Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[microdot]

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?



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.



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.



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?

Posts 630 and 633 should answer your question.

 

[Kuko 4000]

You mean like I asked, way back?

Yep, I just didn't want to over complicate things by quoting someone elses post. Good job zooterkin

 

[Kuko 4000]

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

I have no problem

Ok, just to be absolutely sure, you DON'T think there is a problem?

 

[microdot]

Ok, just to be absolutely sure, you DON'T think there is a problem?

A problem with what specifically?

 

[Tapio]

This is what I said earlier:-

Ok, now I'll really try to end this (at least on my part). First, to make it clear I'll quote all those parts of your posts that have led me to the impression you think that:

a) Derren Brown implies the three techniques mentioned are parts of NLP
b) By explaining these techniques in his book he is in some way endorsing NLP

recently re-read Tricks of the Mind and noted with some amusement and a little confusion that Derren pours considerable scorn on practices like NLP and the people involved with it, past and present before gleefully proceeding to explain in detail to the reader how to use many of the NLP techniques to good effect

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

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.

He's just happy to use the parts of it (referring to NLP) that work for him

And then goes on to explain in detail the bits of it (referring to NLP) which he believes work.

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.

Now, I think the main problem has been your constant referring to the techniques DB describes as NLP based, when in reality Derren has claimed nothing like that. He's wrote (as my earlier quote from the book shows) of 'tools and techniques from that world'. Before this he has made quite clear that the techniques he's found useful are not ones that the original NLPers have invented, but ones that have been borrowed and compiled from various sources. And that most real NLP claims do not hold up under a more scientific scrutiny.

So when you accuse him of explaining some NLP techniques, or bits of NLP that work, you are in fact misrepresenting the same black on white you try to offer as evidence.

Also, the bolded part of the last quote from you has led me to think you do actually feel he is endorsing NLP. But now, looking back I see it might simply be because you have not understood it's not NLP techniques he's explaining in the book, but a summary of known and used psychological methods later on adopted and renamed by NLP. And that's exactly why he isn't referring to them as NLP-techniques.

What do you think?

ETA: I see JfrankA has also addressed this in post #637

 

[Kuko 4000]

A problem with what specifically?

About Derren Brown and NLP.

More specifically, that he uses techniques that you think work as Derren has described them to work.

Problem or not?

 

[Azrael 5]

Myopinion on the "pyramid scheme" quote is that Derren is sugegsting it is like that in so much as its a con and uneefective method that is distasteful; notthing to do with money. I could be wrong,just my thinking.

 

[microdot]

What do you think?

So let me check that I've understood correctly.

When Derren describes the format and use of techniques which are also described within NLP, but are based on earlier discoveries he's not promoting NLP?

Is that a fair summary of your point?

 

[microdot]

About Derren Brown and NLP.

More specifically, that he uses techniques that you think work as Derren has described them to work.

Problem or not?

I'll have to get back to you on that Kuko

ETA -

And you're referring specifically to these?

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)

 

[Tapio]

Is that a fair summary of your point?

Yes, BUT it is relevant to my argument only in the context of the rest of his book.

If he'd simply explained the techniques, but not given NLP the bashing he did beforehand, I would undoubtedly feel he would be promoting NLP (indirectly as it would be). I feel the whole chapter is of great value when wondering about his motives and intentions here. As well as his chapter on critical thinking and pseudoscience.

 

[microdot]

Yes, BUT it is relevant to my argument only in the context of the rest of his book.

If he'd simply explained the techniques, but not given NLP the bashing he did beforehand, I would undoubtedly feel he would be promoting NLP (indirectly as it would be). I feel the whole chapter is of great value when wondering about his motives and intentions here. As well as his chapter on critical thinking and pseudoscience.

Then I can see where you're coming from

 

[Kuko 4000]

And you're referring specifically to these?

Yes.

 

[microdot]

Yes.

OK, will get back to you.

 

[psychictv]

I missed a lot while I was sleeping!

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)

Ah, but Derren himself claims that he used to be a Christian. Which means he may still be a secret Christian so comparing NLP to Christians is actually an endorsement!

 

[Tapio]

Then I can see where you're coming from

Wonderful! Glad we got that settled. Now I only wish I could say the same thing about you...

But Kuko4000 is a good detective, maybe he can find it out .

 

[Moochie]

It has been made clear - he said "This is just a trick" and "Don't trust me" in as many words during the lottery show (and used the mouse trick and the knife trick to illustrate that *exact* point, explicitly), said "Subliminal Advertising" doesn't work" and "The PEAR Group results are spurious" in the "Control the Nation" show.

I'm pretty sure that there will be a spell-it-out-for-the-slower-amongst-us payoff after the final Event, but even if there isn't, Derren's scepticism is still there word-for-word in the shows.

I agree. The patronizing attitude some have towards others really gets up my goat -- it reminds me of the old "think of the children" rationale some politicians resort to when planning draconian limits to our liberties. People will believe what they want to believe, but I think in the case of DB only the most ignorant are going to see him as anything other than a wonderful entertainer.


M.

 

[psychictv]

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.

I think I understand where Microdot is coming from. Brown doesn't actually say that NLP is a load of bollocks. He clearly has taken something from it, and thinks it's worth spending a chapter of his book talking about it.

To me, he has the perfect skeptical point of view. He tried something out, took from it what he can, describes what works and doesn't work, and debunks and discards the rest. I feel the same way about, for example Tarot cards. I know that will be a controversial statement here, but I think they do have some totally non-woo-related utility (let's not get into it here.)

But this is not enough for a certain type of skeptic who wants an instant and unequivocal dismissal. "NLP is nonsense. Tarot is nonsense. Let's not discuss it any further." If somebody wrote a completely objective historical overview of the use of tarot cards, the history of the artwork, use as playing cards, etc. without an ounce of woo involved, some people would still brand them as a woo believer and dismiss them out of hand for even daring to talk about it.

I think that may be the issue here. The fact that Brown ever went to an NLP class and the fact that he thinks it's worth even mentioning it in his book instantly condemns him.

Not to belabor the point, but I just thought of an even better example. Someone who was raised in the Catholic church and later became an atheist may still have some interest and sentimental attachment to the church and its pageantry. As a lifelong atheist I find that kind of distasteful and hard to swallow but intellectually I can understand how that might be the case. Maybe this person calls himself an atheist but still wants to be married in the church and is interested in books about the lives of saints. I wouldn't assume that he's lying about his atheism or that he is somehow not atheist enough simply because he still has some attraction to something that made a big impact earlier in his life.

 

[microdot]

Wonderful! Glad we got that settled. Now I only wish I could say the same thing about you...

But Kuko4000 is a good detective, maybe he can find it out .

I believe I have learned something useful today and for that I thank everyone who helped me to get there

 

[Moochie]

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?

Likewise, I'm willing to believe there are some aspects to $cientology "auditing" that some people will find helpful, but I wouldn't advise anyone to take up $cientology on that basis, given the massive amount of woo it's mired in.


M,

 

[Kuko 4000]

I feel the same way about, for example Tarot cards. I know that will be a controversial statement here, but I think they do have some totally non-woo-related utility (let's not get into it here.)

It should not be controversial before we hear what you have to say about it. Why not start a new thread, I'd like to know more..