Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[Azrael 5]

*snip*

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)

His disclaimer states "I achieve the effects via magic etc[paraphrased]" He isnt lying unless you believe the effects are done by another method.

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)

If you cant believe him that's your problem. People believe any magician uses stooges,it's a lame assumption in absence of the correct explanation,like "its camera tricks".

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 bet you can't. Do prove me wrong.

 

[Matthew Best]

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...

And Derren Brown has said, as previously posted, that he is not interested in debunking fraudulent psychic claims, so much as replicating some of their techniques and providing alternative explanations. He finds debunking to be essentially negative, and not as interesting.

So you are right, it is a matter of personal taste.

 

[JFrankA]

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)...

Just sounds like to me you don't like magic at all. I don't mean that as an attack, just as an observation. If I'm wrong, sorry.

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)

We've answered you because he is NOT trying to debunk!!!! He is trying to entertain and that's it! It is you who is trying to put something on him that he's not doing. As to his disclaimer, you can believe it or not, it really doesn't matter. Being a magician myself, I think that the disclaimer is true. There are many tricks he does that doesn't require a stooge, or camera tricks, and if he does use them, so what? It still produces the effect. He is still entertaining (well, maybe not entertaining you ) and NOT debunking.

There was a time where CH4 put Derren's show under the "science" category. Derren himself agreed with the article in 2003 when it said it shouldn't be there. Someone like Uri would most likely want it kept there. See the difference?

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)

That's not Occam's Razor. That's being lazy and not bothering to think and do a little research. Google is a good start....

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.

Wait, is your dispute on whether he debunks or whether he's being truthful on how he performs a trick. I'm telling you, no magician is going to give you a straight answer on how he performs a trick.

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'

Then you do agree that Derren IS different than Uri. Good. Now we are getting somewhere. Seems to me that you just don't like magic.

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'

I'd like to see that. Because I bet that that person used "Occam's Razor"

 

[Tapio]

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.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from. Only problem is that not once in the course of this thread (I've read about 98%) have I seen logical/conclusive evidence to support your position. I'd really appreciate it if you could make a short, clear summary (like JfrankA's) on exactly why you feel the way you do. You know, main keypoints stated in a logical fashion. I'm prepared to evaluate DB's work in a completely new light, but I need some help to know where to begin with. Thanks.

ETA: just for claritys sake, JfrankA, I think it would be fair to say DB is not out to debunk stuff, except for his book Tricks of the Mind. There's some stuff in it which, at least to me, is quite clear debunking.

 

[Tapio]

I bet I can find examples of interviews etc where he has claimed no stooges in 'x' trick or 'x' was done by nlp

Oh man! Not again...

 

[psychictv]

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)

If you are gullible enough to believe in his explanations, you'll probably also believe in the debunkings. If you're smart enough to know that he's just doing magic tricks, then you probably don't need things like psychic readings to be debunked for you anyway.

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

He does draw a line, right at the beginning of each show! He says he uses, magic, misdirection, suggestion, & psychology and that he uses no stooges or actors. Then the show starts. I see no evidence that he has ever lied about this. Occam's Razor should tell us that if a magician can achieve an effect through a simple, well known magic trick, they're not going to bother risking their reputation by using stooges and then lying about it. Camera tricks are another matter, since he doesn't say that he doesn't use them.

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 haven't seen it yet but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it wasn't a totally lame setup although if you're going to say that the audience member isn't "at least nearly totally" in the know, then that starts to be a fine line that might seemingly include the whole practice of stage hypnotism.

 

[JonWhite]

Uri Gellar was a guest on the BBC1 conversational late night politics programme "This Week" last Thursday. He was there to talk about cheating, the topic being included particularly after the Renault Formula 1 team's deliberate crash.

He is still churning out the same BS. Although now calling himself an entertainer rather than psychic, he still maintains that his tricks are achieved by using genuine mind power. Amongst several laughable statements he talked about all publicity being good publicity - though most here are aware of how vehemently he tried to get all the YouToob videos of his blatant deceptions pulled. He even brought up how sometimes people are thought to be cheating when they're really not, as an example using the Israeli show where he clearly used a certain magnetic magic prop to influence a compass needle whilst claiming (and still claiming) to have made it move using just the "power" of his mind!

Whilst Derren Brown may tread a very blurry line during his shows between fact and (magic) fiction, outside performance I have never seen him state or read anything by him that claims anything even remotely equivalent to Uri's crap. Quite the opposite.

 

[Moochie]

No dude, it's just a trick.

But thank you for helping to prove my point.

I don't see that you have proven anything.


M.

 

[Moochie]

Oh, so that makes it not boring that he does a trick that essentially involves him spouting a load of crap while he shows you a video of him doing what doesn't even amount to a trick, just a staged 'sketch'?

Another problem is that a lot of people believe a lot of stuff is possible that isn't. The fact that you are on this boards suggests you know this to be the case. Given that, his 'preface' is meaningless, because some people will believe that that sort of hypnotic suggestion to a random stranger is possible, and he does not suggest otherwise. I'm not sure how clear I'm being here

And looks like I have to point it out a second time, it means you cannot believe a single word that comes out of his mouth, which makes his debunking of things in the same show useless, because while he is preaching to the converted for the majority of people on here, other people who might believe in what he debunks can ignore his debunking because you can't take anything he says to be real. If that entertains you then fine. It doesn't entertain me, and I also think I have provided a reasonable argument as him possibly encouraging or reinforcing 'woo' in the same way as someone like Uri Gellar...

And why did he need to do his lottery trick, which btw I fail to see how it could have been anything but a tech-based trick (snore), and then do a whole show where he bs'ed about how he did it? So his preface again excuses a tv show that is 100% made up nonsense that isn't even interesting?

Everything I say is a lie.


M.

 

[Moochie]

It's clear to me that some people cannot stand any degree of ambiguity.

Take Uri Geller (Please!), I've been aware of him practically since he began his "career," yet I always figured he was doing some kind of trick with his spoon bending. Why? Because of the sheer mundaneness of it. I mean, come on, bending spoons is the height of his phenomenal "power"?

I haven't read Mr. Randi's book exposing Geller. I figured Mr. Randi had hit on a good profession of his own -- debunking magicians who never leave the stage -- and that's not a bad thing. I certainly see the likes of Browne and Edward as a class below Geller. At least Geller never told anyone their dead child was alive, or that I'm aware of. As with Geller, I see that Browne, Edward, Van Praagh et al are managing to fool some people, but I find it far easier to forgive Geller than the others because of the needless harm the others do.

Derren Brown, on the other hand, plays in the same playground as all of the abovementioned people, while calling attention to the fact that they are all tricksters -- magicians -- and people in general would do well to do a little figuring of their own.

After all, the "gray matter" that allows one to believe in the unbelievable, is the same gray matter that can debunk the likes of the actual charlatans out there.


M.

 

[MikeSun5]

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.

So you're looking for new arguments in defense of Derren Brown? Why don't you come up with some new arguments against him? How come your "stock Derren offense" isn't getting old?

The reason there is a "stock 'Derren defense'" is because it's true, effective, and the only defense needed.

Derren Brown is an entertainer. Ignore that all you want, it's a fact. Pay attention:

When he is in front of a camera (even when he's "debunking" something) - when he's wearing a fancy vest or coat and has his makeup done - he is not a person. He is an actor playing a character. He doesn't appear on TV out of character. His "debunking" isn't even real debunking! It's part of a damn magic show on television!! He knows that most people don't believe in psychics, so that gets a bunch of that audience on his side as well as some curious woo believers. It's simply good marketing. If he said he was an actual psychic, I probably never would have watched. The fact he came from a different angle (psychological stuff) was what got me interested. Then I watched him, saw what he was doing, and I realized he was tricking me. Because he's a magician, and that's what magicians do.

If you don't like him, you don't like him. Just don't get bummed that he's tricking people. Because that's his job.

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.

Your points have been addressed and destroyed many times over. Being oblivious to that doesn't make it any less so. The Derren Brown you see on TV is a character. He's not real. You (or anyone else) believing what he says to be scientific fact is lazy, unfortunate, and not his fault.

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.

It's not pointless. It gets viewers to watch his show that wouldn't otherwise watch it. Like you said, a lot of people like him for that. You think he's boring and dishonest and you hardly watch TV, yet you tuned in anyway. Wow. He got you again. Sounds to me like you're sick of being tricked by the man.

Also, how is is different from Uri Gellar then?

Is is different because Derren Brown doesn't adamantly claim he's got paranormal powers and prey on superstitious and religious cultures/countries for money.

Is is different because Derren Brown doesn't go on talk shows and chastise governments for not spending enough on psychic research.

Is is different because Derren Brown doesn't sell crap like this.

Derren sells paintings and books on magic. Uri sells crystals and books on prophecy. Derren says he's a showman. Uri says he helps governments and companies find oil and minerals. Still don't see the difference?

 

[Tapio]

When he is in front of a camera (even when he's "debunking" something) - when he's wearing a fancy vest or coat and has his makeup done - he is not a person. He is an actor playing a character. He doesn't appear on TV out of character. His "debunking" isn't even real debunking! It's part of a damn magic show on television!!

Good post, Mike! I'm curious about your opinion on something. How much do you feel the above to applies to his books as well (especially the debated Tricks of the Mind)? Do you feel they are also just a part of his act, or do you feel (as I in some ways do) that Derren is flashing some of 'the real him' through those works? Or something in between?

 

[psychictv]

Wow, I've been going back and watching a lot of the shows I haven't seen and Trick of the Mind season 2, episode 1, is a brilliant one. Almost every trick in the show uses the same method and it's quite amusing even if you know what he's doing. That's not something that can be said for Gellar IMO.

 

[MikeSun5]

How much do you feel the above to applies to his books as well (especially the debated Tricks of the Mind)? Do you feel they are also just a part of his act, or do you feel (as I in some ways do) that Derren is flashing some of 'the real him' through those works? Or something in between?

I own Pure Effect and Absolute Magic, but I've only read about half of Tricks of the Mind. From what I've read from Derren, the books only try to educate on perfecting magic tricks and performance art. They don't really come out in favor (or against) things like NLP or hypnosis. The things that have been quoted from his books in this thread are pretty much what he says on TV... so to answer your question: I think in the first 2 books, there was kind of a behind-the-scenes feel, but Tricks of the Mind seemed to be more consistent with his on-screen persona.

I think the reason for that is because his first two books were written FOR magicians, mentalists, performers, etc. The third was more geared towards the public. He's intentionally vague in describing the methods of his tricks because 1.) if you study magic, you'll know the method already, and 2.) if his tricks can be replicated and shown by that a-hole Masked Magician on FOX, they'd be far less mysterious (and controversial).

 

[Tapio]

Thanks, Mike! Appreciate your answer.

What about the stuff in Tricks of the Mind where he seems to be telling about his personal life (his religious background, his worries on public appearance, the whole chapter on critical thinking and pseudoscience etc.)? Do you think it's all a scam, a trick to make the book simply seem to be more 'personal', in order to make it more appealing to a larger audience?

I'm just asking because I don't know what half of the book you've read .

 

[vaguely]

Being a magician myself, I think that the disclaimer is true.

You don't need to be a magician, you just need to know how the UK tabloid press works. If there were stooges one of the tabs would have rooted some out by now and paid them off nicely to tell all (especially given the mixed reception the current series has had). The tabs love nothing more that cutting a tall poppy down.

And all of the magicians posting here seem to think that they are also totally unnecessary.

 

[JFrankA]

Being a magician myself, I think that the disclaimer is true.

You don't need to be a magician, you just need to know how the UK tabloid press works. If there were stooges one of the tabs would have rooted some out by now and paid them off nicely to tell all (especially given the mixed reception the current series has had). The tabs love nothing more that cutting a tall poppy down.

You're right of course, I agree with you here. And I know I've used that statement in this thread, so my apologies if I had sounded elitist. That wasn't my intention.

And all of the magicians posting here seem to think that they are also totally unnecessary.

I disagree with you on this one. I feel that the disclaimers are needed. Even though it's a show, a performance, it doesn't hurt to remind people of that, or remind them that there are no stooges or camera tricks, etc that most people would think on how it's done.

But from what I see, it's the audience that are the ones who a) think the disclaimers are unnecessary, or b) don't believe them anyway, or c) don't even pay attention, or d) all of the above.

 

[Matthew Best]

I disagree with you on this one. I feel that the disclaimers are needed. Even though it's a show, a performance, it doesn't hurt to remind people of that, or remind them that there are no stooges or camera tricks, etc that most people would think on how it's done.

But from what I see, it's the audience that are the ones who a) think the disclaimers are unnecessary, or b) don't believe them anyway, or c) don't even pay attention, or d) all of the above.

I think vaguely was saying that stooges are unnecessary, not that the disclaimers are unnecessary.

 

[JFrankA]

I think vaguely was saying that stooges are unnecessary, not that the disclaimers are unnecessary.

Oh. Oops. Sorry.

I agree with you there, then too...

 

[vaguely]

Correct! (My bad - could have been more clearly written)