have you watched derren browns "the experiment"

[Professor Yaffle]

The Russian Roulette thing was a standard magic trick. No live ammo was used, and the audience participant played what was essentially a small role as a mere plot device.

I don't know what you mean by the "BMX" thing. I don't know if I've seen that one.

http://www.evilchili.com/videos/6396/Derren_Brown_Plays_with_Simon_Peggs_Mind

 

[Checkmite]

I suspect most of his audience accept it for what it is, good entertainment.

I haven't spoken with most of his audience; but I've read enough to know that some of them take much of what he says at his word.

Even when they claim not to. Have a look at Azrael in this thread essentially demanding evidence that Brown can't really hypnotize people to make them do what he wants.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Maybe, maybe not. In the thread, it's stated that he claims to have hypnotized the "subject" repeatedly as part of his alleged conditioning; I would count that as misleading psychobabble.

The point is, in his other shows he first presents "something unbelievable" and then "reveals" it with another, but different, bogus explanation. This time though, there was no such thing, no bogus reveal at all, the framework was "hypnotized to kill", and the "something unbelievable" was "hypnotized to kill". Different ball game.

 

[Checkmite]

I don't know what you mean by the "BMX" thing. I don't know if I've seen that one.

The BMX thing is where Brown, by giving a monologue in which he taps a man on the shoulder every time he uses syllables that sound like "B", "M", and "X", "programmed" his mind to want a BMX bike rather than the leather jacket he previously asked for.

It's obvious bunk and it was arranged for the man to say "BMX bike" at the end; but Azrael seems to think that Brown employed some kind of "magic trick" to make him say he wanted a BMX bike rather than a jacket.

 

[Checkmite]

The point is, in his other shows he first presents "something unbelievable" and then "reveals" it with another, but different, bogus explanation. This time though, there was no such thing, no bogus reveal at all, the framework was "hypnotized to kill", and the "something unbelievable" was "hypnotized to kill". Different ball game.

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, he didn't "disprove" an initial fake explanation and substitute a second fake explanation, as he usually does. He played the "hypnosis" thing straight through.

 

[Kuko 4000]

The BMX thing is where Brown, by giving a monologue in which he taps a man on the shoulder every time he uses syllables that sound like "B", "M", and "X", "programmed" his mind to want a BMX bike rather than the leather jacket he previously asked for.

It's obvious bunk and it was arranged for the man to say "BMX bike" at the end; but Azrael seems to think that Brown employed some kind of "magic trick" to make him say he wanted a BMX bike rather than a jacket.

The explanation you gave earlier might be the simplest, but I'd bet a lot of money that it's wrong. Maybe you just can't think of more clever ways to achieve the same effect. I get the feeling that you're not too familiar with the world of magic? Maybe someone can point to a magic store and a specific trick that is similar enough so Checkmite could buy it from there or just try and Google the explanation?

 

[Kuko 4000]

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, he didn't "disprove" an initial fake explanation and substitute a second fake explanation, as he usually does. He played the "hypnosis" thing straight through.

Yep, and that's why I'd like to know what he really thinks of the Robert Kennedy case. The Channel 4's "Digging Deeper" page is a pointer of that, I guess.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I suspect most of his audience accept it for what it is, good entertainment.

You don't think many people watching will believe hypnosis is more powerful than it really is, or that Sirhan Sirhan's story is plausible?

 

[John Albert]

Here's the kind of scenario I'm talking about with regard to "stooges."

A mentalist does a number of small shows for young audiences at a university, wherein he does some standard mentalist tricks with his own trademark stylistic flourish, for education and entertainment purposes.

During the course of these small-scale performances, he encounters certain individuals who are particularly willing to play along, quick to respond to verbal and gestural cues, etc. After the performance, he approaches these students and personally invites them to attend a live performance and taping of one of his TV shows.

At the show, he makes sure these special guests are seated in the front row, or in a certain seating arrangement together in a group.

When it comes time for a critical audience participation segment, he deliberately calls on one of these individuals whom he's already established to be particularly willing participants. If it's one of those cases where he chooses the participant "at random" by throwing a ball or frisbee into the audience, he merely directs the throw towards a pre-seated group of these specially-chosen guests.

Now, in this hypothetical scenario, can this particular use of audience "plants" technically be termed as employing "stooges"?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Let's not forget the bit of the show where Derren endorsed the polygraph as a reliable means of detecting lies.

How many people are going to investigate further or, for those that do, know where to look for reliable information?

 

[Kuko 4000]

...but Azrael seems to think that Brown employed some kind of "magic trick" to make him say he wanted a BMX bike rather than a jacket.

I'm pretty sure you've got Azrael wrong here...

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Here's the kind of scenario I'm talking about with regard to "stooges."

A mentalist does a number of small shows for young audiences at a university, wherein he does some standard mentalist tricks with his own trademark stylistic flourish, for education and entertainment purposes.

During the course of these small-scale performances, he encounters certain individuals who are particularly willing to play along, quick to respond to verbal and gestural cues, etc. After the performance, he approaches these students and personally invites them to attend a live performance and taping of one of his TV shows.

At the show, he makes sure these special guests are seated in the front row, or in a certain seating arrangement together in a group.

When it comes time for a critical audience participation segment, he deliberately calls on one of these individuals whom he's already established to be particularly willing participants. If it's one of those cases where he chooses the participant "at random" by throwing a ball or frisbee into the audience, he merely directs the throw towards a pre-seated group of these specially-chosen guests.

Now, in this hypothetical scenario, can this particular use of audience "plants" technically be termed as employing "stooges"?

I understand the attraction of the 'stooges' explanation, but I think accurately throwing frisbee's to small groups of audience members, hoping that no one reaches up to grab it in mid-air, is about a plausible as Derren's explanations of his tricks.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Let's not forget the bit of the show where Derren endorsed the polygraph as a reliable means of detecting lies.

How many people are going to investigate further or, for those that do, know where to look for reliable information?

I thought that was actually a great scene, don't you? I mean, staged or not, the message was that a polygraph CAN be fooled, and this is what stays on peoples heads.

 

[Le Jab]

OK - let me give it as I see it. I am (amongst other things) a hypnotherapist. I can see how it might have been genuine.
As many others have alluded to, hypnosis is all about openess to suggestion. People have varying degrees of suggestibility - there are many measures (Harvard/Stanford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotic_susceptibility). I reckon the audience were invited to 'An Evening of Hypnosis with Derren Brown'. The clue is in the title - people came along EXPECTING to either be hypnotised, or see demonstrations of people being hypnotised. So, in the first instance you have a group of people more likely to be compliant to hypnotic suggestion.
Roughly 20% of the population are reckoned to be a 'Hypnotic Virtouso' - these are people who are hyper suggestible . Presumably an above average percentage of Derrens audience were of that persuasion.
There must have been (edited for tv) a number of closely monitored suggestibilty tests done - the hand clasp is a favourite of stage hypnotists. I reckon, after an intense process of elimination, a group of 10 people or so people who exhibited a predisposition for hyper suggestibility, were finally selected.
The acid in the face could have been stooge led as often in those situations when one person sees another person doing it, they follow suit through reaction and compliance.
Eventually when the ice bath was used, just two people were left - the two most highly suggestible - and by elimination one was selected. All the time being watched for hyper suggestible traits by skilled observers.
That one person eventually selected was probably in the 0.01% of the populace.
Subjected to a combination of subtle and blunt post-hypnotic suggestion, Brown worked him over good and proper over a number of days (weeks?)
We dont know how many audiences Brown may have gone through before finding this one person. He was certainly not your average man in the street - he was not even your average hypnotic virtuoso. He was very carefuly selected through a skillful process of elimination.
99.9% of people would not have been suitable candidates for this. Most people will not do anything against their wishes whilst being subjected to hypnosis. However, Brown did the digging until that one-in a thousand turned up. Also, you also dont know how many he chose to shoot Fry until one actually did. Editing is your friend.
On the other hand it could all have been a big con start to finish.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I thought that was actually a great scene, don't you? I mean, staged or not, the message was that a polygraph CAN be fooled, and this is what stays on peoples heads.

That's one way of looking at it, but it assumes the guy was consciously not telling the truth, which we were led to believe was not the case because he had post-hypnotic amnesia.

BTW, one of the most interesting results with respect to hypnosis is the Stroop task:

http://www.hypnosisandsuggestion.org/psychology-of-attention-and-hypnosis.html

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

For those that haven't seen this site before:

http://www.hypnosisandsuggestion.org/frequently-asked-questions-about-hypnosis.html

Can hypnosis make me do things I don't want to do?

The simple answer is no, you can't be made to do anything you don't want to do in hypnosis. In hypnosis you retain power over your ability to act upon suggestions, although if you do allow yourself to act upon a suggestion you may feel as though the effects are happening by themselves.
Orne & Evans 2 conducted a study to find out if they could make hypnotised subjects perform antisocial acts, such as throwing a jar of acid in the face of a research assistant (for safety the jar didn't actuallly contain acid, but the subjects in the experiment didn't know this). They found that 5 out of 6 high hypnotizable participants did throw the 'acid', but that 6 out of 6 low hypnotizable participants who were asked to simulate being in hypnosis threw the 'acid' too. This experiment shows that it's not something special about being in hypnosis which could make people perform antisocial acts, but rather something about the social situation the experiment was conducted in. The logic of the experiment is that if you can get people to commit antisocial acts without hypnosis (the low hypnotizables who were being asked to pretend) then there is no need to use hypnosis to explain what people are doing (for more information on experiments involving authority read about Stanley Milgram's famous experiment here).

 

[John Albert]

...I think accurately throwing frisbee's to small groups of audience members, hoping that no one reaches up to grab it in mid-air, is about a plausible as Derren's explanations of his tricks.

Depends on how many audience plants you have seated together in a given area. Get enough eager participants grouped together in the right way and you can be assured one of them will catch it.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Went back to look at some of the earlier posts:

Not to mention we don't see him telling them it's really acid in the first place and over all...

Again...at around 8 minutes Derren clearly informs them that they're gonna put acid in their cups.

Really? He says that on his shows? Hardly. He mostly does that in his books and such and his skeptical show he went after extremely the most common woos such as cold reading.

Yep, really, he says stuff like that quite often in his TV shows, not always (IMO, he could stress it even more), but nevertheless consistently. He also "went after" New Age healers (Messiah), religious healers and preachers (Messiah and Miracles for Sale), ghost hunters (The Ghosthunter), mediums (The Man Who Contacts the Dead), Ouija boards, Astrology, an obscure Ukrainian system of human development that claims to teach people to see without the use of their eyes (The Man with X-Ray Eyes), etc. Those are all EXCELLENT skeptical shows, that's a great track record. You're belittling that side of DB way too much.

 

[John Albert]

Yep, really, he says stuff like that quite often in his TV shows, not always (IMO, he could stress it even more), but nevertheless consistently. He also "went after" New Age healers (Messiah), religious healers and preachers (Messiah and Miracles for Sale), ghost hunters (The Ghosthunter), mediums (The Man Who Contacts the Dead), Ouija boards, Astrology, an obscure Ukrainian system of human development that claims to teach people to see without the use of their eyes (The Man with X-Ray Eyes), etc. Those are all EXCELLENT skeptical shows, that's a great track record. You're belittling that side of DB way too much.

Derren Brown is not a bad skeptic, his stage act just invokes a lot of "woo" concepts, as most good magic acts do to some extent. Doesn't mean he really endorses it in real life. Audiences ought to be responsible enough to know the difference.

He's not somebody like John Edward who, even offstage, goes around trying to convince people that he can relay messages to and from their dead relatives.

 

[John Albert]

Out of TV he is very open about it all, but he could stress being a magician / skeptic even more often in his shows. This episode was too much for me, the whole thing seemed to completely endorse the idea that Robert Kennedy's murderer was or could've been programmed to do it, a step too far in my opinion.

I can get behind this.

It's inexcusably lame to endorse such an unfounded woo-woo conspiracy theory defense for murder.

He should have added a disclaimer at the end that what happens on the magician's stage is not always what it seems, and there's really no scientific basis for any claims of "hypnotic programming."