Forthcoming UK TV - Derren Brown Seance

[The Don]

If they swear blind that they're using the power of unagi and they've trained for seven years in a Tibetan monastery to heighten their senses? Yup.

Kinda takes the showmanship and entertainment out of magic doesn't it. Magicians have always had amazing claims as to the source of their power.

Is the real problem that Derren Braown claims to be one of the good guys. After all, he doesn't make any paranormal claims and (I believes) seeks to debunk some ideas. Are we therefore desperate for him to use the mechanisms he claims rather than good old fashioned trickery ? Do we feel slightly used as a result ?

 

[Darat]

Kinda takes the showmanship and entertainment out of magic doesn't it. Magicians have always had amazing claims as to the source of their power.

Is the real problem that Derren Braown claims to be one of the good guys. After all, he doesn't make any paranormal claims and (I believes) seeks to debunk some ideas. Are we therefore desperate for him to use the mechanisms he claims rather than good old fashioned trickery ? Do we feel slightly used as a result ?

Not for me - while he might use a “sceptical” slant to his spiel I really do not view him any different to any other magician.

I've always found them fascinating, not just attempting to work out how they do it but enjoying the show they put on. Obviously I’ll have to view them differently now I know that they’ve all been using psychological manipulation, lies and just down and out cheating to entertain me!

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If they swear blind that they're using the power of unagi and they've trained for seven years in a Tibetan monastery to heighten their senses? Yup.

David

If that's your view then I don't know of any magician that you wouldn't consider a cheat/liar.

 

[richardm]

I've not seen this one yet. Again what are the actual words he used? He often starts with an anecdote about the "mind" and then moves into the trick patter, talking and distracting the participant and the audience. That you connect the two is part of his misdirection. He doesn't want you to be looking for the flag that went up.

I've just watched this again, and he pretty much uses words to the effect of "I'm going to show you something. If this works you're going to be wondering about it and questioning it for the rest of your life... if it doesn't work, it doesn't matter, but it will work, okay?"

Then he describes what he wants her to do, which doesn't involve any psychological nonsense at all - just a basic description of the actions she needs to take. She tries it on the first person - doesn't work. Tries it on a second person - works. Camera crew chases the second person to ask her why she stopped and turned around. She says "I just thought I'd forgotten something, and couldn't remember what it was".

Assuming that she is a stooge is tempting, but frankly I doubt it - it would destroy Brown's career if it ever leaked out that he was such a cheat. Just because we can't imagine how it could be done doesn't mean we should assume the lowest common denominator.

 

[davidhorman]

Assuming that she is a stooge is tempting, but frankly I doubt it - it would destroy Brown's career if it ever leaked out that he was such a cheat. Just because we can't imagine how it could be done doesn't mean we should assume the lowest common denominator.

I doubt it would do anything to his career - if that was the case the revelations of the Jersey Police would have already done that. It was front page news the next day, but he's still going strong.

Magicians have always had amazing claims as to the source of their power.

Do they still? Does David Copperfield, Lance Burton, or my brother-in-law claim any supernatural ability? Nope. They implicitly claim great skill and showmanship, and rightly so.

David Blaine, on the other hand, does his best to make people believe he's some kind of "shaman", and that's why I dislike him.

David

 

[LillyThePink]

Do they still? Does David Copperfield, Lance Burton, or my brother-in-law claim any supernatural ability? Nope. They implicitly claim great skill and showmanship, and rightly so.

David

So does Derren Brown.

He specifically states, he has no psychic ability, nothing supernatural.

I'm still failing to see the issue. And I dont think he uses stooges. Particularly not in the live show - he flings a frisby, for goodness sake.

 

[Darat]

I doubt it would do anything to his career - if that was the case the revelations of the Jersey Police would have already done that. It was front page news the next day, but he's still going strong.

What revelations - that Channel 4 didn't put a show on that had the slightest chance of having the star blow his brains out?

Do they still? Does David Copperfield, Lance Burton, or my brother-in-law claim any supernatural ability? Nope. They implicitly claim great skill and showmanship, and rightly so.

Well in the Flash intro on Copperfield's site it starts with some words and their definitions, one of which has the word "supernatural" in it. Doesn't that imply that Copperfield is cheating since he isn’t (allegedly) doing his tricks by using supernatural powers?

And as a quick reminder this is what Derren Brown's site says about his act:

"He doesn’t claim to be a mind-reader, instead he describes his craft as a mixture of applied psychology, magic, misdirection and showmanship."

Applied psychology: like all magicians.
Magic: just like David Copperfield
Misdirection: Someone should complain to David Copperfiled he doesn’t tell people he uses misdirection!
Showmanship: - damn how dare he try and entertain me, tht’s just down and out deceitful.

Seriously I just don't understand how people are making a distinction between what Derren Brown does and other magicians.

David Blaine, on the other hand, does his best to make people believe he's some kind of "shaman", and that's why I dislike him.

David

Blaine - isn’t he just another showman? (But I admit I don’t like his stage persona or his shows so he doesn’t entertain me )

 

[davidhorman]

What revelations - that Channel 4 didn't put a show on that had the slightest chance of having the star blow his brains out?

The whole show revolved around the danger Derren was in, and the way he would be avoiding that danger with his psooper psychological powers. But then we learn he was in no danger and probably wasn't relying on any psychology at all.

Well in the Flash intro on Copperfield's site it starts with some words and their definitions, one of which has the word "supernatural" in it. Doesn't that imply that Copperfield is cheating since he isn’t (allegedly) doing his tricks by using supernatural powers?

It's one thing to have a definition of "magic" that differs from what you actually perform, another to say "I will be using magical techniques to make this train carriage disappear." In the context of this argument, I would say it's a little bit cheaty. But I think most people these days know that "magic" really means "illusion" - which is not "the art of creating the impossible", more like the art of appearing to create the impossible.

He doesn’t claim to be a mind-reader, instead he describes his craft as a mixture of applied psychology, magic, misdirection and showmanship.

And greatly overemphasising the significance of the first. Or maybe I'm just a bit annoyed at those who watch his show and infer the inflated significance of the first. But where there's inference, there's usually implication.

And I dont think he uses stooges. Particularly not in the live show - he flings a frisby, for goodness sake.

If he flings a Frisbee^TM then I'd say it's highly improbable that the person who catches the Frisbee^TM could be a stooge. I still maintain that it's highly improbable that the woman who stopped in the street wasn't a stooge.

David

 

[thaiboxerken]

I've just watched this again, and he pretty much uses words to the effect of "I'm going to show you something. If this works you're going to be wondering about it and questioning it for the rest of your life... if it doesn't work, it doesn't matter, but it will work, okay?"

And how does this imply that he's only going to use psychological methods to do the trick? This sound more like a pre-frame to build up interest in the trick.

 

[chillzero]

I don't understand how people can get upset about an illusionist using tricks - and I don't understand teh distinction some make about 'cheating'.
For me, the best lesson I have learned from Derren Brown is to think a bit more when presented with something that seems to be paranormal. That the effect can be duplicated, with non-paranormal means.

I prefer this to watching David Blaine who likes to present himself as a kind of paranormal phenomenom, and not a smart guy who knows great tricks. I was a big fan for years, but have cooled off lately, preferring the direct 'honest' approach of Derren Brown, without all the spoilers of Penn and Teller.

How can anyone have a problem with a great piece of entertainment, and how can it possibly not open you to the possibility that people like Colin Fry, John Edward and Sylvia Browne use the exact same techniques, but package it differently?
And Colin fry was caught out using the exact same victorian seance tricks from the start of the DB show, yet he is still making a happy living from 'speaking to the dead'. Please .

 

[The Don]

I'm putting two and two together and making several, but......

Interesting Ian and DavidHorman's posts strike me as the posts of someone who wanted to believe that "powers" were at work but found out that the truth was more mundane. They wanted to believe that there were psychological techniques which could be employed to allow people to be remote controlled, pre-programmed or whatever.

Some people would wish these "powers" to be something which could in turn be used to explain PSi effects (you see, the mind has hidden powers and Derren Brown has unlocked them) or to explain away PSi effects (you see, by employing these techniques, you can reproduce PSi effects, psychics are mountebanks and charlatans). Either way you look at it there is a need for Derren Brown's apparent powers to be entirely "psychological" in origin. After all, if we could learn them. maybe we could get dates.

What a let down to find out that there aren't any (or many) secret techniques and they're the same old mantalist tricks, differently packaged. For those who haven't got an emotional investment (those who don't care how the tricks are done), Derren Brown is either refreshing or annoying (depending on POV). For those with an emotional investment, finding out that Derren Brown has "feet of clay" is crushing, they feel betrayed, they feel let down.

I think it's time to admit to ourselves, there are no psychological techniques to enable us to date supermodels (although extreme wealth helps), the "90% of the brain we don't use" is just used to keep sports stats (straight men and gay women) or celebrity gossip (gay men and straight women) in and Derren Brown is "just" an illusionist (albeit IMO a very entertaining one)

I repeat, I would be very disappointed if it was disclosed that he used stooges.

 

[Beancounter]

I don't understand how people can get upset about an illusionist using tricks - and I don't understand teh distinction some make about 'cheating'.

To me the only distinction is whether he makes a positive or negative statement.

We all know that he is "cheating" in the sense that he does not have paranormal powers and what he is doing is illusory and (to an extent) psychological. From what I can gather from this thread, he admits to this and this is great - I'm with you, good entertainment (allegedly - he is not on TV hear in RSA).

What is more deceitful would be to say that he is not using a stooge when in fact he is. See http://www.randi.org/jr/051404the.html for Uri's use of this ruse.

It is semantics I guess, but there is a difference between openly lying (and I am not saying that he does) and not telling the whole truth.

 

[richardm]

And how does this imply that he's only going to use psychological methods to do the trick? This sound more like a pre-frame to build up interest in the trick.

Indeed. And in fact, there is obviously no psychological method in the world that's going to make someone you're watching from a distance stop and turn around - at least, not one that's being applied to the watcher.

 

[Darat]

In these strained times I thought I'd say this, normally I wouldn't consider doing so.

Someone has said to me that they think I'm being a bit harsh and strident in this thread. If that is the impression anyone is getting I'm sorry, my posting style unless I make a conscious effort tends to be dry and a bit stark. I'm actually finding this discussion fun and refreshing, even though a few of the debaters have obviously taken leave of their reasoning.

 

[Darat]

Indeed. And in fact, there is obviously no psychological method in the world that's going to make someone you're watching from a distance stop and turn around - at least, not one that's being applied to the watcher.

Do you mean to say he entertained us by using a mixture of applied psychology, magic, misdirection and showmanship? I do wish he would stop cheating like that!

 

[davidhorman]

I'm not sure I particularly wanted DB's powers to be real - I was pretty impressed when I first saw him though. And yeah, I did feel cheated when I first felt something was up. Other hand, I didn't feel personally cheated when I first heard how magicians could bend spoons like Uri Geller, because I never really believed he was doing it through telekinesis. Doesn't mean I don't mind him cheating others because he didn't cheat me.

Both claim to do something in a certain way, which may or may not be possible, but in my opinion probably isn't. True, most of the posters around here are pretty firmly of the opinion that psi doesn't exist, with (IMO!) good reason, and it annoys them to see Uri etc doing what they do. Well, I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that DB isn't doing things the way he claims either, and that annoys me. Less so than Uri, but still.

So you've got Uri, appearing to do something improbable, but really doing something mundane (IMO). Then you've got DB, appearing to do something less improbable, but also really doing something mundane (IMO).

I would be very disappointed if it was disclosed that he used stooges.

And would you be disappointed if he claimed he was using neuro-lingustic programming when in fact he switched an envelope? I would, and I'd think he had cheated.

I hope no-one thinks I'm trying to say you should all feel cheated - obviously a lot of you don't. It's all IMOs, but I still think it's an enjoyable discussion. Edited to add Darat, I don't find you harsh or strident

David

PS I replaced Sylvia Brown with Uri Geller in the above examples because Sylvia's main stock-in-trade is screwing with people's emotions, which puts her in a league apart from DB (IMO!)

 

[LillyThePink]

Thanks for saying that, Darat, although I think you'll find that you have been over optimistic in assuming that the reasoning was there to be taken leave of.

Also, I'm one of the people Don mentioned who doesn't care how its done. I see this man giving a reading about someone who is dead, and I'm more impressed that he has the honesty to say he's not talking to the deceased. He's funny, he's quite original and if I had had the budget, I would have booked him for my wedding!!

 

[Darat]

...snip...

So you've got Uri, appearing to do something improbable, but really doing something mundane (IMO). Then you've got DB, appearing to do something less improbable, but also really doing something mundane (IMO).

...snip...

Well I would say Derren Brown's tricks look a lot more impressive then any I've ever seen Uri do however saying that...

There is one major, major difference between Uri and Derren. Brown says he is going to entertain you, that he is a showman, that he doesn't have any special abilities and he performs tricks – he just blurs the lines on what the exact nature of those tricks are whereas Uri claims he is the real thing.

To me that is the distinction, one a self admitted entertainer and one who claims he does have supernatural powers.

To put it another way it is the distinction between fact and fiction, Uri is sold as fact, Brown as fiction.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, why do you entirely agree that "people....can't have" psychological powers as described by Clancie and yet you make a massive song and dance about the fact that you are so open minded about mediums and sh!t on anyone who suggests that they can't contact the dead.


Consistency, please.

I absolutely do not sh!t on any such suggestion. I agree that many mediums are charlatans. However, I am opposed to a definitive statement that all mediums are. Maybe they are, but reasons need to be give to support this supposition. Just to give one example, if someone claims that his/her cold reading was just as impressive as readings from the best mediums, then that would be quite suggestive that no mediums are obtaining any information by anomalous means. And actually, given that skeptics claim that mediums generally use cold reading, then a known cold reader should be able to do that. But as I understand it, they can't.

 

[LillyThePink]

A cold reader should be able to offer as good a reading as a medium?

Did I read your badly phrased supposition correctly?

By what yardstick are we measuring? Since no medium has, yet, agreed a testing or measuring protocol, then I can have trouble agreeing with your understanding that most cold readers cannot offer as good a reading as a self-proclaimed medium.

Have you been to a spiritualist church, Ian? I have. I found it very illuminating that only those who has been having tea and scones with the mediums before the service had people "brought" to them. Very illuminating indeed.