the same time he expresses opinions like that I quoted. Btw, that's a serious question. I'm not trying to get you to change your opinion, but simply wanting to understand your way of thought. I really am lost here. C'mon, help me out.

 

[microdot]

Understood. Agreed. But how on earth you arrived to the conclusion that by explaining these useful techniques he promotes/endorses/encourages NLP? While at the same time he expresses opinions like that I quoted. Btw, that's a serious question. I'm not trying to get you to change your opinion, but simply wanting to understand your way of thought. I really am lost here. C'mon, help me out.

This is what I said earlier:-

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

And this from post 435:-

He doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, claim that they are the mechanics behind his tricks - ETA - at least not in this book.

 

[Kuko 4000]

He also explains the results that the reader should get and indicates where he has used these techniques successfully in the past.

I take these points as evidence that he believes these particular techniques can work.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Next step:

1) You agree that these techniques work as Derren describes them.

2) You don't agree that these techniques work as Derren describes them.

 

[microdot]

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Next step:

1) You agree that these techniques work as Derren describes them.

2) You don't agree that these techniques work as Derren describes them.

I don't have the book to hand but can say with relative confidence that I believe the techniques work to achieve the outcomes he describes.

ETA - _can_ work. Not necessarily always.

 

[Kuko 4000]

I don't have the book to hand but can say with relative confidence that I believe the techniques work to achieve the outcomes he describes.

Ok, even at the risk of repeating yourself, could you please state clearly why is this a problem then?

ETA - _can_ work. Not necessarily always.

As Derren describes them to work.

 

[JFrankA]

Mind reading again, on both counts.

Not mind reading at all.

As it has been pointed out above, many, many times has Derren said that NLP isn't what he does or promotes.

You have taken four items, namely, three of those are examples of techniques that aren't orginially created from NLP, but something NLP has adopted and twisted as their own cause, and one of a quote that doesn't include the word "incorrectly" (but does strongly implies it), and focus in on those four items. You completely ignore or refuse to see the other quotes throughout the book, his performances, interviews and other books that clearly state he doesn't want to promote NLP.

The very fact that he's never even used the term "NLP" in any of his misdirections should tell you something.

Derren has stated all over the book that he doesn't use NLP, refers to NLPers negatively, (in fact, compares them to the overly zealous Christians), and says that he doesn't use NLP in his work, but some things that NLP has "stolen" as their own. And yet, you focus in on those four things.

Refering to the other thread we're debating in, this is what I mean by desire....

 

[Folly]

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 I put it to you that you might not be making yourself clear either. Looking at other people's responses, I don't think I'm the only person labouring under that misconception, or something very similar. So you neither think that Derren believes in NLP, nor does he think others should believe in NLP?

Again then, what is your position? "I don't know what DB thinks, and neither do you, because his statements haven't been clear enough to me?" Or just "Derren has never given a really clear answer about NLP, free of other caveats, like 'No, it's generally rubbish'." Maybe you're complaining that he's been too vague and other people are taking advantage of that to promote their own woo?

Do you know what DB wants us to believe?

It's a simple question.

A yes or no answer will suffice.

No, it's not a simple question. Does god exist? Is Fermat's last theorem true? Do I like the colour red? Do you like the colour red? The question is most like the last one. I don't know whether you like red or not, but if you had said "I like red" I would certainly think I no what you believe. I could, of course, be wrong. You might have been lying, or I might have missed some context and you might have been talking about wine.

From what I've read and heard, I had thought Derren's position was fairly clear. So, I think yes, I know what he believes. As with the colour example, I am aware I might be wrong.

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

Brown seems to say, in a book, that NLP was generally a waste of his time, but did have a few useful things. He then talks about these things in more detail. My question was why would you take this at anything other than face value? What is your interpretation of what's going on? Why is it a better fit for what's going on? If you say, however, that I have mischaracterised your position, this question may not make sense.

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

That is much more clear. I remain very unclear what you're actually trying to say about Derren and NLP. What are you trying to say?

 

[microdot]

Ok, even at the risk of repeating yourself, could you please state clearly why is this a problem then?

I have no problem

 

[zooterkin]

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Next step:

1) You agree that these techniques work as Derren describes them.

2) You don't agree that these techniques work as Derren describes them.

You mean like I asked, way back?

Yes, yes he does, and despite pouring derision on NLP and it's proponents he STILL sees fit to educate his readers on those parts of it which he has found to work.

Do you disagree that the techniques which he covers work? If not, then I don't see what your point is. Why shouldn't he pass on the bits that are useful?