Oi! Derren Brown! NO!
Discussion
Bedazzled said:
Hypnosis exists, there have been numerous scientific studies to examine it. People seem to be afraid of it, or even consider it to be supernatural 'woo-woo', because the detailed physiological mechanism by which it works is not well understood, but the effects are real enough.
There's little evidence that I'm aware of that hypnosis produces anything much beyond what could be expected of a compliant subject, with the possible exception of pain control and temporary suppression of certain types of memory. Certainly nothing remotely like what DB gives it credit for, and nothing that could be performed in a stage environment.Bedazzled said:
People are getting hung up on words like 'trance' and 'sleep'; hypnosis inhibits conscious control of the mind and brings the subconscious mind to the fore, subjects are aware of what is going on but they concentrate on what the hypnotist is saying and suppress other signals.
So in other words, a normal reaction. If you were on stage and being told what to do by the host, would you be staring all around you and whilsting a tune or something, or would you be concentrating hard on what he was saying and what you were expected to do?Bedazzled said:
We've already discussed how it can be used to influence things like memory retrieval and pain relief
There's no evidence it can help with memory enhancement. In fact, I believe it actually creates false memories more often than not. A lessening of pain, possibly, under the right conditions.Bedazzled said:
it can also be used to treat addictions and so on.
So can homeopathy but it doesn't mean it works. But again, even if it does it's not relevant to what DB does.Bedazzled said:
The question we've been pondering is whether it can be used in a stage environment, under the glare of the lights so to speak. From what I've read opinions are divided about this, but I've tried to provide some examples of subjects who have been adversely affected by their experience with stage hypnosis, as this should demonstrate that it is not just people 'playing along'.
But you haven't shown any connection. A person is hypnotised, later they die. Unless there's a pre-existing link between hypnosis and death then this is irrelevant, just as it would be if the woman in question had been ballroom dancing or eating carrots.Bedazzled said:
There have been numerous complaints of various mental and physical after-effects in the articles I've read.
Without the proven link they're meaningless. How many of the thousands of people hypnotised all over the world are already ill and would have developed symptoms anyway the day after, or are mentally ill and therefore their behaviour is already out of whack?Bedazzled said:
As to whether DB uses it, we've discussed a simple example from the seance, where the subject was put under the influence of hypnosis so that she didn't see, or remember, a stagehand throwing a tambourine.
And I've demonstrated that it would be absurd to invoke hypnosis in this case, being that it is totally superfluous to the facts. It would be no more silly to claim that ET space intelligences were at work, or that a ghost had covered her eyes with spectral fingers and blocked her gaze. Even proponents of hypnosis agree that you can't simply put someone to sleep with hypnosis, if anything it enhances awareness.Bedazzled said:
We also discussed him using it to influence a subject to feel sensations of warm and cold in the 'ice' bath, and an example where he used it to change someone's colour perception.
And in both those cases too I showed how the simplest explanation not only conforms with Occams razor, it fits the facts and also explains the 'convenient' inconsistencies that so often pop up in his shows. Even if hypnosis were real and as accessible as DB makes out there's simply no need to invoke it as a factor.Bedazzled said:
He also appears to use visual and audio cues to trigger a subject to enter a hypnotic state remotely. What I've learned from this discussion, is that he only seems to use simple 'stage' hypnosis, combined with clever trickery and deception.
Stage hypnosis is ALL clever trickery and deception. I doubt you'll find any scientist or reputable source who would suggest otherwise.Bedazzled said:
It could all be tricks and stooges of course, but I find it hard to believe that all stage hypnosis around the world is fake, people everywhere are just 'playing along' because they want their 15 minutes; and there's a global conspiracy to keep quiet about it.
I believe vastly far more people visit mediums than stage hypnotists. Are you saying the dead really do speak to the living? Or that there's some kind of 'global' conspiracy to hide the fact mediums are not real?Can I suggest looking at this from another point of view?
Given the accusations that Brown is just as devious as the psychics and cash rich religious preachers that - I think we'll all agree - are entirely based on the art of bulls
t, what do you think his motive was for going to great lengths to expose them?
I thought the Derren Brown Investigates series demonstrated that Brown has a genuine desire to prevent people from being conned. He explained and exposed their most celebrated tricks which are truly underhand and I gained a lot of respect for him for doing that (and I much preferred it to the current series if I'm honest).
If you think he's equally dishonest in his performances, do you not think that's an extremely audacious, hypocritical and potentially career-destroying move on his part? Would he really risk his entire reputation to perform such an outrageous double bluff?
Given the accusations that Brown is just as devious as the psychics and cash rich religious preachers that - I think we'll all agree - are entirely based on the art of bulls
t, what do you think his motive was for going to great lengths to expose them?I thought the Derren Brown Investigates series demonstrated that Brown has a genuine desire to prevent people from being conned. He explained and exposed their most celebrated tricks which are truly underhand and I gained a lot of respect for him for doing that (and I much preferred it to the current series if I'm honest).
If you think he's equally dishonest in his performances, do you not think that's an extremely audacious, hypocritical and potentially career-destroying move on his part? Would he really risk his entire reputation to perform such an outrageous double bluff?
durbster said:
Can I suggest looking at this from another point of view?
Given the accusations that Brown is just as devious as the psychics and cash rich religious preachers that - I think we'll all agree - are entirely based on the art of bullst, what do you think his motive was for going to great lengths to expose them?
I thought the Derren Brown Investigates series demonstrated that Brown has a genuine desire to prevent people from being conned. He explained and exposed their most celebrated tricks which are truly underhand and I gained a lot of respect for him for doing that (and I much preferred it to the current series if I'm honest).
If you think he's equally dishonest in his performances, do you not think that's an extremely audacious, hypocritical and potentially career-destroying move on his part? Would he really risk his entire reputation to perform such an outrageous double bluff?
I also liked his 'investigates' series. He certainly is dishonest though. I thought we were just discussing the degree to which he was dishonest? Many times he has presented a normal magic trick as some kind of exotic psychological technique. Outside of 'The System', 'Derren Brown Investigates' and obviously his early teaching videos I'm not sure he's ever given an honest explanation for one of his tricks. Given the accusations that Brown is just as devious as the psychics and cash rich religious preachers that - I think we'll all agree - are entirely based on the art of bulls
t, what do you think his motive was for going to great lengths to expose them?I thought the Derren Brown Investigates series demonstrated that Brown has a genuine desire to prevent people from being conned. He explained and exposed their most celebrated tricks which are truly underhand and I gained a lot of respect for him for doing that (and I much preferred it to the current series if I'm honest).
If you think he's equally dishonest in his performances, do you not think that's an extremely audacious, hypocritical and potentially career-destroying move on his part? Would he really risk his entire reputation to perform such an outrageous double bluff?
Bedazzled said:
As to whether DB uses it, we've discussed a simple example from the seance, where the subject was put under the influence of hypnosis so that she didn't see, or remember, a stagehand throwing a tambourine. We also discussed him using it to influence a subject to feel sensations of warm and cold in the 'ice' bath, and an example where he used it to change someone's colour perception. He also appears to use visual and audio cues to trigger a subject to enter a hypnotic state remotely. What I've learned from this discussion, is that he only seems to use simple 'stage' hypnosis, combined with clever trickery and deception.
It could all be tricks and stooges of course, but I find it hard to believe that all stage hypnosis around the world is fake, people everywhere are just 'playing along' because they want their 15 minutes; and there's a global conspiracy to keep quiet about it.
It's indistinguishable from playing along as I see it. It's not possible to hypnotise someone who doesn't want to be hypnotised. Derren himself says it only works for people who either want to play to an audience or are polite enough that they won't refuse reasonable requests. It's also not possible to get people to do things far away from what they would do normally. For example, I doubt you could hypnotise a normal person to kill someone. It could all be tricks and stooges of course, but I find it hard to believe that all stage hypnosis around the world is fake, people everywhere are just 'playing along' because they want their 15 minutes; and there's a global conspiracy to keep quiet about it.
I absolutely accept that the people who are hypnotised will strenuously deny that they were going along with it. Part of the reason you can get people to push boundaries when hypnotised is that they feel diminished responsibility for their actions - it gives them an excuse that they were 'compelled' to do it. Just the same way that people in the Milgram experiment will do nasty stuff because they're told to by an authority figure. In other words there's nothing special about being 'hypnotised' IMO.
Edited by hairykrishna on Friday 11th November 11:58
Bedazzled said:
During hypnosis subjects aren't in a literal 'trance' but it does change their state of mind, a subject will be physically relaxed and very aware of the things they are focusing on, but it will suppress their conscious thought process and any other signals from the surrounding environment; the anesthetic effect works in a deep hypnotic state because they even start to ignore their own senses. People look like they are asleep when they are hypnotised because they are relaxed and their breathing and heart rate slows. If left to their own devices, subjects will fall asleep and awaken in a normal state of mind.
Some people might experience a subtle change of mind-state, in the right environment and given enough time. The idea this happens on stage, however, is simply nonsense. A quick except from Wikiwiki said:
Stage hypnosis is a form of entertainment, traditionally employed in a club or theatre before an audience. Due to stage hypnotists' showmanship, many people believe that hypnosis is a form of mind control. Stage hypnotists typically attempt to hypnotise the entire audience and then select individuals who are "under" to come up on stage and perform embarrassing acts, while the audience watches. However, the effects of stage hypnosis are probably due to a combination of psychological factors, participant selection, suggestibility, physical manipulation, stagecraft, and trickery. The desire to be the centre of attention, having an excuse to violate their own fear suppressors and the pressure to please are thought to convince subjects to 'play along'. Books by stage hypnotists sometimes explicitly describe the use of deception in their acts, for example, Ormond McGill's New Encyclopedia of Stage Hypnosis describes an entire "fake hypnosis" act that depends upon the use of private whispers throughout
Bedazzled said:
Being hypnotised is very different to consciously deciding to 'play along', subjects on stage are not acting normally if they are under the influence of hypnosis, even if they think they are. In your example, if a subject is hypnotised deeply they won't pay attention to the audience and it won't even occur to them to whistle a tune, unless the hypnotist facilitates that thought. In some cases a subject may not be aware they are hypnotised, but their thought process are affected regardless because it changes the balance between their conscious and subconscious mind.
Nope, it's simply not true. The effects of hypnosis are subtle, not easily achievable, selective and unpredictable. Why on earth would anybody even try to use them on stage where quick, easy, predicable alternatives exist, i.e. cheating?Bedazzled said:
On the point about memory, I was referring to suppressing memories to create the effect of amnesia (assassin example), or changing how the subject retrieves and interprets their memories (colour perception example, skilled pathway example).
But I've proved IMO beyond reasonable doubt that those examples are bogus.durbster said:
Can I suggest looking at this from another point of view?
Given the accusations that Brown is just as devious as the psychics and cash rich religious preachers that - I think we'll all agree - are entirely based on the art of bullst, what do you think his motive was for going to great lengths to expose them?
Because it's part of his act! It's the spin that his career is based on. You're arguing from the basis that you've already made up your mind that Darren is one of the good guys, a balanced skeptic out to expose the 'paranormal rogues'. What you need to do is return to a baseline of not making any assumptions and then it's easy to see that DB isn't some crusading hero, he's a stage magician furthering his career with a very clever bit of spin.Given the accusations that Brown is just as devious as the psychics and cash rich religious preachers that - I think we'll all agree - are entirely based on the art of bulls
t, what do you think his motive was for going to great lengths to expose them?durbster said:
I thought the Derren Brown Investigates series demonstrated that Brown has a genuine desire to prevent people from being conned. He explained and exposed their most celebrated tricks which are truly underhand and I gained a lot of respect for him for doing that (and I much preferred it to the current series if I'm honest).
I'm sure he did expose some of their tricks, but so what? Why would that mean he doesn't use tricks of his own? Indeed, why did I just write that sentence being that there's ample evidence to prove that the effects he produces are derived from tricks and from that standpoint he's the same as the medium with the earpiece or the faith-healer who does a bit of research on his subjects.durbster said:
If you think he's equally dishonest in his performances, do you not think that's an extremely audacious, hypocritical and potentially career-destroying move on his part? Would he really risk his entire reputation to perform such an outrageous double bluff?
But the evidence is already there that he's cheating. Has it destroyed his career? Of course not. His fans will hear no wrong about him and those people who are occasional viewers won't do the research or won't care, they'll take each show at face value and they'll either like it or they won't.carmonk said:
Because it's part of his act! It's the spin that his career is based on. You're arguing from the basis that you've already made up your mind that Darren is one of the good guys, a balanced skeptic out to expose the 'paranormal rogues'. What you need to do is return to a baseline of not making any assumptions.
I've based my opinion on everything he's done up to now and, to a lesser extent, his Twitter feed. This is the first series he's done that hasn't really grabbed me to be honest, so I'm not making much reference to it. He's used hypnosis and psychological techniques for years so I'm not going to suddenly disregard everything I've seen before.carmonk said:
I'm sure he did expose some of their tricks, but so what? Why would that mean he doesn't use tricks of his own? Indeed, why did I just write that sentence being that there's ample evidence to prove that the effects he produces are derived from tricks and from that standpoint he's the same as the medium with the earpiece or the faith-healer who does a bit of research on his subjects.
I suspect a faith healer (thanks for the term, I couldn't remember it 
) who begins his performance by saying, "what I'm about to do is entirely psychological, there's nothing supernatural and there is no God" probably wouldn't be very successful. I'm not sure why you think claiming you are channeling God and thus demanding money is the same as saying you're using established, studied and recognisable psychology techniques, and then demonstrating that exact behaviour.
The new stuff, the assassin and the like seems to be stretching things I agree, but disregarding Brown's earlier work seems disingenuous.
carmonk said:
But the evidence is already there that he's cheating.
I'm yet to be convinced. You still haven't given a motive 
Bedazzled said:
We've discussed examples of people suffering psychological after-effects as a result of stage hypnosis such as the death of Sharron Tabarn; and there are numerous other examples, albeit less serious.
The in depth reports from both the home office and the health and safety executive found no significant risk in hypnosis. There's no evidence at all that hypnosis played any part in Sharron Tabarns death - it's just assertion. A lot of people get hypnotised, one of them was bound to die of natural causes within 12 hours of it sooner or later. I struggle to find many other examples. The 'serious injuries' associated with hypnosis tend to be people falling off stage during a hypnosis act or similar. There are one or two people who claim to have been regressed to being 8 year old or other serious psychological symptoms. I suggest that these are just an unfortunate combination of someone who was developing serious mental illness anyway being coincidently combined with hypnosis. There are not enough cases to demonstrate any causal link. Edited by hairykrishna on Friday 11th November 15:22
hairykrishna said:
His early work (Mind control, Trick of the Mind) was all normal magicians illusions tied up with new patter about psychology.
You keep persisting with this. 
Perfect example of a simple pscyhological trick: the lost wallet?
durbster said:
hairykrishna said:
His early work (Mind control, Trick of the Mind) was all normal magicians illusions tied up with new patter about psychology.
You keep persisting with this. Perfect example of a simple pscyhological trick: the lost wallet?
Bedazzled said:
hairykrishna said:
It's indistinguishable from playing along as I see it. It's not possible to hypnotise someone who doesn't want to be hypnotised.
Hypnotism requires putting trust in someone else, so the subject has to be willing; but that's not the same thing as 'playing along'. The effects may seem indistinguishable in a stage-show, but we've already discussed the use of hypnotism as a anesthetic.Bedazzled said:
carmonk said:
Some people might experience a subtle change of mind-state, but...
If you don't understand what hypnosis is, then it's difficult to have a sensible discussion about whether DB uses it or not. Subjects will experience a wide range of effects, depending on how deep the hypnosis is. It changes the balance between their conscious and subconscious minds; if you can't appreciate how this will affect their reasoning and decision making then I can only suggest you read up on it further, or perhaps go and see a hypnotherapist and try it for yourself!Bedazzled said:
carmonk said:
The idea this happens on stage, however, is simply nonsense.
From what I've read expert opinion is divided on this, but you're entitled to your opinion.Bedazzled said:
We've discussed examples of people suffering psychological after-effects as a result of stage hypnosis such as the death of Sharron Tabarn; and there are numerous other examples, albeit less serious.
You're ignoring almost everything I write. I've gone over this several times and shown the errors in your argument but you just say the same thing again and again.Bedazzled said:
It's ironic that your Wiki quote mentions mind control and psychological factors; and yet you don't believe DB uses them in his act. 
I believe in nuclear fusion but I don't believe a magician can perform it on stage. And I certainly wouldn't believe it could be done purely on the word of an entertainer who's been proven multiple times to lie about his methods.durbster said:
carmonk said:
Because it's part of his act! It's the spin that his career is based on. You're arguing from the basis that you've already made up your mind that Darren is one of the good guys, a balanced skeptic out to expose the 'paranormal rogues'. What you need to do is return to a baseline of not making any assumptions.
I've based my opinion on everything he's done up to now and, to a lesser extent, his Twitter feed. This is the first series he's done that hasn't really grabbed me to be honest, so I'm not making much reference to it. He's used hypnosis and psychological techniques for years so I'm not going to suddenly disregard everything I've seen before.durbster said:
carmonk said:
I'm sure he did expose some of their tricks, but so what? Why would that mean he doesn't use tricks of his own? Indeed, why did I just write that sentence being that there's ample evidence to prove that the effects he produces are derived from tricks and from that standpoint he's the same as the medium with the earpiece or the faith-healer who does a bit of research on his subjects.
I suspect a faith healer (thanks for the term, I couldn't remember it ) who begins his performance by saying, "what I'm about to do is entirely psychological, there's nothing supernatural and there is no God" probably wouldn't be very successful.durbster said:
I'm not sure why you think claiming you are channeling God and thus demanding money is the same as saying you're using established, studied and recognisable psychology techniques, and then demonstrating that exact behaviour.
I wasn't aware DB puts on free shows. I see no difference whatsoever between using trickery and pretending it's supernatural and using trickery and pretending it's psychological. Both claims are untrue, people are suckered in both cases. In fact, you could argue that DB's claims are more damaging because his cheating devalues the good work sceptics do against the woo-woo crowd. When they invoke DB the woos can just turn round and quite validly accuse them of hypocrisy.durbster said:
The new stuff, the assassin and the like seems to be stretching things I agree, but disregarding Brown's earlier work seems disingenuous.
Why?durbster said:
carmonk said:
But the evidence is already there that he's cheating.
I'm yet to be convinced. You still haven't given a motive 
hairykrishna said:
durbster said:
hairykrishna said:
His early work (Mind control, Trick of the Mind) was all normal magicians illusions tied up with new patter about psychology.
You keep persisting with this. Perfect example of a simple pscyhological trick: the lost wallet?
hairykrishna said:
Some persistence and editing would make that a laughably easy segment to film. How many times did he do it? How many times was the wallet picked up? How much time actually elapsed with a wallet there? You have no idea.
What makes you think this is so far-fetched that they'd need to bother with all that? And so what if they lost a few along the way - in fact it doesn't matter if it didn't even work. The point is that it's a psychology trick and not a magic trick, which is what you claim Brown has never done.I really don't see your issue with believing it; this is just simple human nature at work. It's no different to people accepting authority to a person in uniform, or a hi-vis jacket, or believing a sign that says "road closed".
Have you ever seen The Real Hustle? They use these sort of techniques all the time. There isn't anything mysterious and spiritual going on in the video, it's science.
If you're still unconvinced then this guy recreated it in one continuous camera shot.
durbster said:
hairykrishna said:
Some persistence and editing would make that a laughably easy segment to film. How many times did he do it? How many times was the wallet picked up? How much time actually elapsed with a wallet there? You have no idea.
What makes you think this is so far-fetched that they'd need to bother with all that? And so what if they lost a few along the way - in fact it doesn't matter if it didn't even work. The point is that it's a psychology trick and not a magic trickI stand on the street and stick my finger in my temples and say that using psychology I can make someone trip up. We film 100 people and the someone trips up. We televise that. You're happy that this is a psychology trick? How does that work?
carmonk said:
Eh? So if they filmed 9 attempts and only the 10th worked how on earth would that be a psychology trick? You've completely disagreed with what you wrote in the previous sentence.
Erm, what are you talking about?The accusation was that Brown has never used psychology so I provided a clear example of him using psychology. There are no card tricks, stuff up sleeves or stooges, hypnosis or camera tricks.
carmonk said:
I stand on the street and stick my finger in my temples and say that using psychology I can make someone trip up. We film 100 people and the someone trips up. We televise that. You're happy that this is a psychology trick? How does that work?
Right. So you think that's an analogy of dozens of people stepping over a cash-filled wallet in broad daylight?durbster said:
carmonk said:
Eh? So if they filmed 9 attempts and only the 10th worked how on earth would that be a psychology trick? You've completely disagreed with what you wrote in the previous sentence.
Erm, what are you talking about?The accusation was that Brown has never used psychology so I provided a clear example of him using psychology. There are no card tricks, stuff up sleeves or stooges, hypnosis or camera tricks.
durbster said:
carmonk said:
I stand on the street and stick my finger in my temples and say that using psychology I can make someone trip up. We film 100 people and the someone trips up. We televise that. You're happy that this is a psychology trick? How does that work?
Right. So you think that's an analogy of dozens of people stepping over a cash-filled wallet in broad daylight?Bedazzled said:
carmonk said:
Your entire argument appears to rest on the idea that because a phenomenon might be valid, anybody who says they're using it (and appears to be a nice guy) must be telling the truth.
...
An amateur hypnotist did try once. Oddly enough, nothing happened.
I haven't claimed DB is honest, nor that he's somehow trying to expose other frauds; I've said all along he's a clever magician/entertainer who combines psychology with trickery and deception. But it turns out you don't even believe in psychology anyhow, you seem to think all of it, even that tested in a lab, is fake superstitious 'woo-woo'....
An amateur hypnotist did try once. Oddly enough, nothing happened.
Bedazzled said:
I'm not saying that stage hypnosis is always genuine either, no doubt some volunteers jump onto the stage for their 15 minutes, and I have no idea what proportion of subjects actually experience true hypnosis; but I think there is evidence that sometimes it is genuine; and an experienced hypnotist could spot someone faking it easily.
The clue is that all these stage hypnotists will say a person can't be hypnotised unless they want to be. Well, that's convenient. If a person wants to be hypnotised then there's no need for hypnosis anyway, as you know they're going to play along. It reminds me of proponents of the paranormal who say that only people who believe in poltergeists / telepathy / homeopathy can experience them. Riiiight...Bedazzled said:
If an armchair physicist failed to build a space rocket would you say that it was impossible?
You're asking the wrong question. Surely a better analogy is, If an armchair physicist says he can build a space rocket in 30 minutes in his back garden (a rocket which has a 100% chance of working) then do I call BS? And the answer is yes, certainly. That doesn't mean space rockets don't exist.Bedazzled said:
carmonk said:
I would never suggest that I don't believe in psychology, nor have I ever done so. It would be like saying I don't believe in human nature. I've read a great deal on psychology, many dozens of books, so I have a good layman's grasp of what limits it can be given credit for. Those limits, in terms of magnitude and reliability especially, are routinely and massively exceeded by DB and since his tricks can be explained without recourse to psychological techniques, and bearing in mind the fact we know he's lied about using those techniques on several occasions, it's logical to assume that the effects he demonstrates are not a result of psychology.
IMHO, your mistake is to be too black & white in your analysis; either it's all psychology or all trickery, either it exists or it doesn't; either all stage hypnosis is true or false; either he's telling the truth or lies. It isn't like that, there are shades of grey involved, and I think DB's skill is to combine psychology and trickery in the right measure to create an illusion of the impossible. Why use only camera tricks and stooges, if he's got a raft of psychological skills at his disposal?Bedazzled said:
Using them in combination means he can confuse even the experts.
I don't think he's ever confused any expert. No reputable scientist would make any conclusions based on an entertainment show.Bedazzled said:
I appreciate that you've read something on the subject, but I really don't think you've grasped how hypnosis works; or how the effects would manifest themselves in the mind of the subject.
Nobody has fully grasped it but surely even someone with zero knowledge of hypnosis would realise that these claims made by DB are bogus. If someone could be hypnotised into committing a murder (and by extension, any crime) then the world would be jam packed with Manchurian Candidates committing all manner of crimes for their masters. Yet this isn't the case. Why not? Because it's simply not possible.Edited by carmonk on Friday 11th November 18:32
hairykrishna said:
durbster said:
The new stuff, the assassin and the like seems to be stretching things I agree, but disregarding Brown's earlier work seems disingenuous.
His early work (Mind control, Trick of the Mind) was all normal magicians illusions tied up with new patter about psychology. Gonna watch tonight to see what ludicrous "explanations" he gives! Haha
Oh, and to the person who questioned his motive....really?
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff