Derren Brown's screaming stooges

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm glad you are a critical thinker. perhaps you could think critically about this. for a hypnotism skeptic, such as yourself, NOTHING will ever change your view of hypnotism, so any hypnotism thread is a waste of time. EXCEPT, being hypnotized yourself, however, not everyone can be, so, you may never know, goodbye.

Empirical, peer-reviewed evidence of the effectiveness of hypnotism as an anaesthetic would be something which could get me to become convinced of the effectiveness of hypnotism as an anaesthetic. As it is, I'm not sure about hypnotism either way, so I'm always open to proper scientific evidence concerning it, whichever way that evidence points. I have nothing invested in it being genuine or otherwise, so have no bias.

If there is any scientific evidence you are aware of, I'd genuinely appreciate it if you provided it.

 

[3point14]

I think you are referring to me, although I did not say I was an expert on hypnosis. I only said that I had practised hypnosis a long time ago. But I guess that I am an expert compared to all those who seem to know nothing about it ...

I did not effectively say that DB must be cheating because I can't do that, but because I have never heard about people who can bring untrained patients into deep trance with that speed. If DB had hypnosis sessions with the would-be hero it is very likely that he could do that, but this was not shown in the show, so if the subject was prepared like that, he would effectively fall under the concept of "stooge".

It is interesting how Occam's razor is not permitted to be used in a TV show like this where so much is evidence that DB has transgressed his own ethical standards, whereas in other situations skeptics gladly wield Occam's Razor to arrive at the simplest conclusion.

No, my apologies, I can see how you gained that impression. those comments were in reference to the OP and not to yourself. My apologies.

In reference to your points, I haven't seen any evidence beyond arguments from incredulity that stooges are involved. I have no doubt that there's all sorts of other shenanigans involved, it's a magic act, after all, but I haven't seen any evidence that a stooge was employed at all.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

to be fair, there are a lot of peer reviewed journal articles on the use of hypnosis in dentistry. To pick one example:

When pharmacologic anesthesia is precluded: the value of hypnosis as a sole anesthetic agent in dentistry
Author(s): Kleinhauz M., Eli I.
Citation: Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry, January 1993, vol./is. 13/1(15-18), 0275-1879 (1993 Jan-Feb)
Publication Date: January 1993

That's interesting, thank you.

It should be noted that I didn't say there weren't such articles, I said that my searching didn't turn up any and I asked silver birch if he knew of any.

 

[steenkh]

No, my apologies, I can see how you gained that impression. those comments were in reference to the OP and not to yourself. My apologies.

In reference to your points, I haven't seen any evidence beyond arguments from incredulity that stooges are involved. I have no doubt that there's all sorts of other shenanigans involved, it's a magic act, after all, but I haven't seen any evidence that a stooge was employed at all.

Fair enough.

It is really a question if one trusts Derren Browns word that he is using another trick than the most obvious. Some trust him, and others do not. If it had been a faith healer, we would all mistrust him. DB is more sincere, and is freely acknowledging that he is using tricks. If he is using another kind of trick than using a stooge, or cutting the scenes out where his tricks fail, I just wish it did not look so much as if he is using a stooge, or cutting. After all, I watch magic shows because I like being fooled, but just not in that way.

 

[3point14]

Fair enough.

It is really a question if one trusts Derren Browns word that he is using another trick than the most obvious. Some trust him, and others do not. If it had been a faith healer, we would all mistrust him. DB is more sincere, and is freely acknowledging that he is using tricks. If he is using another kind of trick than using a stooge, or cutting the scenes out where his tricks fail, I just wish it did not look so much as if he is using a stooge, or cutting. After all, I watch magic shows because I like being fooled, but just not in that way.

As I understand it, the evidence for stooging is as follows:

1 - An actress appeared on his show and later put that as a credit oin IMDB

2 - People can't figure out any other way to do it.


For me that's not enough. I'm happy to accept that I've missed some evidence somewhere.

And the Occums razor part for me is: "If he uses and has used stooges, why have they not come forwards? They could make a very, very large sum of money for doing so"

 

[steenkh]

to be fair, there are a lot of peer reviewed journal articles on the use of hypnosis in dentistry. To pick one example:

When pharmacologic anesthesia is precluded: the value of hypnosis as a sole anesthetic agent in dentistry
Author(s): Kleinhauz M., Eli I.
Citation: Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry, January 1993, vol./is. 13/1(15-18), 0275-1879 (1993 Jan-Feb)
Publication Date: January 1993

It certainly looks interesting. With pain being very subjective feeling, it is very likely that hypnosis could be used to suppress pain. However, as far as I know, people are susceptible to hypnosis in varying degrees, and some cannot be hypnotised at all. How long will the dentist work with his patient before he gives up the attempt?

And again, as far as I know, people also react differently to hypnosis, so I could imagine that even while under hypnosis not everybody would be able to suppress the feeling of pain. How does the dentist test that?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It certainly looks interesting. With pain being very subjective feeling, it is very likely that hypnosis could be used to suppress pain. However, as far as I know, people are susceptible to hypnosis in varying degrees, and some cannot be hypnotised at all. How long will the dentist work with his patient before he gives up the attempt?

And again, as far as I know, people also react differently to hypnosis, so I could imagine that even while under hypnosis not everybody would be able to suppress the feeling of pain. How does the dentist test that?

I'd say that a more salient question is what kind of control was there? Is hypnosis a better anaesthetic than a placebo is?

 

[3point14]

I'd say that a more salient question is what kind of control was there? Is hypnosis a better anaesthetic than a placebo is?

There are those that would argue that Hypnosis is placebo writ large.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There are those that would argue that Hypnosis is placebo writ large.

Well, exactly. This is what I want to see evidence addressing. Perhaps the paper does address it, but I can't access more than the abstract.

 

[Stray Cat]

And again, as far as I know, people also react differently to hypnosis, so I could imagine that even while under hypnosis not everybody would be able to suppress the feeling of pain. How does the dentist test that?

Not only that, but I'm sure the dentist wouldn't appreciate his patient clucking like a chicken and flapping his arms about whilst in the chair... not to mention the breath the dentist would have to suffer after his patient had finished eating the raw onion.

 

[lane99]

...You'd need to prove that the actress concerned was specifically primed in some way beforehand in some way other than the general audience. I've seen no evidence at all for that...

You understand, do you, the "general audience" was told that the participant in the routine was NOT an actor, even though she WAS an actor?

If you don't consider that cheating, that's your business. But most people would.

...I'm happy to accept that I've missed some evidence somewhere....

Yes. And fair enough.

...And the Occums razor part for me is: "If he uses and has used stooges, why have they not come forwards? They could make a very, very large sum of money for doing so"

For the moment, let's overlook the irony of you asking "why has someone not come forward" when someone already has. Even apart from that, you've misconstrued and misapplied Occam's razor, on a number of levels.

For example, from where have you pulled the claim that a "very, very large sum of money" awaits stooges who come forward?

I have to wonder if you know anything at all about how magic and mentalism shows are produced? It is fairly standard for those participating in such shows to sign confidentiality and secrecy agreements. And someone breaking such an agreement stands to LOSE money, not make it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You understand, do you, the "general audience" was told that the participant in the routine was NOT an actor, even though she WAS an actor?

No, they weren't. At the beginning of the show there is the usual disclaimer about not using stooges. The introduction to the trick itself is as follows:

"We all get stuck in our belief systems, however sensible we think they are. To me the New Age community is particularly guilty of not testing or challenging what it claims. And it was with this in mind that I invited a young woman to Epping forest."

He then proceeds to talk to her about her beliefs. Her job is not mentioned once in any capacity, either in the programme as a whole, or in the specific trick which involved her.

For the moment, let's overlook the irony of you asking "why has someone not come forward" when someone already has.

Have they? Can you link to where this person has "come forward" and quote the statement they made?

 

[Azrael 5]

lane99 and John Albert were vocal in previous thread about the "actress". "Hes been busted" "Caught using actors" etc. Seen no evidence of any busting anywhere.

Should Derren rule out participants based on their career? "Cant use you your an accountant" "ah sorry your a Doctor you wont do".
Im not sure that a persons occupation is relevant to them appearing on TV.
Consider this. If that particualr routine required a stooge,why bother hiring an actress? Just use someone from the production company, no risk of anyone "Busting" Derren then.

 

[3point14]

You understand, do you, the "general audience" was told that the participant in the routine was NOT an actor, even though she WAS an actor?

If you don't consider that cheating, that's your business. But most people would.




Yes. And fair enough.



For the moment, let's overlook the irony of you asking "why has someone not come forward" when someone already has. Even apart from that, you've misconstrued and misapplied Occam's razor, on a number of levels.

For example, from where have you pulled the claim that a "very, very large sum of money" awaits stooges who come forward?

I have to wonder if you know anything at all about how magic and mentalism shows are produced? It is fairly standard for those participating in such shows to sign confidentiality and secrecy agreements. And someone breaking such an agreement stands to LOSE money, not make it.

As has been said, please show me this person who has come forwards. Where are the statements?

 

[lane99]

You understand, do you, the "general audience" was told that the participant in the routine was NOT an actor, even though she WAS an actor?...

No, they weren't...

Sure they weren't

Care to put your money where you mouth is?...

...No, I didn't think so.

 

[John Albert]

That's kind of what "not using stooges" means isn't it? That the participants aren't actors?

He was caught using a lesser-known professional actress for a stunt that required special acting ability. Saying "no stooges are used," and then employing an actress for a trick that requires acting ability "without mentioning her profession" is kind of disingenuous, isn't it? It's kind of like employing a professional stuntman for a trick in which he purportedly hypnotizes a person to do something risky and dangerous.

The actress knows he's a magician, and the whole thing is being shot for the purpose of airing it on television (in case she didn't know, being surrounded by TV cameras, cameramen, lighting technicians, and sound technicians holding a boom mic over her head would be a dead giveaway, BTW). Being an actress, she knows how to take cues on how to behave. The magician stood in front of her with a voodoo doll and wrapped a rope around its neck. Being a professional actress, how would you expect her to behave in that environment under those circumstances? There you have the trick. How much more obvious do you need it to be? Do you really need to examine a signed contract between Magda Rodriguez and Objective Productions to realize what's going on there?

I think it's not too much of a stretch to say that Derren Brown uses stooges. Once you start having to make wild assumptions about what he means when he says he doesn't use them, or get into nitpicking over the definition of "stooges," then you pretty much know he's pulling your leg.

Good luck finding objective evidence to actually prove it to somebody who's totally unwilling to believe it, though. Some people prefer to maintain the suspension of disbelief, and that's fine too.

The whole argument is kind of silly, after all, when you really think about it. Who cares if a stage magician uses stooges and then lies about it? It's kind of like getting all worked up over an athlete juicing to increase his performance. We all know it happens. It's just one of those disappointing realities that you can either ignore and deny, or just accept and learn to live with.

 

[Sledge]

That's kind of what "not using stooges" means isn't it? That the participants aren't actors?

No. It means that you don't have a person who is briefed on what to do to make the trick work. In the example you keep harping on about, you need to prove that the person involved was in on the trick, not just that she was an actor. Do you understand?

 

[John Albert]

No. It means that you don't have a person who is briefed on what to do to make the trick work. In the example you keep harping on about, you need to prove that the person involved was in on the trick, not just that she was an actor. Do you understand?

"Harping"?!?



Nice try, but no cigar with the appeal to ridicule there.

Under the circumstances, it's totally unnecessary to "brief" a professional actor about what to do. That's why employing a professional actor in a case like that is tantamount to "instant stooging."

As I just said in my last post:

The actress knows he's a magician, and the whole thing is being shot for the purpose of airing it on television (in case she didn't know, being surrounded by TV cameras, cameramen, lighting technicians, and sound technicians holding a boom mic over her head would be a dead giveaway, BTW). Being an actress, she knows how to take cues on how to behave. The magician stood in front of her with a voodoo doll and wrapped a rope around its neck. Being a professional actress, how would you expect her to behave in that environment under those circumstances? There you have the trick. How much more obvious do you need it to be?

Identifying her as an actress would have destroyed the illusion, so that's why he didn't do it. Keeping that a secret from the audience while she obviously had a full understanding of how to pull off the act is, in my opinion, essentially the same thing as using a stooge. To deny it is really splitting hairs over the technical definition of a "stooge."

As I just said in my last post:

Once you start having to make wild assumptions about what he means when he says he doesn't use them, or get into nitpicking over the definition of "stooges," then you pretty much know he's pulling your leg.

 

[Sledge]

As I said:

No. It means that you don't have a person who is briefed on what to do to make the trick work. In the example you keep harping on about, you need to prove that the person involved was in on the trick, not just that she was an actor. Do you understand?

 

[John Albert]

Yes, I understand. She was indeed "in on the trick," in the sense that she knew exactly what kind of performance was expected of her, and she delivered that performance.

As I said: denying that is splitting hairs over the definition. You might want to be that generous towards Derren Brown (for whatever reason), but as a skeptic I have no such compulsion.

As I also said: some people prefer to maintain the suspension of disbelief, and that's fine too.