Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[Kuko 4000]

Nothing outlandish, I just think that tarot cards and all forms of fortune telling (i ching, newspaper horoscopes, etc.) can sometimes function as a sort of self-psychotherapy. Sort of like doing a cold reading on yourself. The trick is not in the random piece of "wisdom" that you get back but in meditating on your problem or question.

True, and so can all kinds of other dubious beliefs and delusions. For example, talking to a homeopath, or different gods. It is indeed a different discussion.

 

[MikeSun5]

My discussion was entirely about claims versus reality; it did not involve people's actions based on those claims.

I had to go back a little to see how bad I had taken your comment out of context. So my apologies for that. I thought I had made a damn good point (and I would have if you had been arguing something else). Of course in re-reading some posts I noticed how you, fredriks and microdot engaged in a 3 page NLP derail. Thanks for that.

------------------

Anyway, I thought this video was appropriate:



If you watch, you'll notice that the host straight up asks Derren (a few times) how he does his tricks. Knowing damn well a magician can't do that, he asks anyway. That is the problem. People are no longer satisfied with the explanation, "It's magic." They must have "real" explanations. Derren's first cold reading attempt flops horribly, but you'll notice after the rebound how he goes on to explain himself by saying it was "psychological techniques" mixed with "showmanship." The "psychological technique" in question is cold reading. As far as psychology in his shows, that's it.

Keep asking him how he does what he does and you'll get the same answers... (hint: the answer ALWAYS includes "magic")

 

[Tapio]

Tapio, could you quote the relevant parts from the book, I'd like to know which technique he's talking about?

Kuko, I'm not home right now, but I'll get back to you. I can't remember the quote exactly, but the sentence goes something like:

"This technique is called the 'swish pattern' and was once again created by Bandler for NLP."

It's really unambiguous. But if you want, I'll quote it word to word later today (unless someone does it before me).

 

[Kuko 4000]

Kuko, I'm not home right now, but I'll get back to you. I can't remember the quote exactly, but the sentence goes something like:

"This technique is called the 'swish pattern' and was once again created by Bandler for NLP."

It's really unambiguous. But if you want, I'll quote it word to word later today (unless someone does it before me).

Thanks my friend, I think that's enough. Wikipedia agrees.

Next I'd like to know whether the Swish Pattern claims Derren makes in the book are scientifically valid.

 

[Tapio]

Here it is anyway:

From TotM, p. 212:

"This is an NLP technique know as the 'swish' pattern, again created by Bandler."

Thinking about it, I feel it would be fairly arduous to create a scientifically valid method of study regarding the technique (not saying it would be impossible, but a hell of a lot of work in any case). The 'swish' pattern involves several different levels of personal experience, and the possible results in changing behavior would depend on how well each of these levels work independently as well as a whole. As well as a number of other factors that would have to be based solely on peoples descriptions of their experience (which could/should, however be counted as strong evidence regarding these kind of studies, at least according to, for example Daniel C. Dennet).

In this book Derren does encourage and ask for scientific studies regarding these techniques. As far as I can understand what he's saying, it seems like all he can bring up as evidence for the efficacy of the presented techniques at this point is anecdotes (which he later on in the book rightfully dismisses as solid evidence of other kinds of phenomena).

 

[JFrankA]

If you watch, you'll notice that the host straight up asks Derren (a few times) how he does his tricks. Knowing damn well a magician can't do that, he asks anyway. That is the problem. People are no longer satisfied with the explanation, "It's magic." They must have "real" explanations. Derren's first cold reading attempt flops horribly, but you'll notice after the rebound how he goes on to explain himself by saying it was "psychological techniques" mixed with "showmanship." The "psychological technique" in question is cold reading. As far as psychology in his shows, that's it.

Keep asking him how he does what he does and you'll get the same answers... (hint: the answer ALWAYS includes "magic")

You know, that's a good point because I see this is as kind of a problem with being a magician nowadays. The whole stereotype of a man who "learned his power by studying with a oriental master" or some such thing is just doesn't "fly" with an audience. (That only works for things like Kenoki Foot Pads. )

I know magicians who, for example, ask "do you want to see some sleight of hand?" instead of using the word "trick" or "magic". I feel that kind of gives away the secret. It's more like saying "see what I can do?" instead of "let me try to entertain you".

Teller once wrote that he's always performed silently because any kind of talking would be like talking down to the audience. So he remains silent which lets the audience pretty much write their own patter. In fact, there are one or two tricks I do silently, and it does have a different kind of impact. But that's not everyone's style, of course. Penn is quite the opposite.

The point is that what magicians use as patter now can't be what it was say, thirty years ago. It changes with the times. Long before, patter can be something to do with learning a secret, lost magic from some far away place. With the more recent magicians that have come out now, that doesn't work. More acceptable patter is sort of a mix of psychological hoo-ha and the truth. That's part of this whole dilemma with mentalists like Derren Brown or Banachek. In fact, the word "mentalist" isn't really correct for this kind of magic either.

 

[microdot]

Here it is anyway:

From TotM, p. 212:

"This is an NLP technique know as the 'swish' pattern, again created by Bandler."

It is a small point but on reading the above quote again, I notice the use of the phrase again created by bandler

I think I need to return to the book again (which I don't have with me at the moment) because this raises some new questions for me:-

1. When he says again created by Bandler is that an indication the he has identified Bandler as the creator of other techniques referenced earlier in the book?

2. Is he saying that this technique, when Bandler created it, was unique to NLP?

I guess I'll have to delve into the book again this evening

 

[peteweaver]

Derren Brown is an illusionist, nothing more. He doesn't claim to have psychic powers.
He uses psychological tricks.

 

[vaguely]

As far as I can understand what he's saying, it seems like all he can bring up as evidence for the efficacy of the presented techniques at this point is anecdotes (which he later on in the book rightfully dismisses as solid evidence of other kinds of phenomena).

Which again highlights the importance of taking the Whole. Body. Of. Evidence.

No one turn of phrase, no one (or three) technique examined, no single chapter of a book, will give anything like a true reflection.

 

[microdot]

As far as I can understand what he's saying, it seems like all he can bring up as evidence for the efficacy of the presented techniques at this point is anecdotes (which he later on in the book rightfully dismisses as solid evidence of other kinds of phenomena).

Which again highlights the importance of taking the Whole. Body. Of. Evidence.

No one turn of phrase, no one (or three) technique examined, no single chapter of a book, will give anything like a true reflection.

I agree.

Unfortunately though, it's often not possible, for various reasons, to provide the full body of evidence within these forums

And that's exactly why I suggested more than once that it would be beneficial to people to read the book themselves and form their own informed opinions based on the available evidence.

Plus it's usually necessary to break the information down into manageable chunks in order to discuss it thoroughly (and avoid confusion).

ETA - and if I can build on your point, the context of the discussion is also a key consideration i.e. if one turn of phrase, or one technique or a single chapter of a book is insufficient, is one book sufficient? How many books must one consider, and so on...

Just my thoughts

 

[Kuko 4000]

Derren Brown is an illusionist, nothing more. He doesn't claim to have psychic powers.
He uses psychological tricks.

He is a magician first and foremost, and a mentalist. Most of his stuff is pure magic tricks, but he dresses them up as psychological tricks, and does it superbly. The actual psychology involved (other than the usual stuff magicians do) is quite minimal in comparison.

 

[Kuko 4000]

It is a small point but on reading the above quote again, I notice the use of the phrase again created by bandler

I think I need to return to the book again (which I don't have with me at the moment) because this raises some new questions for me:-

1. When he says again created by Bandler is that an indication the he has identified Bandler as the creator of other techniques referenced earlier in the book?

2. Is he saying that this technique, when Bandler created it, was unique to NLP?

I guess I'll have to delve into the book again this evening

1.) I can't remember from memory, but I would think so. According to Wikipedia, Bandler is credited as a contributor to many different NLP techniques. No citations though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bandler

Richard Bandler has also contributed to many of the models and techniques that are now taught in NLP. For example, meta model, Milton model, anchoring, swish pattern, reframing, belief change, nesting loops, chaining states, and submodalities applications.[citation needed]

2.) That's the way I understand it. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Swish

The swish was first published by Richard Bandler.[27]

What's on your mind microdot, don't go crazy on us

 

[LandR]

Derren Brown is an illusionist, nothing more. He doesn't claim to have psychic powers.
He uses psychological tricks.

No, he doesn't.

He uses traditional magic tricks wrapped up in a psychology presentation.

That is he uses stage assistants, sleight of hand, props, gimmicks etc.. Just like other magicians.

 

[microdot]

1.)What's on your mind microdot, don't go crazy on us

LOL

Who, me, crazy, how could any sane person come to that conclusion

I seem to remember that there was a general 'feeling' earlier in the thread that there was nothing whatsoever unique about NLP.

If it's all the same to you guys I'm not going to go back looking for specific posts as I don't think it would serve any particularly useful purpose.

In any case, DB seems to have expressed an opinion in this book that there are elements of NLP which are/were unique.

 

[Kuko 4000]

In any case, DB seems to have expressed an opinion in this book that there are elements of NLP which are/were unique.

Yes, and afaik, that is correct.

Edit: That doesn't of course change the fact that at least the majority of NLP techniques are bunk. It would be nice that the people who know better would identify the NLP techniques that are not unique to NLP. It would also be nice to know which of these techniques are actually shown to work, scientifically.

 

[microdot]

Yes, and afaik, that is correct.

Edit: That doesn't of course change the fact that at least the majority of NLP techniques are bunk. It would be nice that the people who know better would identify the NLP techniques that are not unique to NLP. It would also be nice to know which of these techniques are actually shown to work, scientifically.

Bunk?

 

[Kuko 4000]

Bunk?

 

[microdot]

For my understanding, can I ask you express that in more scientific rather than metaphorical terms?

 

[Kuko 4000]

For my understanding, can I ask you express that in more scientific rather than metaphorical terms?

NLP as a whole does not seem to have any good evidence backing it up, the best that I can do to illustrate this is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLP_and_science

Michael Heap (1988) conducted a systematic review of the research literature on NLP and found, after analysis of over 60 research studies, that it was lacking in evidence.

The present author is satisfied that the assertions of NLP writers concerning the representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking. These assertions are stated in unequivocal terms by the originators of NLP and it is clear from their writings that phenomena such as representational systems, predicate preferences and eye-movement patterns are claimed to be potent psychological processes, easily and convincingly demonstrable on training courses by tutors and trainees following simple instructions, and, indeed, in interactions in everyday life.
Adding,

Therefore, in view of the absence of any objective evidence provided by the original proponents of the PRS hypothesis, and the failure of subsequent empirical investigations to adequately support it, it may well be appropriate now to conclude that there is not, and never has been, any substance to the conjecture that people represent their world internally in a preferred mode which may be inferred from their choice of predicates and from their eye movements. […] These conclusions, and the failure of investigators to convincingly demonstrate the alleged benefits of predicate matching, seriously question the role of such a procedure in counselling.[24]
Heap (1988) remarks [25] that if the assertions made by proponents of NLP about representational systems and their behavioural manifestations are correct, then its founders have made remarkable discoveries about the human mind and brain, which would have important implications for human psychology, particularly cognitive science and neuropsychology. Yet there is no mention of them in learned textbooks or journals devoted to these disciplines. Neither is this material taught in psychology courses at the pre-degree and degree level. When Heap spoke to academic colleagues who spend much time researching and teaching in these fields, they showed little awareness, if any, of NLP.[25][26]

Heap (1988) argued that to arrive at such important generalisations about the human mind and behaviour would certainly require prolonged, systematic, and meticulous investigation of human subjects using robust procedures for observing, recording, and analysing the phenomena under investigation. "There is just no other way of doing this". Yet the founders of NLP never revealed any such research or investigation, and there is no evidence of its existence.[25] Indeed, Bandler himself claimed it was not his job to prove any of his claims about the workings of the human mind, "The truth is, when we know how something is done, it becomes easy to change" (ibid).[27]

Like I wrote previously, it would be interesting to know how much of NLP is actually shown to work.

 

[microdot]

NLP as a whole does not seem to have any good evidence backing it up.......

......Like I wrote previously, it would be interesting to know how much of NLP is actually shown to work.

Thanks for that

I've been fortunate enough to read the Heap report previously.

This looks interesting too (from the Wikipedia article you linked to, sorry, I know there's a proper way to cite wikipedia but haven't gotten around to practicing it yet):-

Renewed research interest
Several practitioner have expressed interest in investigating NLP further using multiple methodologies, not just empirical. The first, vendor neutral, NLP Research Conference was held in 2008 sponsored by University of Surrey with the aim of encouraging improved research collaboration.[32]

There is a website connected with this which has some interesting looking information on it (not a massive amount though) which I'll be checking out at some point:-

http://www.nlpresearch.org/

Apologies if I'm moving off topic with this one