This is just a magicians stunt, right?

[fsol]

well yup, here is an extract from an interview found here

http://www.magicweek.co.uk/magic_reviews/interview_derren_brown.htm

You constantly remind viewers what you do is not psychic. But presumably you have encountered the 'Rowland Syndrome', where no matter how much you tell people you are not psychic, they insist on believing that you are. How do you handle that?

DB: I had a nice incident with some psychics.

Shuteyes?

DB: Oh, absolutely stapled shut eyes. This was some filming we did for one of the specials that we never showed. They would do their bit, their readings, and I would offer mine, telling people about themselves and as it turned out - without sounding pompous, but this was the point of the stunt - I would do a far more accurate job than they were, tending to sound a bit woolly.


And one of things that I mentioned in the reading for this woman was the number of the house, not the one she lived in now, but the one she used to, and a description of her house, and what it looked like inside and out and also the number of it. One of the psychics said to me, "well, you're reading her Aura. You're doing an auric reading: why won't you admit it. And I said well you know, I'm not psychic, I don't believe in that, I'm doing this and this and this, and he said "no, why won't you admit it, you're doing an auric reading?" So I said why do you think that, and he said "well you named her house number, and the aura stores information like house numbers, addresses". Fantastic! You know, you'd never need an address book…

Nearer the beginning of the interview he briefly discusses how Teller had a hand in helping to find a public persona.

 

[JamesM]

Derren Brown calls himself a "psychological illusionist." It seems pretty clear cut to me. He does not call himself a psychic or a medium. So I guess he doesn't really compare to JE or Gellar.

I didn't compare Brown to JE and Geller on the basis of whether they describe themselves as psychics. I compared them on the basis of them not calling themselves magicians.

The quote from the website backs up what I've been saying. No-one really thinks that a normal magician can really read minds. They think it's a trick. No-one really thinks Derren Brown can really read minds. They think it's psychological manipulation, because he claims to be a psychological illusionist. While I can't speak for all his feats, in the ones I've been discussing, it's not psychological illusion, as separate from traditional magic tricks, which Brown explicitly states he doesn't do. It is a trick, just like the magician, but he dresses it up as something it isn't. Just like it is claimed that JE and Geller do.

Making someone believe that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did.

By that definition, fraudulent psychics are also magicians. But you acknowledge the difference between them and Copperfield.

Take my example with the actors and the mind-reading. Yep, I've fooled the audience.

Is that magic? If not, why not?

I really can't see the problem.

Nor do I, although I will admit I do seem to be rather banging on about it. I just think Brown's approach is slightly dishonest.

 

[Humphreys]

The difference between Derren Brown and a real magician is simple.

When Penn & Teller did a trick where one of them was run over by a truck, did anyone at any time feel they were really in any danger? No. It was obvious trickery was involved.

When a magician's assistant appears to be sawn in half, does anyone really believe the assistant is in any danger? Of course not. It is obvious trickery is involved.

When Derren Brown claims to play Russian Roulette, does anyone believe he is in any danger? Yes, many feared for his life.

Yet he claimed/claims no trickery was/is involved. The police and rational thinkers believe otherwise.

He is a magician and nothing more, yet he - although not claiming to have supernatural powers - gives the impression he is much more.

But I could be wrong...

 

[Dazza]

I feel a little bit uncomfortable with how DB describes himself. Its difficult to put him in a category.

Of course that's one big reason why he's good television. If a magician does a magic trick called Russian Roulette then I suppress a yawn - its a trick after all. DB had me on a knife's edge for an hour with his version.

Maybe magic needs someone to muddy the waters a little. In the days of the great magicians, Hoffman et al, wasn't that what they did? When audiences were less savvy didn't they try to give the impression that they had super powers?

As long as DB stays firmly in the realm of entertainment and doesn't claim to actually help or advise anyone then I think what he does is fair game.

Can't wait to see what he does next!

 

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by fsol It seems to me that playing with peoples heads can mean misdirecting his audience. I thought that *was* the real stuff of magic. I thought that was the whole point. Making someone believe that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did.[/B]

That isn't the idea at all.

This is your quote:

"Making someone believe that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did."

This is incorrect I believe. This is more accurate:

"Making it appear that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did."

They don't wish people to believe something extraordinary had happened. The magician doesn't want the audience to believe he cut someone in half.

How can James Randi, while promoting critical thinking, wish to make his audience believe he can cut someone in half and yet not harm them? He doesn't want this at all. He wants them to think and imagine how he could have acheived such an illusion.

He wants the audience to be baffled as to how he made it appear he cut someone in half.

See the difference with Derren Brown. He doesn't wish to make it appear he played Russian Roulette, he wants people to believe he played Russian Roulette.

He isn't as bad as John Edward, but he crosses the line from stage magic, into fraud.

 

[fsol]

Take my example with the actors and the mind-reading. Yep, I've fooled the audience.

Is that magic? If not, why not?

If magic is fooling people so they don't know how it was done, then it is magic. It is not particularily impressive if you know how it was done. That's partly why magicians tend not to give away their secrets. Show someone a simple card trick. Then show them how to do it. Next time you show them the trick they are not quite as impressed for some reason.

Magic is essentially dishonest. It is lying to people and taking their money. You have to draw a line somewhere. Derren doesn't claim woo woo powers. Rather he manipulates his audience. It's patter. That *is* the psychological basis of magic that he claims to use. He isn't fleecing people by taking advantage of their grief, he actually exposes the techniques "mediums" use. "If I can do this and I have no psychic powers..."
I still don't see why people are upset by this. Would you rather get a set of instructions with the program telling you how all of the tricks you paid to see were going to be performed?

He is a magician and nothing more, yet he - although not claiming to have supernatural powers - gives the impression he is much more.

But I could be wrong...

He tries not to give the impression that he is something more. He states that in the interview I linked to. One of the reasons he moved away from the card routines was so that he didn't have to play "God" anymore.

When Derren Brown claims to play Russian Roulette, does anyone believe he is in any danger? Yes, many feared for his life.

That's the point! As Dazza posted, another magician does it, "yawn." People only believed he was in danger because of his patter, his psychological manipulation of them.

Nobody thought anyone was going to get hurt in Penn and Tellers truck trick because the patter was along the lines of, "guess how we are going to do this, a trick truck, reinforced chest etc. we will tell you how we did it afterwards." All very nice and clever but not very exciting.

When a magician's assistant appears to be sawn in half, does anyone really believe the assistant is in any danger? Of course not. It is obvious trickery is involved.

I would hazard a guess that when the effect was first performed a fair few of the people watching thought it was quite dangerous.

The impression I get from posts like these is precisely the attitude that woo woos paint sceptics with. "You must have a really dull life etc."

 

[fsol]

Editted: To remove duplicate post.

 

[fsol]

"Making someone believe that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did."

This is incorrect I believe. This is more accurate:

"Making it appear that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did."

Fine, how about "making someone think..." Is that better for you?

Actually, I thought suspending your disbelief was part of the fabled "contract" between performer and audience.

It doesn't change my opinion at all though.

"Extra! Extra! Magician does magic trick! In other news, songwriter plays gig!"

 

[Humphreys]

Fine, how about "making someone think..." Is that better for you?

Of course not, it's the same as "making someone believe..." isn't it?

"making it appear..." is spot-on, IMO.

Once again, how can Penn & Teller, or James Randi promote critical thinking while - at the same time - striving to make people believe/think they can cut someone in half and not harm them?

The answer is simple, making them think they cut someone in half is not their goal. Their goal is simply to make it appear they cut someone in half, whilst encouraging their audience to think critically about how the illusion was acheived.

Again, this is the important difference with Derren Brown. He strives to make his audience believe he has really played Russian Roulette.

Fraud.

And BTW, I do not lead a boring life, and I do not see the difference between us. You acknowledge Derren Brown isn't really risking his life, as do I.

We only disagree on the correctness of misleading an audience and discouraging critical thinking.

"Extra! Extra! Magician misleads his audience in Russian Roulette hoax. Magician likes audience to believe trickery is not involved."

 

[fsol]

A performer uses a trick deck of cards to force a card on an audience member. Later in the same trick he switches the deck for a standard deck. He invites the audience member to examine the deck so that he can confirm that it is a standard deck of cards.

It not only appears that one standard deck was used through out, the audience member *thinks* there was one standard deck used throughout.

The performer isn't likely to put his hands up and say, "yes! I'm afraid it was a trick deck all along. That was the only card you could have picked, sorry about that old chap." It would somewhat put a dampener on the trick.

Does that make him a fraud or a magician?

Editted to add: He doesn't even need to switch packs. He can just not tell the audience member that it is a trick pack of cards.

 

[Humphreys]

Does that make him a fraud or a magician?

A magician, as long as he gives the impression or claims to be a magician doing a card trick. If he claimed to be a psychic, or a "thought reader", or a "psychological illusionist" doing the trick by means other than trickery, he becomes a fraud.

Derren Brown claims to use no trickery. JE makes the same claim.

A fraud will make that claim.
A magician will not.

 

[Humphreys]

In a similar example.

If you found out tomorrow, that boxing - like WWF - was completely set up all along and all fights were fixed, would you be fine with this, because it had given you a lot of enjoyment and thrilling television up until that point?

I doubt it.

Where is the difference?

Don't you feel even a little cheated by Derren's hoax? - just pretend you believed it all along until he was exposed.

It's all the worse if he doesn't admit to it.

I'll stop now because I'm probably sounding like a real whiner

 

[fsol]

So it is fine to lie about a card trick but not about a russian roulette trick.

In the first instance the performer deliberately makes the audience think a standard pack of cards is used when it is not.

In the second instance the performer deliberately makes the audience think a real bullet/gun etc is used when it is not.


They both call themselves illusionists. The types of illusions they claim to do may differ but I really don't see any difference other than that. They both deliberately mislead their audiences.

The nature of each trick requires a different deception but that is all it is.

Still, you're right, I'd best shut up now too. I should really be getting on with work anyway.

Boxing isn't fixed?

 

[Humphreys]

Still, you're right, I'd best shut up now too. I should really be getting on with work anyway.

Me too. I'm going to do some work RIGHT NOW...maybe.

 

[Stevie -G-]

...and I'm going to give the illusion of working, but then not admit to it...

 

[Drooper]

There is a difference between a magician and a fraud. David Copperfield didn't claim to be able fly, he claimed to be an illusionist.

Derren Brown is making money by claiming to be a "thought reader", not a magician or trickster. Magicians aren't in the spotlight anymore, so we have people - magicians - making themselves out to be something the aren't (frauds).

Derren Brown is deceiving in the same way David Blaine was deceiving when he did his televised levitation trick. Camera tricks should also have no place in magic acts.

Also, if David Blaine is actually getting some food - somehow - while inside his glass box, he is also being fraudulent. He is suddenly no better than the breatharians.

Do you see the difference?

I can't agree with you view that Derren Brown makes woo woo cliaims. This is what he says about his techniques:

It is from this starting point that I can begin to play with the mind control for which I am known. It's not that I am really controlling other people. Rather, I am seeing events through their eyes and second-guessing their responses and thoughts. It's great fun

(my emphasis)

I wouldn't think that he could be more sepcific than that.

Clearly the phrase "reads minds" is used in a commercial show business context, as in he believes he knows how your brain will cause you to react.

For example. I can read your mind. I know that if I feign a punch at you, out of the blue, you will flinch. Nothing woo woo about that, but I can tell in advance how your brain will cause you to react. The same thing is used extensively in advertising etc.

If you want to raise support for the banning of medical experimentation on animals, show people images of mutilated baby kittens or similar. Don't show people pictures of children dying from diseases being research by those same methods.

 

[Humphreys]

I can't agree with you view that Derren Brown makes woo woo cliaims.

You'll have to fill me in on the exact definition of "woo-woo". If a woo-woo claim is a supernatural claim, then I haven't said Derren makes such claims.

If a woo-woo claim is an exaggerated claim, or a claim that gives the impression you are able to do something to a standard that no human, or even machine - lie detector - can match, then yes, Derren makes such claims and gives such impressions.

but I can tell in advance how your brain will cause you to react.

But can you tell - by my reactions - whether I'm telling the truth or lying, or whether a gun contains a real bullet or a blank by listening and interpreting my voice, to the extent that you are willing to put your life on it? No, and neither can Derren, yet he gives that impression by fraudulent means.

How can this not be wrong?

Does this not make him a fraud by definition?

Fraud:

"A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."

A magician doesn't fit this description, but Derren does.

 

[RonSceptic]

Last night on BBC there was a program called Mind Control. On the show a psychologist demonstrated how it is possible, using visual and auditory clues, to tell if someone is telling the truth or not.

Some examples are hand gestures (there are more when we tell the truth, as lies require more concentration), eye contact (less when we lie) and the use or personal pronons such as 'I' and 'Me' and 'My'(far fewer are used when we lie as the truth is genuinely autobiographical).

The psychologist successfully identified the truth from the lies.

So there may be something in the 'psychological methods' approach which Derren Brown claims to use after all.

 

[Bikewer]

Another item to watch for is "forehead wrinkling" in the area of the center of the forhead. Watch your favorite politicians on TV sometime.

 

[Drooper]

Humphrey's

Derren Brown is a magician. A magician of a particular ilk, but a magician nonetheless. That makes him a fraud by definition. I suggest you never go watch Randi perform, you would hate him. He is always lying to and misleading the audience.

As to your weak rebuttal of my example where human reaction can be predicted, others have since provided better supporting evidence. However, I do not rule out the ability of somebody properly trained and experienced to be able to tell truth from lie with a better than chance result on some subjects. (note that Derren Brown always chooses his subjects).