Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[JFrankA]

Watching some more of the techniques that follow, it really has me frustrated that I don't have the capacity to see things from a credulous, suggestible viewpoint. I need to know how these people convince themselves that they haven't just been mimed a diamond and a three and they aren't just playing along.

JFrankA, can you give me any insight into the mind of a mark?

I haven't seen the show yet, (I'm in the States... ) but I'll check it out tomorrow morning on the youtube channel that is posting it.

As to my personal opinion of the insight of a mind of a mark, I look for someone who is willing to particpate, who is open to suggestion, and who seems to be able to focus.

...err... I hope that answers your question....

 

[StanBearclaw]

I haven't seen the show yet, (I'm in the States... ) but I'll check it out tomorrow morning on the youtube channel that is posting it.

As to my personal opinion of the insight of a mind of a mark, I look for someone who is willing to particpate, who is open to suggestion, and who seems to be able to focus.

...err... I hope that answers your question....

I haven't seen the latest program yet either. I was talking about some techniques in The Devil's Picturebook that had been brought up. Specifically the "Forces" that come near the end.

 

[MikeSun5]

I'm not saying he hasn't got some good tricks and done some good TV, but for me he's just becoming a sensationalist trickster...or to put it more bluntly, a liar.

These posts are getting hilarious! What in the hell do you people think magicians are?!?!? They're liars. They even admit it.

Magicians are about as honest as clergy. Or politicians. Magicians are con men. Wake the up.

It is because he never seems to draw the line anywhere, so you can't believe anything he says at all, so he presents that guy who can do echo-location and (if it WAS real), it is hard to believe because in the same show he pretends he can effectively hypnotise someone to rob a hardware shop and claims they were not a stooge...

Why - in the name of Zeus' butthole - would you believe him ANYWAY?? He's a goddam magician, and yet you look to him for fun facts??

Lets say I did the cigarette-through-the-quarter trick and told you I was using principles of dark matter derived from advanced quantum physics. If you wander off thinking you just learned something from a scientist, THAT'S YOUR FAULT. Not mine.

 

[StanBearclaw]

You are warped, and I am thankful I don't have to deal with you in real life.

 

[psychictv]

I don't think he uses stooges. Most of the stuff that really seems like he would have to use a stooge could actually be done in another way, but you probably wouldn't like the real solution either. Personally I'm not a big fan of those tricks that are so outrageous that they look like they must require stooges, but I guess they must appeal to some people.

 

[Kuko 4000]

I don't know why I bother....in fact that's not true, so here we go.

Afaik, the echo location stuff is legit, and no, it would not be suitable for the MDC. If someone can point to data that could lead me to any other conclusion, please let me know. I'm sure Derren would appreciate it as well.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/echolocation/

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsmbb/BRAIN/vol1/echo.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...5e475f5d36763c49264f655d375c6b6876305021035c4


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

This was the guy that the production team flew in from the states:

Daniel Kish

Echolocation has been further developed by Daniel Kish, who works with the blind, leading blind teenagers hiking and mountain-biking through the wilderness and teaching them how to navigate new locations safely, through the non-profit organization World Access for the Blind.[8] He has developed a click-emitting device and trains other blind people in the use of echolocation and in what he calls "echo-mobility".[9][10][11]

Daniel has taught many blind people to utilize echolocation and expand their mobility. He has shared his experiences with Ben Underwood.[12][10][11]

There is also a full documentary of Ben Underwood on YouTube, the most famous person in this area. Sadly Ben died a short while ago. Daniel Kish makes a great appearance here as well:



During the yesterdays show (and throughout his career from the first Mind Control to the latest Events) Derren Brown repeatedly pointed out that he does not believe in psychic abilities. In this latest Event he flew in Wayne Carr (Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist, Executive Director of the American Association of Remote Viewers) and debunked him on national TV. It was a great and stylish demonstration of two very different things, a real and utterly amazing ability of human echolocation and the ridiculous fake ability of Remote Viewing. He also heavily criticised the US Army's multi-million dollar investments in the psychic phenomena.

I really enjoyed the How to Win the Lottery show (not so much the actual lottery stunt on previous night), didn't think too much of How to Control the Nation, but thought that this one, How to Be a Psychic Spy was excellent! My conclusion is that people are missing something big (either about the world of magic in general or Derren's overall show) if they cirticise Derren being pro-woo or anything like that at all. Boring, I can definitely understand, we are all different in that sense. But pro-woo, understand, yes, agree, definitely not.

 

[Kuko 4000]

I don't think he uses stooges. Most of the stuff that really seems like he would have to use a stooge could actually be done in another way, but you probably wouldn't like the real solution either. Personally I'm not a big fan of those tricks that are so outrageous that they look like they must require stooges, but I guess they must appeal to some people.

I pretty much agree. And I want to stress the part that I bolded, that's just the way some people are, and that's fine. And I also don't think he uses stooges / actors (when he especially states it), I could be wrong though, but everything I've learned about magic and Derren's approach to it seems to confirm this. Like I've said all along, the only way to debunk Derren in any real way would be to show that the people involved in the stunts are actors or stooges, for example the people trying to lift the box or the guy who stole the TV in the latest Event.

 

[microdot]

Thanks for pointing that out! It does seem DB gives credit to Bandler and NLP regarding this technique. I stand corrected. (ETA: This also makes your position more understandable to me )

But, as psychictv notes, so must I also add that the following text makes it clear that he is not endorsing NLP as such, just this particular technique.

This is exactly one of the reasons I have found these forums to be of great help. More eyes can always bring about a more comprehensive view of the whole. Thanks again!

You may care to check out page 198 of Derren Brown's book Tricks of the Mind also

 

[DreadNiK]

What is it about you people that feel compelled to defend everything he does that means you are incapable of address the points people make in criticism of him.

When you start reading and comprehending what I write properly and responding my posts rather than your stock 'Derren defence', then I will give a crap about what you say.

These posts are getting hilarious! What in the hell do you people think magicians are?!?!? They're liars. They even admit it.

Magicians are about as honest as clergy. Or politicians. Magicians are con men. Wake the up.

I've repeatedly explained what I think makes Derren Brown different to many magicians in this area, and you are the third person to fail to address my point.

Why - in the name of Zeus' butthole - would you believe him ANYWAY?? He's a goddam magician, and yet you look to him for fun facts??

Lets say I did the cigarette-through-the-quarter trick and told you I was using principles of dark matter derived from advanced quantum physics. If you wander off thinking you just learned something from a scientist, THAT'S YOUR FAULT. Not mine.

Again, fail. Firstly, a lot of people like him for his debunking - if it is wise not to believe anything (not necessarily disbelieve) he does or says, then debunking is pointless. Please address this and don't make me repeat myself for a THIRD time. Again this also applies to the fact that (assuming it is real which I am still yet to verify) when he shows something truly remarkable like the echo location guy, it is very easy to dismiss that as 'another camera/stooge/setup trick' - while it is good to question rather than take whatever someone says as true, thanks to Derren's 'method' of presentation, I am more inclined to dismiss it as rubbish than look into it and verify...


Also, how is is different from Uri Gellar then? Why is it worse to claim/pretend/lie that you achieve 'x' through psychic power than to claim you achieve 'x' through some other impossible means that is essentially 'woo' as well?? Just because he has some 'meta-disclaimer' that covers his explanations for his tricks?

It seems people like you that defend Brown in this way seem to think that this preface of his makes boring TV and lame tricks OK, because he dresses them up with a load of nlp (and other) nonsense? Again, another point that you are the third poster to FAIL TO ADDRESS. The representatives of his defenders I have encountered so far are not proving encouraging re Brown's actual value...

 

[DreadNiK]

I really enjoyed the How to Win the Lottery show (not so much the actual lottery stunt on previous night), didn't think too much of How to Control the Nation, but thought that this one, How to Be a Psychic Spy was excellent! My conclusion is that people are missing something big (either about the world of magic in general or Derren's overall show) if they cirticise Derren being pro-woo or anything like that at all. Boring, I can definitely understand, we are all different in that sense. But pro-woo, understand, yes, agree, definitely not.

I can't understand how you found them enjoyable? There wasn't a single good magic trick? Maybe I am missing something. Also you are perfectly entitled to have enjoyed them, and I'm glad you at least understand why people find him somewhat 'pro-woo', but wouldn't you rather watch a show full of clever tricks that you don't immediately want to ascribe to camera tricks and stooges and think 'how did he do that? that seems really clever' rather than 'how did he do that? probably in some really lame and uninteresting way?'

 

[DreadNiK]

In this latest Event he flew in Wayne Carr (Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist, Executive Director of the American Association of Remote Viewers) and debunked him on national TV. It was a great and stylish demonstration of two very different things, a real and utterly amazing ability of human echolocation and the ridiculous fake ability of Remote Viewing. He also heavily criticised the US Army's multi-million dollar investments in the psychic phenomena.

Were we watching the same show? Where exactly did he criticise the military investments? Yes, his presentation of the material suggested he was skeptical and disagreed with it, but I can't recall him directly criticizing?

And how exactly was the debunking stylish? It was fair (too fair, I would argue), I will give him that, because all he did was set up a demonstration of it and then analyse it a little to suggest that it wasn't real. He could have set up a much better scenario that would have led to the remote viewer's 'viewing' being way way off, or started actually attacking the guy's ideas, (for example, if he 'stepped inside' the body of the person then why was everything still so vague, as even the remote viewer admitted?) Maybe a matter of personal taste, but I much prefer debunking involving a logical argument with the believer and watching them squirm as it becomes obvious they are either deluded/nutso or a self-serving charlatan...

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I thought last night's show was pretty good, better than the previous 2 anyway. More in line with the kind of stuff he has done previously. The kind of stuff that I know is a trick and I know he didn't do it how he said he did it but I still can't work out quite how he DID do it.

He definitely walks a fine line between woo and debunking. I think the way he handled the remote viewing thing was quite clever in a way as those sceptics among us were able to pick up the knowing winks and walk away thinking he has debunked that thoroughly without him having made it explicit. At the same time an 'average Joe' could probably take away that the remote viewer was pretty successful in a way.

Unfortunately if you want to have a relatively prime spot on national TV in the UK you can't just come out and flatly debunk woo. You have to entertain, you have to bring along the majority of the morons in the country and you have to be seen to be buying into some of this crap even if you don't.

Otherwise Derren Brown would be on one of these late Sunday night BBC2 dry academic programs and nobody would be watching. Which, it seems, is what some of the people here would prefer him to be doing.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Were we watching the same show? Where exactly did he criticise the military investments? Yes, his presentation of the material suggested he was skeptical and disagreed with it, but I can't recall him directly criticizing?

And how exactly was the debunking stylish? It was fair (too fair, I would argue), I will give him that, because all he did was set up a demonstration of it and then analyse it a little to suggest that it wasn't real. He could have set up a much better scenario that would have led to the remote viewer's 'viewing' being way way off, or started actually attacking the guy's ideas, (for example, if he 'stepped inside' the body of the person then why was everything still so vague, as even the remote viewer admitted?) Maybe a matter of personal taste, but I much prefer debunking involving a logical argument with the believer and watching them squirm as it becomes obvious they are either deluded/nutso or a self-serving charlatan...

You might prefer that kind of debunking but not many others would. Not in an entertainment show anyway. The vast majority of people don't enjoy watching hosts be rude to their guests. People would switch off.

I think the way he did it was pretty clever as he seemed open minded to the idea, supportive of the guy doing it, prepared to be (overly) generous and fair to his guest but still did enough to gently hint to people that they should look a bit deeper and ask questions.

 

[JFrankA]

Also, how is is different from Uri Gellar then? Why is it worse to claim/pretend/lie that you achieve 'x' through psychic power than to claim you achieve 'x' through some other impossible means that is essentially 'woo' as well?? Just because he has some 'meta-disclaimer' that covers his explanations for his tricks?

It's not. Any magician can proclaim that they use psychic powers, magic forces, ancient secrets, or dirty underwear to make the effect. That doesn't matter. Period. Max Maven says that he controls your mind when he performs. Is that any different than Uri?

It's patter. What is occurring in the show is entertainment.

Let's turn this around. Let's say that Uri would perform his tricks, then once the cameras were off then started saying "Nah, in real life, I'm just fooling you and I have no powers", do you think Randi would go after him then? I don't think so. Wanna know why? Because then he would be just be admitting that he is nothing but a performer just like Derren Brown. Uri would perform, say onstage he's using psychic powers, then get off stage and tell people that it's a trick and instead of writing books about how people can tap into their inner woo, he'd write books about performing onstage and secrets to tricks he performs just like Derren Brown.

But he doesn't. He continues his charade even when the performance is done. So does John Edwards, so does Sylvia Brown, etc, etc. The performance is over and they are claiming the tricks are real. That's the difference.

Actors lie onstage. They are not who they say they are when they are onstage or on screen, they try to fool you too. They don't continue their characters when the show is over, they become real people. So should magicians.

It doesn't matter what is said onstage. It doesn't matter one lick. All magicians fool you onstage. It's our job. We all lie onstage.

It's what a magician says and does when the performance is done and he is dealing with real life that makes the difference. Always. Period

It seems people like you that defend Brown in this way seem to think that this preface of his makes boring TV and lame tricks OK, because he dresses them up with a load of nlp (and other) nonsense? Again, another point that you are the third poster to FAIL TO ADDRESS. The representatives of his defenders I have encountered so far are not proving encouraging re Brown's actual value...

It seems to me that you simply don't like Derren Brown. That's fine not to like his performances. However, I can appreciate his style of misdirection and his showmanship.

To be honest, he was the reason I've incorporated magic back into my hypnosis shows. I was inspired by how he mixed conventional magic and mentalism and hypnosis. Learning from him has added another dimension to my act.

 

[Tapio]

You may care to check out page 198 of Derren Brown's book Tricks of the Mind also

Yup. I think I understand what you mean. But this time DB is not so clear. He only mentions that the technique is 'credited to Bandler'. Which I feel is different to 'created by Bandler' (or is this where I just don't understand the intricacies of the English language?). And as such is something that, though not necessarily 'invented' by anyone, perhaps has been for the first time given a more rigorous form by Bandler as a practical aid to self-development. How this particular technique is associated and/or used by NLPers today is something the book doesn't address at this point.

Microdot, Thank you for pointing these examples out! It's a great lesson on how, when we read something with an initial view on the subject (based on possibly the first time we've read about it), it's natural for us to interpret the text in exactly the same way when re-reading it.

Cheers!

 

[JFrankA]

I haven't seen the latest program yet either. I was talking about some techniques in The Devil's Picturebook that had been brought up. Specifically the "Forces" that come near the end.

If you mean the force when you put something like the ten of hearts in your pocket and then talk really quickly to a spectator and have them guess correctly the card?

It's simple suggestion. That's all it is. The spectator is so focused on the performer, and more open to suggestion. So the performer practically tells the spectator the name of the card.

Yes. That works. Not all the time, but enough to try it, and if the person is close, one can always use it as a link to another trick.

 

[Tapio]

Actors lie onstage. They are not who they say they are when they are onstage or on screen, they try to fool you too. They don't continue their characters when the show is over, they become real people. So should magicians.

It doesn't matter what is said onstage. It doesn't matter one lick. All magicians fool you onstage. It's our job. We all lie onstage.

It's what a magician says and does when the performance is done and he is dealing with real life that makes the difference. Always. Period.

Bravo! Once again, great summary. I think this argument alone is enough to show the failed reasoning behind the OP.

 

[microdot]

Yup. I think I understand what you mean. But this time DB is not so clear. He only mentions that the technique is 'credited to Bandler'. Which I feel is different to 'created by Bandler' (or is this where I just don't understand the intricacies of the English language?). And as such is something that, though not necessarily 'invented' by anyone, perhaps has been for the first time given a more rigorous form by Bandler as a practical aid to self-development. How this particular technique is associated and/or used by NLPers today is something the book doesn't address at this point.

Microdot, Thank you for pointing these examples out! It's a great lesson on how, when we read something with an initial view on the subject (based on possibly the first time we've read about it), it's natural for us to interpret the text in exactly the same way when re-reading it.

Cheers!

Nope, on this particular intricacy at least your are absolutely correct. He does not explicitly state that this technique was the sole and original creation of Bandler, merely that it is credited to him.

ETA - Your command of the English language is far, far better than my command of Finnish or Swedish

In that regard sir I must raise my hat to you

 

[DreadNiK]

It's not. Any magician can proclaim that they use psychic powers, magic forces, ancient secrets, or dirty underwear to make the effect. That doesn't matter. Period. Max Maven says that he controls your mind when he performs. Is that any different than Uri?

It's patter. What is occurring in the show is entertainment.

Let's turn this around. Let's say that Uri would perform his tricks, then once the cameras were off then started saying "Nah, in real life, I'm just fooling you and I have no powers", do you think Randi would go after him then? I don't think so. Wanna know why? Because then he would be just be admitting that he is nothing but a performer just like Derren Brown. Uri would perform, say onstage he's using psychic powers, then get off stage and tell people that it's a trick and instead of writing books about how people can tap into their inner woo, he'd write books about performing onstage and secrets to tricks he performs just like Derren Brown.

But he doesn't. He continues his charade even when the performance is done. So does John Edwards, so does Sylvia Brown, etc, etc. The performance is over and they are claiming the tricks are real. That's the difference.

Actors lie onstage. They are not who they say they are when they are onstage or on screen, they try to fool you too. They don't continue their characters when the show is over, they become real people. So should magicians.

It doesn't matter what is said onstage. It doesn't matter one lick. All magicians fool you onstage. It's our job. We all lie onstage.

It's what a magician says and does when the performance is done and he is dealing with real life that makes the difference. Always. Period



It seems to me that you simply don't like Derren Brown. That's fine not to like his performances. However, I can appreciate his style of misdirection and his showmanship.

To be honest, he was the reason I've incorporated magic back into my hypnosis shows. I was inspired by how he mixed conventional magic and mentalism and hypnosis. Learning from him has added another dimension to my act.

Well it was a mark of my respect for DB that I actually sat down and watched him last night - normally I do not watch broadcast TV, mostly because I can't cope with ad breaks anymore, but also because I'd rather spend my spare tv watching time getting hold of good TV shows that I haven't seen like The Wire etc...but I had just watched FlashForward on my mediaserver and DB was on broadcast after it finished, and I sat and watched the whole thing. And was very disappointed. The last show of his I saw and enjoyed was the horse racing one, because he presented a fairly mundane con trick in a great way to demonstrate how statistics are everything and subjective experience is nothing (well, to be extreme about it)...

Do you not agree with a couple of my points though, that a) if you can't believe anything he says due to his 'disclaimer' then why does he bother debunking, since you can't believe that either (but most people on these boards already do, so they like it) - I'm still yet to have someone address this point directly (though it may have been done earlier in the thread, im not reading all 20 pages just to check, though I have read a lot and realise I am treading some similar ground)

and b) he doesn't draw the line anywhere, making his tricks boring because if you can't believe him when he says no stooges/camera tricks, then use of Occam's Razor means you assume he always DOES uses stooges/camera tricks where it would be easiest to do so...(whether or not he does use them, and if he does, that's even lamer)

and finally - when does he count as 'offstage'...I bet I can find examples of interviews etc where he has claimed no stooges in 'x' trick or 'x' was done by nlp - for example, I bet if interviewed he would claim that the 'robbing a tv' thing he did last night was not a totally lame set up with the mark totally (or at least nearly totally) in the know.

I have more, but let me state it isn't as if I loathe him and think he is a force for evil/woo whatever, I just think some of his work is boring and somewhat dishonest, which disappoints me because some of it is interesting and entertaining and even enlightening, and I'll let you address the above first (if you cba, lol) before I make the effort to go into whether or not he is actually a bad thing in the vein of Uri (but yes, I can't ever see him selling 'how to control people's minds with NLP' [other than to the slight degree that sort of thing actually works] and then promoting it on some talkshow'

I'll see if I can dig up the great post earlier in this thread about how he is one of those responsible for really blurring the line for most people about what is and isn't possible with 'hypnotism'

 

[DreadNiK]

Bravo! Once again, great summary. I think this argument alone is enough to show the failed reasoning behind the OP.

Actually, I think that is not quite right - it actually highlights exactly why this thread exists, because I disagree with it but others agree with it - it is a great summary because is sums up the key point of disagreement between those criticising and those supporting DB (or at least one of the key points)

I think what he has said doesn't carry the conversation ending 'period' he thinks it does, I think it is very much up for debate and as I have said, one of the main points up for debate.