Derren Brown Seance - repeated tonight!

[tonyb]

Why do normally intelligent and skeptical people continue to believe in Hypnosis?

Hypnosis is a fraud. There are not altered states of conciousnous, and *no* way for suggestions to be buried in the subconcious that can be later recalled.

Well, I consider myself an intelligent and skeptical person, and I believe in hypnosis. No, not the "altered state of consciousness which gives special powers" version, but as a normal recognized cognitive ability based around imagination and suggestion.

I've actually studied hypnotherapy and have qualifications in the subject recognized in both the UK and USA, and utilise it in a professional capacity, so I believe I know something about the subject.

For you to say that hypnosis is a fraud just shows a lack of understanding about what actually happens. And I can assure you that it is possible to put a suggestion into the so-called subconsious mind that gets recalled later. There's nothing spooky or "woo-woo" about this, it's a psychological technique. It does require, though, a sufficiently receptive and suggestible person who is happy to go through the process.

Getting back to the seance, It is quite feasible that the girl in the cabinet did throw the tambourine out without consciously realising it. Of course, it *may* also have been a pre-recording of somebody else, I'm just saying that it's not an impossibility for it to be a post-hypnotic suggestion.

 

[Azrael 5]

All this is very well(I admit to not even considering this suggestion that it was pre recorded until it was mentioned-we didnt see the guy by the same method neither)but if the girl didnt throw the tambourine,why did she not see who did and why admit it was her in the cabinet? I must go re-watch it!

 

[DeVega]

Open Mind - thought you may be interested in

this snippet from the link posted by Azrael:

THE seance show wasn't about ''attacking anyone's beliefs: it was about seeing how the techniques used by fraudulent Victorian mediums would work with a modern audience. I presume no one is arguing that there weren't plenty of fraudulent methods practised in those days.

Personally, I have huge issues with people who dishonestly claim to be in touch with the dead yet who know very well the reality of what they're doing. I imagine most mediums would agree with me. In areas this important to people's lives, such a fraud should be thought about in the same way we would think of - a fraudulent doctor. It's despicable.

I have less of an issue with people who sincerely believe in what they're doing; though I would still be sceptical of their claims, and worry about people being encouraged to make life decisions based on what I would feel was false information.

However, I'm not interested in personal attacks or out-and-out debunking. I'd be happy, to just encourage a more questioning approach and one of intelligent open-mindedness: which is where you balance things such as false memory, suggestion and auto-hypnosis, cold-reading, language tricks and charlatanism with the' evidence in favour of the paranormal, in order to make a more informed decision about its veracity. I would hope that most spiritualists would agree with me there, too.
Derren Brown



I think he states his position very clearly...and it seems perfectly resonable towards spiritualists. At least, spiritualists who consider themselves genuine.

DeVega

 

[richardm]

An unseen third party?! Where exactly was he/she hiding? Why didnt the girl see them? How did he "duplicate" the girl? As you pointed out Derren would have to duplicate her size,posture,etc.
How likely is this?

I'd have thought that it would be possible to do it that way. Certainly I'd suggest that there was some jiggery-pokery firing the sheets of paper out of the top, because nobody could throw it that way by hand.

However, I think that there is no need to do it that way. These people were carefully hand-picked for being susceptible, and simply needed to have it suggested to them. It's the same basis as stage hypnosis. You don't have to believe the mechanism to see that it works, and neither does the person who is indisputably crawling around the stage pretending to be a dog (or knocking a tambourine onto the floor).

Peer pressure does the rest.

 

[pjh]

Getting back to the seance, It is quite feasible that the girl in the cabinet did throw the tambourine out without consciously realising it. Of course, it *may* also have been a pre-recording of somebody else, I'm just saying that it's not an impossibility for it to be a post-hypnotic suggestion.

Sorry, but in my opinion this it not even remotely possible!

So what you are saying is that the following is entirely plasible :

Hypnotist hypnotises subject - tells subject that when he says some trigger word she will throw something out of the curtain and then forget about doing it.

When asked about it afterward she genuinely has no recollection about doing it (She's not pretending or going along to please the hypnotist).

Could you suggest any form of scientific test that could prove this to an independent third party. Is there any scientific way to distiguish between the pretense (fantasy role playing ala Randi) and genuines post-hypnotic suggestion.

If such a test was possible, conductable and repeatable, and then the conduct of this test would make me believe you.

Until then, you may even be deluding yourself in your belief in hypnotism.

 

[pjh]

More for pjh to get all worked up about a quote from the show.

quote:When the glass moves on the ouija board to spell words and the person in the spirit cabinet throws the tambourine thinking they are possessed by spirits, it is actually my suggestions that have encouraged them into involuntary behaviour. This is common to a lot of mediums who genuinely think they are communing with the dead – I suppose this could be called unconscious fraud...

Derren is a magician, and in a straight magic show he uses an additonal layer of misdirection - misdirecting the audience as to how the trick is achieved. As I've posted before!!! I personally love this when he's doing a straight magic show - I just have a problem when he does the same double misdirection in these 'expose/skeptical' type shows rather than in his straight magic shows.

Is that me worked up enough?

Azrael5 - Please answer me this - is the Randi quote (posted by open mind) in this thread true? Do you disagree with that quote?

 

[tonyb]

So what you are saying is that the following is entirely plasible :

Hypnotist hypnotises subject - tells subject that when he says some trigger word she will throw something out of the curtain and then forget about doing it.

When asked about it afterward she genuinely has no recollection about doing it (She's not pretending or going along to please the hypnotist).

I have witnessed this happen with people whom I believe to be sincere when they say that weren't just pretending. I also understand the psychology and mechanism behind how it is accomplished, and stress again that it will only work on certain people, probably quite a small percentage of the population, and then only with their "consent".

Could you suggest any form of scientific test that could prove this to an independent third party. Is there any scientific way to distiguish between the pretense (fantasy role playing ala Randi) and genuines post-hypnotic suggestion.

I wish I could, it would make my life a lot easier given the myths and misinformation that is propounded about hypnosis. Unfortunately, I don't know of an easy way to distinguish beyond doubt whether somebody is telling the truth, because that's what it boils down to.

If such a test was possible, conductable and repeatable, and then the conduct of this test would make me believe you.

Until then, you may even be deluding yourself in your belief in hypnotism.

As a naturally skeptical person this is something I wrestled with for a long time while I was still learning the subject. And then I discovered that it's all just basic psychology. And before you ask, I have read "They Call It Hypnosis" by Robert Baker, and think it's a great book, and agree with virtually everything he says. I view hypnosis not as a "thing" but as a descrption of a process.

It wouldn't qualify for Randi's prize as there's nothing paranormal going on. It can probably all be explained by normal cognitive mechanisms, although there is still much we don't know about how the mind works.

Azrael5 - Please answer me this - is the Randi quote (posted by open mind) in this thread true? Do you disagree with that quote?

In my opinion Randi's only partially correct. He's right that it's not a power or a force and there is a degree of role-playing, but he's wrong about only highly emotional persons reacting (although they do tend to make the best subjects) Whether somebody reacts depends on whether they choose to do so. I also disagree with his assesment that it only has limited psychiatric use. Even Robert Baker in his book agrees that the power of suggestion is very powerful and underestimated, and guess what hypnosis is?

 

[Azrael 5]

I dont know anything about hypnosis(real or not)but I know I wouldnt eat an onion thinking it was an apple by free choice,or take my clothes off and make love to a sweeping brush.But I do know about magic techniques,so I ask you pjh if Derren wanted to cheat why bother giving her the tambourine at all? Why not put it on a table and have it fly off? Ok, so it was supposed to represent unconcious fraud by her doing it(he could have blindfolded her,tied her up..whatever) Again I ask where was the hidden assistant? How could a tambourine fly out of the cabinet without human assistance in the manner shown?Why would the girl lie?

 

[Azrael 5]

Ive just re-watched Seance and there could not have been a third person in the cabinet,indeed there wasnt.So pjh what are we left with? Either youre wrong in your claims about hypnosis or she was a stooge(the whole duplicate girl theory is tosh from the start)? Care to eat humble pie or explain?

 

[pjh]

Ive just re-watched Seance and there could not have been a third person in the cabinet,indeed there wasnt.

I must ask how are you so certain? I've seen that setup on countless magic shows (curtain on rails in middle of stage). Woman goes in - tiger comes out, dissapears etc. I really have no idea how those stage effects are done, but I cannot see how you're so sure that a standard stage magic trick wasn't used here.

I'd hope that Derren doesn't use stooges. However in the magic community there is something called an 'Instant stooge' which don't seem to be as frowned apon as pre-pepared stooges.

I state again - there is no way the girl both threw the tambourine and genuinely didn't remember doing it a few minutes later. Once again I ask - can you suggest any form of experiment that would produce objective proof for a third party?

 

[Azrael 5]

I know about magic techniques etc,and while I could accept the tambourine falling on the floor was a trick device,flying over the curtain could not be.Anyhow,please tell me why the girl swore it was her(indeed it looked like her-too much to be a stooge.How would Derren know she would wear gloves? Or what if she wore a hat?)
It certainly wasnt a third person(drapes were up on all sides prior to effect)-could be instant stooge I guess(dissapointing if so).So was the guy who kept his eyes open(so definetly no 3rd person) an instant stooge also?

 

[misawafan]

As usual I have to remind some posters above, I'm arguing the case for more open minded skepticism, I'm not really arguing the case for strong phenomena (I would though for weak PSI phenomena it exists IMO). Whether strong phenomena exists or not, I have no fixed conclusion either way, why should I have?

I thought you weren't coming back till sometime in March?

"Farewell. Wow is this forum going to be quiet and boring without me and "Open Mind"! "

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?s=&threadid=51433&perpage=40&pagenumber=10

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Closed mind,

I don't know why you expect Derren Brown to perform to the same standards as the Scole. How do you expect to carry out this comparison? Do you have a video of those events? Oh no, they didn't let anyone film them, did they?

I can point you in the direction of a few people who say that I can read minds and make lights appear in crystals.
Am I supernatural?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Is there any scientific way to distiguish between the pretense (fantasy role playing ala Randi) and genuines post-hypnotic suggestion.

If such a test was possible, conductable and repeatable, and then the conduct of this test would make me believe you.

Well, here's a suggestion.

(So to speak.)

Get a bunch of test subjects, one person who claims that they can do hypnosis and one person who claims that they can't.

Both will be introduced to a randomly selected half members of the test set as being a great hynotist. (The person introducing them should give them exactly the same introduction, and be the same person, and have no idea which is the real hypnotist. He should also have no claim to hypnotic powers.) The real (or "real"?) hypnotist will do whatever he does to hypnotise people, and give them certain comands. The control non-hypnotist will just wave his arms around for a bit, a few (mystic passes) and give exactly the same commands.

If they get the same results, the test subjects were, on the most likely hypothesis, playing along. If there's a clear difference between them, then it would be fair to conclude that the hypnotist has more ability than just telling people they're hynotised.

This sort of protocol would work for hynotic or post-hypnotic suggestion, depending on the nature of the commands.

It would be nice to try this on Derren Brown himself, if he should come, as has been hinted, to an Amazing Meeting --- but perhaps his face is already a little too well-known for the test subjects to be guaranteed "blind".

Any comments on the protocol?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I don't know why you expect Derren Brown to perform to the same standards as the Scole. How do you expect to carry out this comparison? Do you have a video of those events? Oh no, they didn't let anyone film them, did they?

Good point. Whereas Derren Brown's performance was filmed, so clearly he falls short of their scrupulous exacting standards, hey Open Mind? Just like that stage magician (what's his name, magic buffs?) who made a glowing lightbulb float around an auditorium in front of a large audience. He did his trick on film and not in complete darkness, thus falling short of the Scole tricks, excuse me, Scole experiments.

What is it with woos? They see, for themselves, an elephant disappear from a brightly lit stage. They don't know how it's done, but they know it must be stage magic. Then you tell them an anecdote about lights moving in a dark room. And that must be spirits.

 

[Azrael 5]

Harry Blackstone Jnr did the lightbulb effect Dr Adequate.Theres some guy on The Magic Cafe now,claiming also the person wasnt hypnotised into throwing the tambourine.Now Im confused here.I know nothing about hypnosis-a lot about magic though,I think Derren Brown is pretty cool also.Is he a case of the Emporers(sp)new clothes(using stooges,Tv edits etc)or does hypnotic suggestion work the way it appeared?
Why would Derren go to such lengths to fake an effect(substituting a person,using a third party?)that could have easily been performed without?

 

[Open Mind]

I thought you weren't coming back till sometime in March?

Only to post in this one topic for the moment I decided to comment on ‘seance' after watching it ….

"Farewell. Wow is this forum going to be quiet and boring without me and "Open Mind"! "

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?s=&threadid=51433&perpage=40&pagenumber=10 [/B]

Ian is right! I didn’t know he was having a break from this lion’s den, fortunately I see a few others are still around (e.g. David Smith) helping to put the doubt back into skepticism, where it belongs!

Closed mind,

I don't know why you expect Derren Brown to perform to the same standards as the Scole. How do you expect to carry out this comparison?

It’s well documented. Invite along Professor David Fontana, James Webster (professional magician of the Inner Magic Circle) …. They both witnessed it and are of the opinion the phenomena they saw cannot be duplicated by trickery ….
[/quote]

Do you have a video of those events? Oh no, they didn't let anyone film them, did they?

I don’t think I can answer that question. But what is clear is it was interfered with by either living people or dead people

Before they were able to demonstrate a fresh type of physical evidence to the three principal investigators, this time using a video camera in the light, the Group experienced interference with their experiments. They eventually lost contact with their communicators, and were asked by some fresh entity to desist from sitting together as a Group, although before that date, and for the benefit of one of our close collaborators, they had succeeded in producing a short series of video images from blank cassettes housed in a video-camera focussed on a mirror angled at the cellar roof. Reports of this breakdown, and the consequent abandonment of further sittings, were seized on by critics as evidence that the trail had got too hot, and the Group had prudently decided to quit before they were unmasked. But there was no evidence to support this, and every sign that they shared the dismay of the investigators at the premature and unexpected termination of what they clearly regarded as a momentous series of experiments

I can point you in the direction of a few people who say that I can read minds and make lights appear in crystals.
Am I supernatural?

If you can replicate the phenomena too, fool several scientists, an accomplished magician …. I’m very open minded to the possibility you are indeed a supernatural marvel …… *if* you can convince me too

Good point. Whereas Derren Brown's performance was filmed, so clearly he falls short of their scrupulous exacting standards, hey Open Mind?

Doc, faking video is nowadays easier than live performance. Even if the scole experiments had been filmed, some pseudo skeptics would just claim with sheer confidence it was clearly fraudulent (with or without proof) …. What such cynics need is the presence of one of their skeptic heroes they trust 100% such as Hyman or Wiseman, etc. (Wiseman was invited to a Scole séance but didn’t go for some reason) …. If Wiseman or Hyman declared Scole report genuine, if I didn’t instantly die of shock (or ironical amusement) my opinion would probably remain much the same, I still wouldn’t know.

Why would Derren go to such lengths to fake an effect(substituting a person,using a third party?)that could have easily been performed without?

Now you are getting warmer Remember the forum rules

(Sorry if I don’t reply till next week ….busy)

 

[tonyb]

Well, here's a suggestion.

(So to speak.)

Get a bunch of test subjects, one person who claims that they can do hypnosis and one person who claims that they can't.

Both will be introduced to a randomly selected half members of the test set as being a great hynotist. (The person introducing them should give them exactly the same introduction, and be the same person, and have no idea which is the real hypnotist. He should also have no claim to hypnotic powers.) The real (or "real"?) hypnotist will do whatever he does to hypnotise people, and give them certain comands. The control non-hypnotist will just wave his arms around for a bit, a few (mystic passes) and give exactly the same commands.

If they get the same results, the test subjects were, on the most likely hypothesis, playing along. If there's a clear difference between them, then it would be fair to conclude that the hypnotist has more ability than just telling people they're hynotised.

This sort of protocol would work for hynotic or post-hypnotic suggestion, depending on the nature of the commands.

It would be nice to try this on Derren Brown himself, if he should come, as has been hinted, to an Amazing Meeting --- but perhaps his face is already a little too well-known for the test subjects to be guaranteed "blind".

Any comments on the protocol?

Hi Dr A,

The problem with this protocol is that it's putting the testing onus onto the hypnotist, which perpetuates the old myth about the hypnotist being the one with "special powers or abilities". This is one of the main reasons there is skepticism about hypnosis.

The reality is that the "power and ability" lies solely with the persons being hypnotised. What it depends upon is for the persons being hypnotised firstly wanting to participate, then having their belief and expectations positively engendered in order that they can utilise their own imaginations for whatever is being suggested.

Now of course all hypnotists need to learn the techniques of how to do this, but it pretty much boils down to gaining rapport with the subjects,"selling" them the idea and then going through the ritual.

So any trained actor could accomplish the same as any hypnotist. What matters is what the subjects believe.

An interesting article about hypnosis, including details of a couple of experiments to distinguish between people "really" hypnotised or just faking, appeared in the July 2001 issue of Scientific American. I've found the transcript here:
Scientific American article on hypnosis


On a separate note, I've just rewound and replayed the tape a few times and all of the movements of the girl in the cabinet and Derren's when he's placing her in position look identical to what is later shown on the overhead camera, even the fact the DB kicks the tambourine back into place after it lands on the floor. It does seem very much like it really was her that threw the tambourine out, so that would leave us with whether she's sincere in telling us that she didn't believe she did.

 

[pjh]

An interesting article about hypnosis, including details of a couple of experiments to distinguish between people "really" hypnotised or just faking, appeared in the July 2001 issue of Scientific American. I've found the transcript here:
Scientific American article on hypnosis

None of those experiments seems at all convincing to me.

When a Hypnotist says 'Sleep' and the subject's head falls over they're either asleep or have just closed their eyes and are pretending. AFAIK the brain state of 'asleep' is easy to detect. I notice they never checked for this, instead it's all fairly subjective stuff about which part of the brain is active etc.

Once again, I think that the example here is a good one. Rather than debate whether a person really believes they're a chicken on stage or is just pretending - the focus here is on memory.

I am discounting the scenario where the subject was the person to throw the tambourine and when asked afterwards she genuinely does not remember she did.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

It’s well documented. Invite along Professor David Fontana, James Webster (professional magician of the Inner Magic Circle) …. They both witnessed it and are of the opinion the phenomena they saw cannot be duplicated by trickery ….

If you can replicate the phenomena too, fool several scientists, an accomplished magician …. I’m very open minded to the possibility you are indeed a supernatural marvel …… *if* you can convince me too

Do scientists instantly see the trickery involved in a magic performance? When a magician is on stage, does every scientist in the audience sit there with a knowing look on their face? I doubt it. I expect they're as human as the rest of us, and just as susceptible to misdirection and illusions.

But I'll make you a deal. If you provide a list of scientists who originally vouched for the Scole phenomena as being genuine evidence of the afterlife, I will write to them personally and ask them if they are still willing to sign up to that effect.

(The reason I ask you for the list is that I do not have a copy of the report to hand. I could order it from the library, but that would take longer)

When (if) they reply, we will:

a) find out if they are willing to say that what they saw was paranormal, as opposed to simply saying "I didn't spot the trick."

b) be able examine and publish their credentials (after all, anyone can call themselves a scientist) and get some idea of their expertise in the field of trickery.

I'll also write to James Webster and see if he still feels that there is no way he could have been fooled.

Can you provide this list of people whose opinions you trust unquestioningly?