Oi! Derren Brown! NO!

[carmonk]

hairykrishna said:

carmonk said:

All that hi-tech asshattery actually makes you appreciate the likes of Geller and Hydrick more. The difference between them and DB is that DB says he uses psychology rather than telekinesis, but at least these guys used some real innovation and skill. Take a look at this, great stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sblPQWKHOY

Derren is also a very highly skilled close up magician, no gimmicks required. His instructional videos for magicians 'The Devil's Picturebook' was excellent.

I think so too, but it appears he's now sold out in the interests of getting bigger audiences. How long before he's squatting in a glass box in Trafalgar Square?

[carmonk]

erdnase said:

carmonk said:

So which magician actually claims to use magic? I don't know of a single one.

Uri Geller springs to mind.. the rascal

I've seen that James Hydric clip before.. gotta love James Randi! There's footage of Randi and Geller appearing together on a show - I forget which - and Randi susses him out and prevents Gellers powers from working, etc. I'll try to find it!

Yeah, but Geller never said he was a magician. I think the one you're thinking of is when Randi sprinkled styrofoam around the book and Hydrick was oddly enough prevented from using his magic powers due to 'static electricity'

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

All that hi-tech asshattery actually makes you appreciate the likes of Geller and Hydrick more. The difference between them and DB is that DB says he uses psychology rather than telekinesis, but at least these guys used some real innovation and skill. Take a look at this, great stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sblPQWKHOY

When Geller claims to use telekinesis you think it's ok because he has 'some real innovation and skill'? Whereas you think DB using hypnosis, a well-studied psychological procedure, is 'woo-woo' and you feel cheated? Perhaps a cold bath will clear your mind!

Are you being deliberately weird or is it a ploy? DB doesn't use hypnosis, that's my point, any more than Geller used telekinesis. I'm saying that Geller's and Hydrick's frauds were better quality than DB's current crop of cheat-based wonders. How long would it have taken you to replicate Hydrick's page turning trick? Years, if ever. How long would it take you to chuck some plastic ice-cubes into a bath, or use a hi-tech pen to record what someone's writing, or ask your mate to pretend to be cold? Hopefully not quite as long.

[carmonk]

erdnase said:

carmonk said:

Yeah, but Geller never said he was a magician. I think the one you're thinking of is when Randi sprinkled styrofoam around the book and Hydrick was oddly enough prevented from using his magic powers due to 'static electricity'

I've seen the Randi/Hydrick clip, but I'm sure I saw Randi and Geller on a show - or maybe I read about it and am imagining it?

IIRC, Geller was able to tell which - out of 5 - camera film canisters contained water, with the other 4 being empty. Randi seemed to think when Geller banged the table that the vibrations would distinguish which cannisters were empty or not. Strangely, when Randi insisted the empty cannisters be filled with gravel, Geller was unable to perform his tricks.

As I say, I may have read about it rather than seen it.. I'll check.

Sorry, I misread your post. Yep, I saw the same show so it was definitely televised. Had a quick look on YouTube but couldn't see it either but it was definitely on TV.

EDIT: This could be the one, starting at 5:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo although I seem to remember Randi coming out at one stage.

Edited by carmonk on Wednesday 9th November 20:02

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

DB doesn't use hypnosis, that's my point, any more than Geller used telekinesis. I'm saying that Geller's and Hydrick's frauds were better quality than DB's current crop of cheat-based wonders. How long would it have taken you to replicate Hydrick's page turning trick? Years, if ever. How long would it take you to chuck some plastic ice-cubes into a bath, or use a hi-tech pen to record what someone's writing, or ask your mate to pretend to be cold? Hopefully not quite as long.

Before you were sitting proudly on your anti woo-woo pedestal, claiming to feel cheated if a magician dares to trick you by claiming to use psychology; but now you're saying it's fine if someone claims to use telekinesis(!), as long as their act impresses you?!

Jesus wept, I don't understand what's confusing you. Look...

1) DB tells a person to do something and then forget about it, and they appear to do so

2) Hydrick turns pages of a book without touching them

What is the simplest explanation for instance 1? That the person is playing along. I came up with that within one second, as could any reasonable person.

What is the simplest explanation for instance 2? I couldn't even guess (before Randi exposed it), it's expertly done.

Therefore instance 2 is more impressive than instance 1.

[carmonk]

Halb said:

carmonk said:

Jesus wept,

He did after reading this thread.

Well Jesus can't talk, what about all that fish and loaves business, and walking on water?

[carmonk]

Halb said:

carmonk said:

Halb said:

carmonk said:

Jesus wept,

He did after reading this thread.

Well Jesus can't talk, what about all that fish and loaves business, and walking on water?

Stooges...2000 of 'em.

Happily for Jesus he didn't need to bother, all it took was a bloke with a pen who made up the entire story

[carmonk]

hairykrishna said:

Bedazzled said:

I've just been watching this; using your own explanation he's still putting the girl in a hypnotic trance so she doesn't notice the stage hand. So he is using psychological methods, coupled with trickery and deception...?

She's sat there with her eyes closed. If that's a 'trance' then I suppose yes.

And you have to ask yourself, what are her options? DB has made it clear she's to 'sleep', and enter a trance, so does she

1) Play along, ignore the strange rustling beside her as the stagehand reaches out and chucks the object, then smile and shake her head when the film 'evidence' is presented; Everyone's happy, good trick?

or

2) Grab the stagehand, stand up and shout "FAKE!", thus embarrassing herself and the audience, disappointing DB, spoiling the trick and ruining any chance she had of getting on TV?

Bedazzled said:

Maybe that's all he does, simple stage hypnosis combined with tricks; but it would be interesting to see if we can find any genuine examples in the current series. Can we put the the stooge theory to one side for the moment? We've got a possible explanation for the acid and ice bath, but what about the improved marksmanship scene in Ep1, or the actual assassination attempt? These may require more than stage hypnosis, but there are bound to be some tricks involved too...

Are you genuinely puzzled here, or making a point?

1) The assassination attempt: He knew DB would never ask him to murder someone, especially not Stephen Fry in a packed theatre, so he plays along as does what he's told in the interests of having a lot of fun and being the subject of an episode of prime-time TV. Where's the need for a further explanation, especially one that has its base in pseudo-science?

2) The marksmanship. There are two options, and I prefer the second because DB's done it before and admitted it. Option one is that initially the guy was told to shoot the gun and being that he was likely nervous and never had training, he missed a lot. After some training and a bit of relaxation, he tried again and was better. The second option, which I'd bet a lot of money was the actual explanation, was that the guy had several dozen attempts at firing a gun and they picked the worst and the best and edited out the rest. DB is a big fan of this method and has used it when guessing how much change people have had in their pockets, and also he devoted a whole series to it when he accurately predicted the results of 5 horse races. Of course other factors could come into play, such as moving the target a few feet nearer, etc. but with all those possibilities why invoke woo as an explanation?

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

Those who think stage hypnosis is just 'playing along', what do you make of the case of Sharon Tabarn? Her death shortly after being hypnotised on stage resulted in amendments to the UK Hypnotism Act, which governs the use of public hypnosis.

So how does that prove hypnotism, unless the hypnotist instructed her to die? People die suddenly all the time, it's barely evidential to simply look at the last thing they did and blame that.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[carmonk]

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?

[carmonk]

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 Wiki

wiki 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.

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]

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.

Which isn't achieved by someone walking into the room, saying to the subject "You won't feel any pain", and clicking your fingers. 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. Despite truck-loads of solid evidence to the contrary and the outrageously exaggerated results that are claimed. Yours is a textbook example of Michael Shermer's assertion that belief comes first and the reasons for that belief, in the form of justification, come after.

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!

An amateur hypnotist did try once. Oddly enough, nothing happened. I'm unclear why you think I'm not broadly aware of the literature on hypnosis. The effects of hypnosis are equivocal, relatively subtle, and frequently exaggerated. Quantum physics is also a evidential science but that doesn't mean I have to believe every crackpot who uses it as an explanation from every form of woo from faith healing to telepathy.

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.

Is it? Can reference some experts (i.e. reputable scientists) who believe that stage hypnosis is the real thing, I'd be interested to see their opinions.

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.

But you should re-evaluate it. If a psychic does 10 shows and on the 11th he's proved to be cheating, do you just sit back and say, "Ah well, I bet the first 10 were genuine."? Of course not (or I'd very much hope you wouldn't).

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.

That's completely the wrong analogy. You've got it all mixed up. The faith healer uses trickery yet says it's down to supernatural forces. DB uses trickery yet says it's psychology. DB also says it's not due to supernatural forces because that's part of his spin, his misdirection. Of course the faith healer wouldn't deny the basis for his act.

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

Hmm, I wonder what motive the world-famous millionaire Derren Brown has for cheating...