Derren Brown's screaming stooges

[John Albert]

I have, as yet, seen no evidence that she was in on it unless, again, you're going to say the same of everybody in any hypnotism show. Which you seem to agree you are.

As I said: not in all cases necessarily, but in many (perhaps even most) cases, yes. Though I guess "instant stooges" would actually be a more appropriate term.

I would really enjoy doing some research into this question, but the stage hypnotist who initially agreed to work with me on the project suddenly backed out of the deal once I made it clear he was going to have to actually support his claims with evidence.

So, then, if the same is true of anybody from any profession in any hypnotism show, how is her being an actress evidence that she's a stooge? Surely she could have any job and still fit the description of being "in on the trick" that's being employed here?

Because what she's doing is an especially nuanced act that would require an actress to perform convincingly.

I would "admit" it, if I were to see evidence for it. I've certainly had no problem in the past of saying when he's done crap tricks, or when I've worked out his methods and think that they were crap. I just need evidence that what he's done is crap before I'll say it is. With this particular trick I've not seen any.

All one needs to do is look where he sources his "hypnotism" subjects from. Soliciting and screening applicants from the ranks of amateur actors yearning to appear on TV will yield a lot of prime candidates to play along with just about any situation.

 

[John Albert]

You hear that wooshing sound? That was my point going over your head.

I didn't hear any whoosh. Maybe it was the sound of my sarcasm going over your head.

Prove it.

Maybe you missed the part where I said this:

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.

In the absence of evidence either way, I see it as a case of choosing the most reasonable explanation among a number of possibilities.

Based only on the facts we already know for certain about the situation, the professional actress acting the part for the TV show appears to be the most reasonable explanation.

Perhaps you can offer a more reasonable alternative explanation?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because what she's doing is an especially nuanced act that would require an actress to perform convincingly.

That's begging the question, rather. The evidence that she's acting relies on the assumption that she's acting.

All one needs to do is look where he sources his "hypnotism" subjects from. Soliciting and screening applicants from the ranks of amateur actors yearning to appear on TV will yield a lot of prime candidates to play along with just about any situation.

I suspect that we're just going to disagree on the definition of "stooge" again. I will continue to use the definition which requires the person in question being employed with foreknowledge of the trick and, as such, what you're saying does not imply stooges to me.

And do you know of any other subjects of his who he has sourced from the ranks of amateur actors? Because the way you phrased that makes it sound as if you do. If not, doesn't one actor in 8 years suggest that he doesn't generally source his subjects from those ranks?

 

[Sledge]

Based only on the facts we already know for certain about the situation, the professional actress acting the part for the TV show appears to be the most reasonable explanation.

The most reasonable explanation is the one for which there is no proof. Are you being sarcastic when you call yourself a skeptic?

 

[John Albert]

That's begging the question, rather. The evidence that she's acting relies on the assumption that she's acting.

Quite a reasonable assumption, in my opinion, considering she's a professional actress appearing on a television show.

I suspect that we're just going to disagree on the definition of "stooge" again. I will continue to use the definition which requires the person in question being employed with foreknowledge of the trick and, as such, what you're saying does not imply stooges to me.

Then by your definition, "instant stooging" does not technically employ stooges?

And do you know of any other subjects of his who he has sourced from the ranks of amateur actors? Because the way you phrased that makes it sound as if you do. If not, doesn't one actor in 8 years suggest that he doesn't generally source his subjects from those ranks?

The audience for The Experiments: The Assassin were sourced that way. He said so in the introduction to that program.

The BBC investigation into Objective Productions (into the allegations that they employed stooges for their show The Real Hustle) also revealed the production company's methods for recruiting talent for "reality"-type programming.

 

[AdMan]

In the absence of evidence either way, I see it as a case of choosing the most reasonable explanation among a number of possibilities.

Based only on the facts we already know for certain about the situation, the professional actress acting the part for the TV show appears to be the most reasonable explanation.

Perhaps you can offer a more reasonable alternative explanation?

Did you see this post?

The one piece of circumstantial evidence I've seen discussed ad nauseam in the other thread is the fact that one of the spectators who was "hypnotized" in one of Derren's shows turned out to be an actress who afterwards listed that appearance on her IMDB profile for a while.

I think that is far from conclusive regarding Derren's use of stooges, as the word is usually defined.

I recently watched one of the talks from a past Essential Magic Conference (an "online convention" for magicians) discussing a TV pilot shot a few years back for UK TV. This was a mentalism show which utilized some fake hypnotism, and the speaker said that no stooges had been used. He did say, however, that the audience had been carefully selected, and that they had invited members of the local acting group, because it was thought they would be able to provide the desired responses.

We know Derren carefully selects his audience members, and it's not a stretch to think that he would also invite actors, who might be more able to deliver the desired "peformance". If an aspiring actor is lucky enough to get selected and make it into a famous performer's show, it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect him or her to list this in their CV, even if they hadn't actually been hired to perform. The fact that she later dropped the reference may mean she wasn't actually hired at all.

Whether you consider such a person to be a "stooge" or just someone who is good at pretending (and chosen for that reason) depends on your definition.

I just think it's a part of a professional magic and mentalism performance. Nothing to get too excited about.

By the way, the speaker who I mentioned in the post above was David Britland. Check out his bio in the link.

 

[Azrael 5]

*snip*

And do you know of any other subjects of his who he has sourced from the ranks of amateur actors? Because the way you phrased that makes it sound as if you do. If not, doesn't one actor in 8 years suggest that he doesn't generally source his subjects from those ranks?

JA makes lots of claims he cant substantiate. Many in the long "Derren Brown experiment " thread.Where he makes more accusation of stooges seperate to the one discussed here.

 

[John Albert]

The most reasonable explanation is the one for which there is no proof. Are you being sarcastic when you call yourself a skeptic?

"Proof"? No.

Evidence, yes.

Are you unaware of the difference between proof and evidence?

My hypothesis that she's a professional actress acting a part on a TV show is fairly consistent with the evidence at hand.

What exactly was your alternate hypothesis, by the way? I don't believe I remember you offering one.

 

[Azrael 5]

The audience for The Experiments: The Assassin were sourced that way. He said so in the introduction to that program.

Lie. ""...a bunch of people who applied to take part in my show"
1:45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl-9-7WrOIo

The BBC investigation into Objective Productions (into the allegations that they employed stooges for their show The Real Hustle) also revealed the production company's methods for recruiting talent for "reality"-type programming.

Wasnt this debunked in the other thread ? I think so.

 

[John Albert]

Did you see this post?

No, I have to admit I missed that one.

Regardless, we already went over the debate of the definition of "stooges" in that other thread about The Experiments.

By the way, the speaker who I mentioned in the post above was David Britland. Check out his bio in the link.

I guess my definition of "stooge" just differs from his.

If this particular mentalist's definition of "stooges" excludes employing actors in his performance without the audience's knowledge that they're actors, then I'd argue that his definition has been stretched almost to the point of meaninglessness. If Derren Brown's definition is the same, (and it certainly appears to be, or else he's a flat-out liar) then his claim not to use stooges is similarly misleading.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Quite a reasonable assumption, in my opinion, considering she's a professional actress appearing on a television show.

But it's still begging the question if your assumption is also the evidence on which you're basing that assumption. And, therefore, it is not actually evidence which supports that assumption.

Then by your definition, "instant stooging" does not technically employ stooges?

Instant stooging is different from employing stooges. But instant stooging still requires the stooge to be explicitly in on the trick. Such as the performer whispering in their ear, or revealing something written on a prop or their body which cued the audience member in to what was required of them.

The audience for The Experiments: The Assassin were sourced that way. He said so in the introduction to that program.

I've just re-watched the first 15 minutes, and no he doesn't. One of the volunteers says that he works in IT.

The BBC investigation into Objective Productions (into the allegations that they employed stooges for their show The Real Hustle) also revealed the production company's methods for recruiting talent for "reality"-type programming.

What I can find: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13627677

In its report, The Trust said people had been recruited to take part in the show through websites "popular with people keen to appear on television".

Which just seems sensible, when you're looking for people to appear on television. What it's not is the same thing as recruiting people from the ranks of amateur actors.

 

[Sledge]

"Proof"? No.

Evidence, yes.

Are you unaware of the difference between proof and evidence?

My hypothesis that she's a professional actress acting a part on a TV show is fairly consistent with the evidence at hand.

What exactly was your alternate hypothesis, by the way? I don't believe I remember you offering one.

So we agree there is no proof for your claim. Then why are you continuing with it?

 

[John Albert]

So we agree there is no proof for your claim. Then why are you continuing with it?

You seem confused as to the difference between evidence and proof. The distinction between the two is a pretty fundamental concept in scientific skepticism. I recommend you read this, and then reconsider your question.

My "claim" is simply an educated guess, determined through the examination of evidence. As far as I've seen, it's the most reasonable hypothesis that best fits the evidence at hand. If you have a better one, then let's hear it.

 

[John Albert]

But it's still begging the question if your assumption is also the evidence on which you're basing that assumption. And, therefore, it is not actually evidence which supports that assumption.

The assumption is not the evidence. You're making a false accusation of circular logic, while completely ignoring the actual evidence:

• Magda Rodriguez is a professional actress and member of the UK Actors Union.

• Magda Rodriguez appeared on a professional television production, broadcast nationally in Britain.

• The TV show is a magic show that features a well-known mentalist who frequently uses hypnotism in his act.

• Hypnotism is a popular meme that is widely believed to exhibit certain visual hallmarks, like an unnatural, robotic posture and a fixed, thousand-yard stare.

• Real hypnotism does not exhibit such effects.

• On that TV show, the actress was depicted behaving strangely, in the manner popularly associated with hypnosis, performing activities of a fantastic nature (visibly reacting to mistreatment of a voodoo doll on command from the magician).

• On that TV show, the fact that Magda Rodriguez is an actress was withheld from the viewing audience.

Now, due to the fantastic nature of the situation, it seems unlikely that her behavior was genuine. Given the fact that she's a professional actress, it's far more likely that her behavior was part of a theatrical performance for the purpose of contributing to the TV show, and that her identity as an actress was withheld in order to make the performance appear real.

Are you arguing that that hypothesis is unreasonable, or that it contradicts the evidence?

Do you have an alternate hypothesis to offer instead, that better fits the evidence?

Instant stooging is different from employing stooges. But instant stooging still requires the stooge to be explicitly in on the trick. Such as the performer whispering in their ear, or revealing something written on a prop or their body which cued the audience member in to what was required of them.

But not "prior knowledge," as you alleged before?

Could not the familiar routine of "hypnotic induction" serve as such a cue, or the self-awareness that she's a professional actress on the set of the TV show of a famous stage hypnotist, who is visibly mangling a voodoo doll right in front of her?

I've just re-watched the first 15 minutes, and no he doesn't. One of the volunteers says that he works in IT.

I'm not saying they're all professional actors, but that they have been sourced from a pool of applicants "who applied to take part in [Derren Brown's] show," as Derren Brown himself states in his introduction.

Which just seems sensible, when you're looking for people to appear on television. What it's not is the same thing as recruiting people from the ranks of amateur actors.

I never said it wasn't sensible. I said it sets up a situation whereby the participants can be screened for their willingness to play along and put on a good show, and where they're encouraged to play along in the hopes of appearing on television.

And yeah, a good proportion of the applicants most likely are amateur actors, ie: "people keen to appear on television," as stated in the BBC investigation report.

 

[Matthew Best]

And yeah, a good proportion of the applicants most likely are amateur actors, ie: "people keen to appear on television," as stated in the BBC investigation report.

Evidence?

I think it's probably more likely that the majority of people who apply to appear on television shows, just like the idea of appearing on a television show that they enjoy watching.

 

[Stray Cat]

In DB's defence (sort of);

When I went along to the filming of one of the segments for one of his TV shows (and outside location), I certainly wasn't 'screened' in any way. I'm fairly sure that if Derren had known I was a magician, he wouldn't have picked me from the 30 or so people who turned up to watch and join in. But here's the bit where most of the magic happens; The trick he did with me and two other people ended up on the cutting room floor. He filmed the same trick twice in the same place, with two different groups of people. And I can only guess that as the trick when seen live was not the same as the trick when seen on TV (he performed it particularly badly) my reaction certainly wasn't one of amazement* (and I wasn't going to 'pretend' otherwise just to be on telly) so that would certainly have helped Objective to decide which take they were going to use. As far as I know, no one was 'screened'. A public notice was put up and people were just asked to turn up.

* I'll point out I didn't say "well that was a bit crap, I saw how you did it" or anything. I just wasn't all "Oooooo that was amazing!!! wow, he's got speshul powerz"

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The assumption is not the evidence.

It's what you offered up as evidence:

So, then, if the same is true of anybody from any profession in any hypnotism show, how is her being an actress evidence that she's a stooge? Surely she could have any job and still fit the description of being "in on the trick" that's being employed here?

Because what she's doing is an especially nuanced act that would require an actress to perform convincingly.

That's begging the question, rather. The evidence that she's acting relies on the assumption that she's acting.

Quite a reasonable assumption, in my opinion, considering she's a professional actress appearing on a television show.

The evidence you gave that she was acting relied on the assumption that she was acting. When challenged, you clarified that it was an assumption, but a reasonable one.

You can say that you misspoke when answering the original question, but you cannot say that I was falsely accusing you of circular logic, because you did present an example of circular logic.

Now, due to the fantastic nature of the situation, it seems unlikely that her behavior was genuine. Given the fact that she's a professional actress, it's far more likely that her behavior was part of a theatrical performance for the purpose of contributing to the TV show, and that her identity as an actress was withheld in order to make the performance appear real.

Are you arguing that that hypothesis is unreasonable, or that it contradicts the evidence?

I think we're just going to disagree yet again on the definition of "stooge". I'm also still failing to see how her being an actress is at all relevant to this hypothesis. Remove all of the stuff about her being an actress and I'd still agree with the hypothesis, while still disagreeing that that made her a stooge.

But not "prior knowledge," as you alleged before?

I did not allege that an instant stooge required prior knowledge, I said that a stooge did. When questioned, I clarified that the two things are not the same.

I'm not saying they're all professional actors[...]

No, what you said was:

All one needs to do is look where he sources his "hypnotism" subjects from. Soliciting and screening applicants from the ranks of amateur actors yearning to appear on TV will yield a lot of prime candidates to play along with just about any situation.

And:

The audience for The Experiments: The Assassin were sourced that way. He said so in the introduction to that program.

Are you now agreeing that these two statements were wrong and that Brown does not, in fact, source his subjects "from the ranks of amateur actors", and further that he said that in the introduction to The Experiments: The Assassin?

[...], but that they have been sourced from a pool of applicants "who applied to take part in [Derren Brown's] show," as Derren Brown himself states in his introduction.

Once again, I can't see how it's damning to have people who applied to be on a television programme on a television programme. Is he supposed to fill the audience with people who'd rather not be there?

I never said it wasn't sensible. I said it sets up a situation whereby the participants can be screened for their willingness to play along and put on a good show, and where they're encouraged to play along in the hopes of appearing on television.

Well, yes. This is different from employing stooges.

And yeah, a good proportion of the applicants most likely are amateur actors, ie: "people keen to appear on television," as stated in the BBC investigation report.

You're conflating two completely different things there, and then engaging in conjecture.

 

[Azrael 5]

Why should her occupation have been revealed to the tv viewers?Is it relevant? Derrenn has stated numerous times he doesnt use stooges therefore she wasnt one and no revealing need be done.
Her occupation is irrelevant the trick required suggestion/hypnosis and some dual reality.Plus a particular bit of magic prop.
Jeez you think shes a stooge you should see what randomly selected punters do in his stage show! Makes "Vudu" doll effect look amateur.

 

[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. At the beginning of the show there is the usual disclaimer about not using stooges...

Sure they weren't

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

...sure, I'll take you up on your offer of a bet...

Good for you. I'm not as big a spender as you, so let's keep the stakes to just 100 British Pounds.

Now, the magic doll routine is taken from Derren Brown's "Trick of the Mind" show (Season 1, Episode 4). You're correct that the beginning of the show issues the usual (bogus) disclaimer about not using stooges. However, what you overlooked, and what has now cost you 100 pounds, is that he also declares that no ACTORS are used.

The exact words spoken by Derren Brown are:

"AT NO POINT [verbal emphasis Brown's] are actors or stooges used in this show".

So, as I said, he did tell viewers no actors were used, notwithstanding the fact the lady in the doll routine is (it has now come to light) an actor. Simple as that.

Now pay up. TIA.

 

[lane99]

Oh, and btw...

...I'll bet you any amount of money you like, from a minimum of £10 upwards, that this video does not contain the word "actress" and nor does it make any reference to the "young woman"'s profession...

Thanks, but I'll pass. One bet a day is enough for me. Besides, no one cares whether the clip you linked contains, specifically, the word "actress".

Nice try, though. I guess.