Forthcoming UK TV - Derren Brown Seance

[An Infinite Ocean]

I hate to tell you this, but... Ach... never mind

I knew the chess thing was a trick, but it was quite a clever trick. That's all I meant.

My apologies if you already knew what I meant.

 

[Darat]

Yes precisely. I believed it at the time but now realise I was sucked in and I feel angry about it. He's passing off trickery as psychological manipulation. I find that unethical. And we are being miseducated about what it is psychologically possible to do.

How could he have suckered you?

The fact that he was able to manipulate you so you didn't see the actual trick is quite clear indication that he used his knowledge of how people think and react (pretty much the definition of "psychology") to trick you which was his stated intention all along.

And you feel suckered because he did exactly what he told you he would do?

 

[Interesting Ian]

You should try it sometime, you might like it

LOL

 

[LillyThePink]

Huh?? Are you getting pissy with me?

So fine, it was all a hoax. We all know that a great deal of these alleged communications are hoaxes. This doesn't prove or even give any evidence that they all are.

No I'm not. I don't get pissy, Ian. That's your territory

And let me get this straight. Even though the people who STARTED the fad for pretending to talk to the dead admitted that they made the whole thing up, other people aren't... As in...let me be very clear about this -

No one before them had thought about cracking their knuckles and saying it was dead people communicating, then these women did it and started a trend, which is still on-going, and even though the women who first did it said it wasn't true, you still think that other people genuinely talk to and communicate with dead people. We're not talking about people who get exposed later as frauds. We're talking about the women WHO STARTED IT ALL OFF. Sort of like Newton saying "nah! I had the apple on a bit of string!!"

 

[Undodog]

Oh yes?? What did the other say? Did she also admit it was trickery?? If not what reason do you think that the one who said it was trickerey is more honest than the one who claims it was genuine??

When you admit to something it's usually done due to honesty.

 

[digital goldfish]

Sort of like Newton saying "nah! I had the apple on a bit of string!!"

ROFL

 

[Interesting Ian]

No I'm not. I don't get pissy, Ian. That's your territory

And let me get this straight. Even though the people who STARTED the fad for pretending to talk to the dead admitted that they made the whole thing up, other people aren't... As in...let me be very clear about this -

No one before them had thought about cracking their knuckles and saying it was dead people communicating, then these women did it and started a trend, which is still on-going, and even though the women who first did it said it wasn't true, you still think that other people genuinely talk to and communicate with dead people. We're not talking about people who get exposed later as frauds. We're talking about the women WHO STARTED IT ALL OFF. Sort of like Newton saying "nah! I had the apple on a bit of string!!"

Are you saying that no-one before then had ever thought they were in communication with dead people??

 

[digital goldfish]

Are you saying that no-one before then had ever thought they were in communication with dead people??

Started the fad = popularised ; not did it first.. Don't argue semantics!

 

[Interesting Ian]

No I'm not. I don't get pissy, Ian. That's your territory

And let me get this straight. Even though the people who STARTED the fad for pretending to talk to the dead admitted that they made the whole thing up, other people aren't... As in...let me be very clear about this -

No one before them had thought about cracking their knuckles and saying it was dead people communicating, then these women did it and started a trend, which is still on-going, and even though the women who first did it said it wasn't true, you still think that other people genuinely talk to and communicate with dead people. We're not talking about people who get exposed later as frauds. We're talking about the women WHO STARTED IT ALL OFF. Sort of like Newton saying "nah! I had the apple on a bit of string!!"

It seems you are mistaken.

From here

Even before the Fox family was first disturbed by noises in the night, the philosophical and theological foundations of Spiritualist religion were being laid in another part of New York State, by Andrew Jackson Davis. Born in the Hudson Valley town of Blooming Grove, Davis was the son of a ne'er-do-well father and a mystically inclined mother. The young Davis floundered as a shoemaker's apprentice until 1843, when he was introduced to the wonders of the trance by itinerant mesmerist J. Stanley Grimes. Intrigued, Davis sought local tailor William Levingston, an experimenter with hypnotism, who discovered that Davis made an excellent subject. In trances induced by Levingston, Davis experienced clairvoyant visions and suggested unorthodox medical remedies. The two men began to travel, attracting curious audiences in New York and New England.

As Davis' travels and contacts widened, so did his trance experiences. By 1844, he claimed to receive wisdom through contact with the spirits of Emanuel Swedenborg, an 18th-century Swedish scientist-turned-mystic, and the ancient physician Galen. These experiences initiated his career as a religious seer and healer.

and also

Swedenborg (1688-1772), who in 1743 had begun to undergo a series of mystical experiences, during which, he claimed, departed spirits communicated with him and revealed to him the nature of the afterlife. He developed an elaborate theology in which God acted on the universe through spirit mediators.

Seems that you are mistaken. I admit though if what you had said were true your argument would have had some force

 

[Tricky]

No one before them had thought about cracking their knuckles and saying it was dead people communicating, then these women did it and started a trend, which is still on-going, and even though the women who first did it said it wasn't true, you still think that other people genuinely talk to and communicate with dead people. We're not talking about people who get exposed later as frauds. We're talking about the women WHO STARTED IT ALL OFF. Sort of like Newton saying "nah! I had the apple on a bit of string!!"

But there were many other ways "to communicate with the dead" besides cracking knuckles. The great magician, Harry Houdini spent much of the late part of his career debunking these "spiritualists".

In every case, he was able to reproduce the spiritualists effects by sheer stage trickery.

No, this doesn't mean that there are no real spiritualists. But it does show that not a single one has been able to prove their abilities, while a large number of them have been proven charlatans. One would think that if communication with the dead were real, the statistics would be a little less one-sided.

 

[JamesM]

Interesting thread, this. Everyone accepts that Brown "cheats" - most of the time he isn't doing Jedi mind tricks, or using wisdom gleaned from close reading of psychology journals, just normal tricks dressed up as mentalism. The advertising agency/bear trick thing seems to be a perfect example - the fact that Brown stressed how difficult it was to set up just points to misdirection even more, in my opinion.

But we seem to be split into two camps in how we respond. I will admit to being in the group that feels a bit cheated (although not as cheated as Ian clearly feels). When we views a magic show, we enter into a contract with the magician - he (or she) will show us something that seems impossible, and we won't know how she (or he) did it. But we hope for an element of skill, and none is needed if you use stooges and camera tricks.

That's how I see it, anyway. Then there are those like Darat, who don't seem to mind this at all. That just seems like a matter of opinion to me, so I doubt there is much to be gained from getting all bent out of shape about it.

 

[athon]

Interesting thread, this.

*snip*

Well done, James. Everybody was arguing nicely and you manage to ruin it all by reducing it down logically to 'matter of opinion' stuff.

I agree (see my last post here). People like Ian simply have to rant because they feel so insignificant otherwise. It would be nice to have to the luxury to get so upset by such trivial things.

Unless somebody can provide good evidence that shows Derryn Brown uses stooges and camera tricks, I'll continue to believe that sleight of hand and misdirection are used to fool me. And that, IMHO, means I'll continue to enjoy his show.

Athon

 

["V"]

Why are there Billy-Goat bones all over this topic?

Stinks like petulant troll to me.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Why are there Billy-Goat bones all over this topic?

Stinks like petulant troll to me.

What the f*ck are "Billy-Goat bones" and who the f*ck are you accusing of being a troll??

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Quite frankly I couldn't give a toss about your belief system. The sooner that people on here understand that, then the better.

Back at ya, baby! Have fun wandering through life going "Well, I know a few of those mediums are really talking to dead people, I just don't know which ones."

So it appears that some people think it's okay for magicians to employ various classes of tricks, as long as they admit that's what they are doing. As a magician, I can't simply say that I'm an entertainer, but I must list exactly the classes of tricks that I use, for fear of otherwise being called a cheat. Interesting.

I can see the movie special effects disclaimer now:

Well, most of the outrageous explosions in this movie are actual explosions, but were purposely rigged and filmed. None of the explosions occurred "naturally," with one of our camera crew just happening to be there to shoot it. However, a few of the explosions aren't actual explosions, but are in fact rendered on a computer. You can contact the studio for a list of rendered explosions. Now, one particular explosion is an actual explosion that was then modified on a computer to look more exciting. Concerning the bodies of people flying out of the explosions, . . .

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Back at ya, baby! Have fun wandering through life going "Well, I know a few of those mediums are really talking to dead people, I just don't know which ones."

I have never claimed that some mediums communicate with dead people. I have no idea if they do or not, there is insufficient data. It is skeptics claiming they know, and me claiming that I don't know.

WOW!! Notice something?? The word skeptic is now diametrically opposite to what it originally meant. Skeptics now claim they know, where as I claim I do not know. Going by the original use of the word it is in fact *I* who is the skeptic, and you lot who are non-skeptics.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, by watching his [John Edward's] shows people are being miseducated. I find this appalling.

Ian's statement, bracketed insert mine. Sorry, couldn't resist.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian's statement, bracketed insert mine. Sorry, couldn't resist.

~~ Paul

If in fact he's a charlatan then I deplore that. And yes, in that scenario people would be getting miseducated. I also agree that this would make him somewhat worse than Derren.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
I have never claimed that some mediums communicate with dead people. I have no idea if they do or not, there is insufficient data. It is skeptics claiming they know, and me claiming that I don't know.

Oops, sorry, my mistake. You fooled me:

No-one can contact the dead?? I'd love to hear your reasoning here. Care to provide it??

WOW!! Notice something?? The word skeptic is now diametrically opposite to what it originally meant. Skeptics now claim they know, where as I claim I do not know. Going by the original use of the word it is in fact *I* who is the skeptic, and you lot who are non-skeptics.

I never said that mediums can't talk to dead people. I only offered to buy you a lifetime supply of beer if someone can demonstrate that they do.

What's amusing is that if Brown didn't admit that he sometimes cheats, you wouldn't be giving him any more trouble than you give John Edward. After all, you seem perfectly content not to lash out at someone as long as you don't know he's a cheat. I presume if we ever find out that Edward is a cheat, you'll let loose with years of pent-up invective.

Edited to add: Okay, you would. Good.

~~ Paul

 

[Irish Murdoch]

No-one sucks me in!!

Now I find that exceptionally easy to believe.