Forthcoming UK TV - Derren Brown Seance

David - obviously, the easiest way would be to use stooges, but Derren insists this just isn't the case; we only have his word for it, but he's right that tabloids would pay far more for the story than they could pay them to appear. (see today's metro)

I also think that even if someone else is complicit in making these things appear more spectacular than they are, there's no real difference between that and Sylvia Brown et al using accomplacies to facilitate hot readings of people. The differentiating factor is that one does it for money, and exploits people in a cruel fashion, whereas Derren is at least honest about being a con artist (and i do mean that in the nicest way). If at some point Derren decided he could make more money by exploiting people in a medium way, then i'd have a problem with it. As it is, i'm very proud (maybe that's the wrong word), but certainly happy that Derren and Channel 4 are championing common sense, in the face of a continuing regressive trend towards supersition, by being upfront about the fact that all of this is rubbish..
 
"On the woman at the window commanding people to stop, if that was for real and it was down to editing they would have to be their for days before someone stopped and turned around exactly on cue."

I'd disagree with you on that one. Firstly, psychology was utilised to get her to buy into the fact something 'strange' is occurring.
The 'magic' part of it, in my opinion, was the fact the woman who *did* turn round was a stooge, with an earplug listening to what was happening. She knew exactly when to walk past. This looked incredibly impressive to the participant who then believed even further that something remarkable has occurred.

So in this instance, as in many with Derren, there is a trace of psychology and sheer 'sleight of hand' illusion. This is what he suggests he does.
 
Once you know how any trick is done it loses a lot of its lustre. So Derren says none of the people who put their hands under his are stooges but doesn’t mention the researcher, so what, he hasn’t lied.

He admits to trickery and misdirection is a key element of trickery, He pretends to use mind power, in a way he is. Certainly he uses his mind in doing any trick. If he gets signals from the researcher his mind interprets those signals. That certain people want him to do it by mind power alone is a strawman argument.

I don’t care if he is not ‘purely’ using his mind in doing a trick. The key thing is that he admits trickery without which he produces some effects that produce identical results to some psychics. Most of his tricks far exceed anything psychics can do..

His show is not about tests in laboratory conditions. There is no point, nothing he does is supernatural.

It is all great entertainment however and if he doesn’t tell us exactly how all the tricks are done who is to complain? No one slags of David Copperfield for not revealing how he does every trick.

If he causes some people to question their blind acceptance of psychic abilities then all the better.
 
Brian said:
...snip...

And, no, I don't believe the power of suggestion is that strong. If she wasn't an accomplice, she just played along.
Click to expand...


davidhorman said:


...snip...

On the voodoo woman, the way she finally cracked her mouth open to talk when told she could make it look like she'd been caught playing along and was probably embarrassed to have been so silly. What saves face, admitting you were playing along because you were desperate not to disappoint Derren and the crew (and that confession wouldn't air anyway), or pretending you were psychologically tricked by someone with a superior understanding of the mystery that is the human mind (cue spooky music)?

...snip...[/i]
Click to expand...

You both seem to be saying it wasn't the "power of suggestion" it was just that the woman went along with him.

If getting the woman to go along with what he was suggesting isn't the "power of suggestion", then what is? :)
 
davidhorman said:


...snip...

And I still say no-one recites the Litany Against Fear when they get spooked :D

David

Edit: well, turns out I'm wrong about the Litany Against Fear - there's at least one person out there who does recite it when spooked :)

...snip...
Click to expand...


Are you sure this was what the student was saying, I thought I heard someone reciting the 23rd Psalm i.e. "I will fear no evil: For thou art with me;". And earlier on we did see one male student making the sign of the cross.
 
I feel bad for Ian. He must not enjoy movies anymore, what with the cheatsy special effects and all. And forget a good fiction book: The entire thing is just a giant cheat, because the author didn't actually have to do any of the stuff he wrote about.

~~ Paul
 
I didn't see his "seance", but the point about cheating would be..."Does he rely on prior knowledge, shills, editing...to give the impression that he gets information through mentalism when really that's not what he's doing at all?"

It would be just as much "cheating" for a so-called mentalist to do this in order to display his mentalism "powers", as it would for a so-called medium to do in order to make an audience think he was talking to the dead.

Cheating is cheating and gives the audience an inaccurate view of what is really possible, whether paranormally or "normally".
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I feel bad for Ian. He must not enjoy movies anymore, what with the cheatsy special effects and all. And forget a good fiction book: The entire thing is just a giant cheat, because the author didn't actually have to do any of the stuff he wrote about.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

You mean telly isn't all REAL! ? :eek:
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I feel bad for Ian. He must not enjoy movies anymore, what with the cheatsy special effects and all. And forget a good fiction book: The entire thing is just a giant cheat, because the author didn't actually have to do any of the stuff he wrote about.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

That is actually the attitude my mother has when watching films. Whenever there is a witch, a ghost, or any science-fiction, fantasy or fairy tale element, she says: now this is really silly, this cannot possibly be for real! (well, it isn't for real, mum, it's a film, I used to say). She is obviousy an ultra-skeptic! :)
 
Clancie said:


It would be just as much "cheating" for a so-called mentalist to do this in order to display his mentalism "powers", as it would for a so-called medium to do in order to make an audience think he was talking to the dead.
Click to expand...

Clancie, he does not claim to perform pure acts of 'mentalism'. He openly admits he uses many techniques to achieve the illusion. Psychology - involving a lot of suggestion, common sense, charisma and showmanship..and basic illusion.

And that is what he does. Just because some people have realised that some of the tricks involve sleight of hand, does not mean basic psychological techniques are not involved.
 
Clancie said:
I didn't see his "seance", but the point about cheating would be..."Does he rely on prior knowledge, shills, editing...to give the impression that he gets information through mentalism when really that's not what he's doing at all?"

It would be just as much "cheating" for a so-called mentalist to do this in order to display his mentalism "powers", as it would for a so-called medium to do in order to make an audience think he was talking to the dead.

Cheating is cheating and gives the audience an inaccurate view of what is really possible, whether paranormally or "normally".
Click to expand...

You may have missed it but DB is promoted as "entertainment" not as reality or factual.

He is a professional deceiver, just like David Copperfield, just like Ali Bongo, just like Tom Cruise. They are entertainers and we pay them to cheat us and the best manage (for at least a short time) to make us suspend our disbelief.

And normally the better they are at deceiving us the better we like it.
 
I'd like to believe Derren pulls off some tricks by planting or noticing subtle influences in the environment around the person who is being asked to think of something.

An example of this idea is that someone said of the unrelated "Did you see the Gorilla?" video is a person who saw it didn't consciously notice the gorilla but found themselves thinking of one anyway.

It's probably not true that Derren does this but I'd like to believe it was. :D
 
wipeout said:
I'd like to believe Derren pulls off some tricks by planting or noticing subtle influences in the environment around the person who is being asked to think of something.

It's probably not true that Derren does this but I'd like to believe it was. :D
Click to expand...
No. Thats the trouble I (aswell as others here) with Derren's show. He's leading you into the wrong way of thinking. Even last night when Holly(?) while supposedly posessed by Jane answered Derrens questions and got them all right according to what was written inside a sealed envelope (yes, that old chestnut) my friend was convinced that Derren had influenced her into giving certain answers.
NO! she could have said anything and it would still be written in that letter. Uri Geller used to do the same trick with pictures instead of words so it can't that hard, can it!
 
Undodog said:
NO! she could have said anything and it would still be written in that letter. Uri Geller used to do the same trick with pictures instead of words so it can't that hard, can it!
Click to expand...
Not convinced that is the case. I think that the contents were written before the seance. He has done many tricks where he wrtes something then asks a question and gets the response he has just written.

Uri's trick was different but then again memory is a tricky thing and I may be recalling incorrectly in one or both cases.
 
I think the point here is that he seemingly convinced a group of people that they were being contacted by the spirit of a dead girl. How exactly he did it isn't the point. The point is he did it by natural means. Nothing paranormal going on at all.

If he can do that, then it isn't really a leap to think that other less scrupulous people couldn't have the same effect on other people. At least that's the message I assumed he was trying to put across, well ,as well as providing an entertaining piece of television that is.
 
Undodog said:

No. Thats the trouble I (aswell as others here) with Derren's show. He's leading you into the wrong way of thinking. Even last night when Holly(?) while supposedly posessed by Jane answered Derrens questions and got them all right according to what was written inside a sealed envelope (yes, that old chestnut) my friend was convinced that Derren had influenced her into giving certain answers.
NO! she could have said anything and it would still be written in that letter. Uri Geller used to do the same trick with pictures instead of words so it can't that hard, can it!
Click to expand...

And your point being what? That he dressed up an old trick and resold it to his audience? If that is bad then many, many magicians better watch out!

At no time does he tell us how he is about to perform a trick, he uses misdirection and showmanship just like every other magician.
 
Posted by Hendralux

Clancie, he does not claim to perform pure acts of 'mentalism'. He openly admits he uses many techniques to achieve the illusion. Psychology - involving a lot of suggestion, common sense, charisma and showmanship..and basic illusion.

And that is what he does. Just because some people have realised that some of the tricks involve sleight of hand, does not mean basic psychological techniques are not involved.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the point I'm making is that he MAY be misrepresenting things as psychological techniques that aren't. For example, he may be cheating/hot reading, and presenting it as if he's "getting it" on his own.

I'm reminded, for example, of the presentation at TAM1 by (I think it was) Jami Ian Swiss. I wasn't there, but the description was that he did a card trick and presented it (successfully) to his audience as an amazing feat of mentalism/use of psychology, etc.

Let's say that I have a shill in the audience and I (amazingly) reveal personal information about that person. I tell you, sitting in the audience, that my statements were due to "mind powers"--psychology, charisma, directing their attention the way I want, being observant, etc. Except that...it wasn't. It was a cheat because I had information ahead of time.

I don't know if Brown cheats or not. But cheating and then presenting it as "using mentalism and psychology, etc" would still be cheating--and be giving a false impression of the capabilities of "mentalism, psychology, etc."
 
Clancie said:

Yes, but the point I'm making is that he MAY be misrepresenting things as psychological techniques that aren't. For example, he may be cheating/hot reading, and presenting it as if he's "getting it" on his own.

…snip…

I don't know if Brown cheats or not. But cheating and then presenting it as "using mentalism and psychology, etc" would still be cheating--and be giving a false impression of the capabilities of "mentalism, psychology, etc." [/B]
Click to expand...

The only way this makes any sense is if you start with the premise that Brown's show is not meant to be entertainment!

He is an entertainer, he tells people he is, his shows are all promoted as such, and he has a spiel, like all the best magicians, that he uses to misdirect you, again like all the best magicians.

His job is to ”deceive” the audience, to make us gasp at what he achieves, how he does that does not matter since it is put forward as entertainment.

Your point is exactly the same as saying a magician can't call herself a magician because it isn’t "real" magic she performs but just sleight of hand. Or an escapologist saying it’s all done by controlling the expansion of his muscles.

He is an entertainer and what he says as an entertainer is meant to entertain you… just as it says on the box.
 
Undodog said:
Lets not forget that if Derren had completely denied that he was using trickery and he presented everything as true psychic medium ability, Ian would be fawning all over him.
Click to expand...


:rolleyes: I don't fawn over anyone. And if what you say is true I would believe Uri Geller is for real. A great deal of caution needs to be exercised over anyone who claims they can produce startling paranormal phenomena on demand. Paranormal phenomena is either inherently unpredictable, or we tend to only get slight effects. Not that we should automatically reject people demonstrating startling effects on demand, but we should be extremely cautious.

Why are people on here so completely clueless?? Why do people on here consistently mischaracterise my position?? :rolleyes:


Yes he's a cheat. That was the whole point of last night's show. Those students were crapping their pants and getting very over emotional about the ghost of Jane, a girl they never knew.
Click to expand...

So what the hell is the point if it's all a cheat?? And what about the ethical dimension??

The difference being that he then explained to them that it was just a trick. Most mediums don't bother.
Click to expand...

How do you know they are all cheats?? You'd better have some sort of justification rather than thinking they must be cheats because what they claim to do contradicts your belief system :rolleyes:

Quite frankly I couldn't give a toss about your belief system. The sooner that people on here understand that, then the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom