Oi! Derren Brown! NO!

[carmonk]

This thread is turning into somethign Ben Goldacre might reference for his next book. Cause and effect has gone out of the window. Last month a bloke had a heart attack after going out to reprimand some kids for kicking his fence. Did those kids hypnotise him or use juju, or was it a case that the bloke got over excited and unfortunately paid the price? Nobody's suggesting that people allegedly hypnotised don't experience emotion, or even that they aren't affected in other ways, the point of this thread is that DB does not use hypnosis in any significant way in his acts.

[durbster]

Before we get onto whether hypnotism actually exists, it might be worth reminding everyone that countless studies, tests and experiments have been able to prove or disprove it for, what, 150 years?

[hairykrishna]

Bedazzled said:

Re cause and effect, should I believe 'carmonk' or the Home Office pathologist... tricky one

Maybe you should believe the 1996 home office report which was an 11 month long review by 4 experts that found no significant risk? I don't think they would have come to that conclusion if telling people they were being electrocuted could kill them. Or maybe the Health and Safety executive report that stated;

"it should be made clear to all authorities that [the] HSE has no evidence to suggest that stage hypnotism poses a general risk to the public if it is carried out according to the Home Office guidelines".

I think we might be sidetracked somewhat anyway. Which of Derrens tricks go beyond playing along or normal stage magic?

[durbster]

hairykrishna said:

I think we might be sidetracked somewhat anyway. Which of Derrens tricks go beyond playing along or normal stage magic?

There's no point answering this because your definition of "playing along" could also be described as hypnosis or psychology. All hypnosis could be considered "playing along" as that's the whole point.

[hairykrishna]

durbster said:

There's no point answering this because your definition of "playing along" could also be described as hypnosis or psychology. All hypnosis could be considered "playing along" as that's the whole point.

But haven't you and Bedazzled been asserting that what he does goes beyond simple stage hypnosis, someone cooperating because they're playing to a crowd/cameras, into something more? People doing stuff that they wouldn't/couldn't if they weren't hypnotised?

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

Re cause and effect, should I believe 'carmonk' or the Home Office pathologist... tricky one

The pathologist presented no evidence for a link, as far as I'm aware, apart from the proximity of the events. And even if there had been a link, as I pointed out and you ignored, that doesn't remotely suggest that hypnosis affected her in any other way than to frighten her. I can frighten someone by jumping out a cupboard and shouting 'Boo!', it doesn't mean I have special mind-control powers.

Bedazzled said:

Subtle change from "it's all staged" to "does not use hypnosis in any significant way" noted...

By "significant way" I mean any way which causes people to behave contrary to how they would normally behave in that situation. That's what I've said all along. He might well relax someone using his 'hypnosis' or use his hand-waving to suggest to them a certain action. If DB clicks his fingers and says, "Sleep" it's pretty obvious that the person understands he's expected to close his eyes and pretend to be asleep. The idea that he's actually unconscious or in some altered state of awareness is baloney. And that's why none of this straw-grasping is relevant to the point of the thread, which is that I don't believe DB uses hypnosis, psychology or any sort of mind control to get the participants to perform the outlandish acts that they do.

[carmonk]

durbster said:

hairykrishna said:

I think we might be sidetracked somewhat anyway. Which of Derrens tricks go beyond playing along or normal stage magic?

There's no point answering this because your definition of "playing along" could also be described as hypnosis or psychology. All hypnosis could be considered "playing along" as that's the whole point.

Indeed. And without evidence is has to be considered as such if any logical thought is to be applied. If I shout at someone and they turn round, they could be reacting to my shout, or they could be reacting to a powerful mind ray I've beamed at them from my brain. Without evidence for the latter we should go with what we know, which is that people react to other people shouting at them.

[hairykrishna]

Bedazzled said:

Like I said, I think improving someone's aim with a rifle using hypnosis is a good example, as I don't think anyone could achieve that just by 'playing along'; there may be trickery involved but I think we need something better than the tricks suggested so far.

I really don't see this at all. Like I said earlier it's not like the bloke ends up as a marksman - his groupings look worse than mine did at the end of an hour or so of shooting guns in Latvia, having never fired anything apart from an air rifle. Throw in a bit of selective editing and you're done. A gimmicked target would be possible but I don't think it's even necessary here.

If you think he didn't know the Stephen Fry shooting was being set up for the program and he was supposed to play along when given a trigger then sorry, but I think you're hopelessly naive. The production assistant giving him a 'loaded handgun' was something of a give-away do you not think? The fact that I could do ten years just for being in possession of such a thing would give me pause.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

hairykrishna said:

Which of Derrens tricks go beyond playing along or normal stage magic?

Like I said, I think improving someone's aim with a rifle using hypnosis is a good example, as I don't think anyone could achieve that just by 'playing along'; there may be trickery involved but I think we need something better than the tricks suggested so far.

In what way? At least address the suggestions and give a reasoned argument rather than just ignore them. Give me access to a gun range, a camera crew and a punter and I'll produce exactly the same effect as DB. I can't understand that when presented with a solution that will clearly work and requires no belief in pseudo-science you reject it in favour of an explanation that is incredibly unlikely, scientifically unproven and full of risk. I don't get it.

Bedazzled said:

Also using a visual/audio cue (polka-dot dress and phone ringtone) to trigger someone to pick up a gun and fire it at Stephen Fry is another example, as DB is remotely triggering a hypnotic state and getting someone to do something they would not normally do.

Or the bloke knows he's meant to do that and does it to play along. Much simpler, no?

Bedazzled said:

The stooge scenario may be the simplest (dullard) approach but it's pointless to explore it further unless someone comes up with evidence of a DB stooge confessing (and not just some bloke boasting about his travel expenses).

So you're willing to believe the outlandish explanation, which has no evidence whatsoever, over the simple explanation that does have evidence, but apparently not enough? Honestly, I don't understand your way of thinking.

[erdnase]

Bedazzled said:

Like I said, I think improving someone's aim with a rifle using hypnosis is a good example, as I don't think anyone could achieve that just by 'playing along'; there may be trickery involved but I think we need something better than the tricks suggested so far.

True.. but did you see, on the same show where the guy was "hypnotised" and managed to hit 7/10 clay pigeons.. and pre-hypnosis managed to hit 8/10?

We didn't see that, because presumably it never happened. When we're only seeing an edited selection of "hits", I don't think it's good for drawing conclusions.

[carmonk]

erdnase said:

Bedazzled said:

Like I said, I think improving someone's aim with a rifle using hypnosis is a good example, as I don't think anyone could achieve that just by 'playing along'; there may be trickery involved but I think we need something better than the tricks suggested so far.

True.. but did you see, on the same show where the guy was "hypnotised" and managed to hit 7/10 clay pigeons.. and pre-hypnosis managed to hit 8/10?

We didn't see that, because presumably it never happened. When we're only seeing an edited selection of "hits", I don't think it's good for drawing conclusions.

Bear in mind also what I mentioned earlier, that DB has openly advocated and used selective editing, once as the basis for an hour-long show. When that is taken into account it's a completely absurd premise that when presented with the option of using this simple, risk-free method he'd opt for the far more complex and unpredictable method of hypnosis (assuming such a thing even exists).

[durbster]

carmonk said:

Bear in mind also what I mentioned earlier, that DB has openly advocated and used selective editing, once as the basis for an hour-long show.

I seriously doubt Brown has any part in the editing process. No performers do.

I still think it's a far more ridiculous proposition that they simply hope the subject will do what's asked of them. I still maintain that's a much less reliable and much more risky solution. People are just too unpredictable.

If it were really that simple then Brown's shows wouldn't be so unique.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 10th November 18:07

[erdnase]

carmonk said:

Bear in mind also what I mentioned earlier, that DB has openly advocated and used selective editing, once as the basis for an hour-long show. When that is taken into account it's a completely absurd premise that when presented with the option of using this simple, risk-free method he'd opt for the far more complex and unpredictable method of hypnosis (assuming such a thing even exists).

Yep.. he once flipped a fair coin 10 times and came up heads every time in a single, continuous camera shot. He said how he did it, which was very clever and interesting in itself - and he just ran the camera until he got a run of those heads and edited everything before that.

Clever, interesting, and I've no doubt there's a lot like that going on with a lot of his shows.

It's the old "drawing a target around the bullethole in the barn door" in my opinion.

[hairykrishna]

durbster said:

carmonk said:

Bear in mind also what I mentioned earlier, that DB has openly advocated and used selective editing, once as the basis for an hour-long show.

I seriously doubt Brown has any part in the editing process. No performers do.

You don't think that if he does the same trick a bunch of times he has any input into what makes it into the final show? Or if he bases a whole routine around selective editing he doesn't control the cuts? Pull the other one. It's basically how David Blaine became famous.

[hairykrishna]

erdnase said:

Yep.. he once flipped a fair coin 10 times and came up heads every time in a single, continuous camera shot. He said how he did it, which was very clever and interesting in itself - and he just ran the camera until he got a run of those heads and edited everything before that.

Clever, interesting, and I've no doubt there's a lot like that going on with a lot of his shows.

It's the old "drawing a target around the bullethole in the barn door" in my opinion.

Interestingly I think he even lied about that sequence. I don't think the continuous camera shot of him flipping 10 times and the separate camera watching the coin landing in the bowl match. I doubt he could be arsed to do it for hours when it'd be quicker to fake it.

[durbster]

hairykrishna said:

You don't think that if he does the same trick a bunch of times he has any input into what makes it into the final show? Or if he bases a whole routine around selective editing he doesn't control the cuts? Pull the other one. It's basically how David Blaine became famous.

Actually no, I rushed that post without really thinking it through. Of course there will be bits he's involved with.

[carmonk]

durbster said:

carmonk said:

Bear in mind also what I mentioned earlier, that DB has openly advocated and used selective editing, once as the basis for an hour-long show.

I seriously doubt Brown has any part in the editing process. No performers do.

Er, what!?

durbster said:

I still think it's a far more ridiculous proposition that they simply hope the subject will do what's asked of them. I still maintain that's a much less reliable and much more risky solution. People are just too unpredictable.

You're saying that 99.9% of shows that involve audience members who aren't allegedly hypnotised are running huge risks of the participants not complying and deliberately ruining the show? I've already gone into why people are motivated to play along, in some detail, and why it would be completely illogical to refuse to participate after having volunteered in the first place. Furthermore, your stance seems to suggest that hypnosis is not just valid but all-controlling, so that it eliminates the risk of someone doing something wrong, or dangerous. Do you really believe any gun club would allow someone in an 'altered state' to fire a weapon? They'd have their licence confiscated before the day was out. What a weird way of thinking.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

It's the old saying "never trust anything you see on TV", which is a fair point well made. However people not believing in hypnosis despite all the evidence (apparently they are ALL stooges, every one of them, on every stage around the world, just playing along; even the one that died) makes the whole discussion a bit pointless; the simplest and most obvious answer can only ever be the truth, apparently.

I didn't start the thread to argue against hypnosis, I started it to point out that there's no evidence that DB uses hypnosis (or psychology or mind-control) in his acts and a lot of evidence that he doesn't. Thereby, it's logical to conclude that he uses the quick and easy solution, which does not require us to believe in mind control or pseudo-science, and also eliminates the need to explain away dozens of instances where chance appears to conspire conveniently to give the required results.

Hypnosis may or may not produce altered behaviour beyond that expected of someone willfully conforming, the evidence isn't particularly strong either way. Even if it does what it says on the tin it doesn't alter my argument. And I must admit I'm not sure what this woman's death has to do with anything. Death is not to my knowledge claimed even by the most woo-woo of its proponents as a side effect of hypnosis, so why it would be counted as evidence for its validity is unclear.

If you have two explanations with equal evidence for both then taking the simplest option is the logical thing to do. In this case, we actually have a lot more evidence for the simple explanation than the complex one, so the conclusion should be weighted even more strongly.

[Halb]

I lost track of this thread a while back but like to skim read.
Are people saying hypnosis doesn't exist?

[carmonk]

Halb said:

I lost track of this thread a while back but like to skim read.
Are people saying hypnosis doesn't exist?

Can't answer for others, but I'm not sure. It depends what you call 'hypnosis'. There's no evidence that hypnosis is objectively real in that it produces evidential brain states, but maybe in certain circumstance a person may be influenced beyond what is considered normal. What is horsecrap, however, is the belief that someone can be caused to behave outrageously at the click of the fingers, or fall asleep with a single word, or go off and perform complex actions and then have no memory of it. There's no evidence for that and as such I call baloney.