Oi! Derren Brown! NO!

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

As for putting it on YouTube, too much effort, so I'm afraid all I can offer is my non-evidential but honest belief that I could sit in a bath of ice for two minutes with no facial expression whatsoever.

Talk about lack of conviction, any self-respecting conspiracy theorist would dive right in; battling for dear life to stop their teeth chattering while clinging to a tin of custard!

No conspiracy, just logic. But you're right, come to think of it I wouldn't be able to do it without facial expression...



... a small, self-satisfied smile

[durbster]

carmonk said:

durbster said:

Hmm...then it seems half this thread is arguing over terminology

It has become that, but my point in starting it was to highlight there was nothing remotely psychological or inexplicable about a bloke who plays along with a theme. No hypnosis, no subliminal suggestion, no mind techniques, nothing more than a guy who wants to be on TV and who is likely kept on track by regular off-camera prompts by the production team (subtly or otherwise).

And you think that is more reliable than DB's stated methods!? That would be a far riskier solution than simply using hypnosis.

If I've understood your scenario correctly: you bring an unknown audience member up on stage and somebody off-stage is pointing and giving instructions somehow? You don't think the odd person might occasionally go, "what was that?" or "I dunno what you're asking", or, "I can't read your board - I haven't got my glasses on."

Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt there are more people involved than it seems but doing that instead of hypnosis seems an incredibly risky and unpredictable approach.

carmonk said:

...As for putting it on YouTube, too much effort, so I'm afraid all I can offer is my non-evidential but honest belief that I could sit in a bath of ice for two minutes with no facial expression whatsoever.

Sorry but you have absolutely no chance. The only way you could is if your survival instincts were vastly more powerful than your ego. It's not a conscious decision to draw breath and shiver, it's instinct. That's the entire point of the exercise; to demonstrate control over the subconscious.

I had a scout for ice baths on You Tube this morning and (despite being distracted by several young ladies in bikinis) didn't see a single person able to maintain composure.

[tank slapper]

carmonk said:

Same thing. I never said Occam's razor was definitive, you're playing with syntax as opposed to making a valid point. What we have here is one very simple explanation and one explanation which involves hypnosis, mind control, subliminal messages, outrageous disregard for chance and unthinkable recklessness on behalf of DB and the TV production company. Occam's razor doesn't say one is true and the other is not, it simply provides a good rule of thumb in the absence of conclusive evidence. Much like if I see an unknown light in the sky I'm happy to say it's a plane whereas the woo-woos will complain that I shouldn't jump to conclusions because it could be a scout craft from Alpha Centauri. Your argument is the same as theirs.

No, my argument is totally different. You are stating Occam's razor as though it adds weight to your argument whereas it does nothing of the sort. In the past it has been used to argue against all sorts of things that have later been shown to be correct.

Your argument still boils down to the fact that you can't see how it was done, so it wasn't. You have no evidence to suggest that the programme was a set up, only your suspicions. You have no evidence that the effects that are described are false, only your opinion. These do not make a conclusive case.

There is an alternative case that the simpler alternative is that what is shown was true. For it to be false, it would involve everyone in on it remaining quiet about that fact, and to date I don't think anyone involved in any of his tricks has come forward to say that it was fake and they were in on it. Given how prone people are to attention seeking that is rather surprising.

If you assume I am some Derren Brown devotee, that is not the case. I just haven't seen any real evidence that he is unable to do what he claims. If you actually look at what says, that is not that he is some mystic with super mind control powers, it is that he carefully chooses the people he uses for their susceptibility to the techniques he uses and designs the tricks around that. As I said previously, chances are you could not take a random person off the street and do something so elaborate and expect it to work.

[carmonk]

durbster said:

carmonk said:

durbster said:

Hmm...then it seems half this thread is arguing over terminology

It has become that, but my point in starting it was to highlight there was nothing remotely psychological or inexplicable about a bloke who plays along with a theme. No hypnosis, no subliminal suggestion, no mind techniques, nothing more than a guy who wants to be on TV and who is likely kept on track by regular off-camera prompts by the production team (subtly or otherwise).

And you think that is more reliable than DB's stated methods!? That would be a far riskier solution than simply using hypnosis.

Then I would respectfully suggest you need to look more closely into the phenomenon of hypnosis. You seem to subscribe to the popular idea of hypnosis being all controlling when that's not supported by scientific evidence. The media is full of nonsense about hypnosis, such as it causes detailed recall of hidden memories or a person can be compelled to act against their nature, but that's just Hollywood crap (and C4 crap). It might well relax and focus the mind, and suppress various behaviours, but to give it credit for all DB does is woo-woo, plain and simple.

durbster said:

If I've understood your scenario correctly: you bring an unknown audience member up on stage and somebody off-stage is pointing and giving instructions somehow? You don't think the odd person might occasionally go, "what was that?" or "I dunno what you're asking", or, "I can't read your board - I haven't got my glasses on."

Each stage trick is different, but I'm not concerned about them. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the claims of his that are blatantly false, those being concerned with his current series of unbelievable situations.

durbster said:

carmonk said:

...As for putting it on YouTube, too much effort, so I'm afraid all I can offer is my non-evidential but honest belief that I could sit in a bath of ice for two minutes with no facial expression whatsoever.

Sorry but you have absolutely no chance. The only way you could is if your survival instincts were vastly more powerful than your ego. It's not a conscious decision to draw breath and shiver, it's instinct. That's the entire point of the exercise; to demonstrate control over the subconscious.

I had a scout for ice baths on You Tube this morning and (despite being distracted by several young ladies in bikinis) didn't see a single person able to maintain composure.

And how many were trying? I looked at a couple and it appeared the only reason they'd posted was to pull some stupid faces and joke around. But as I said, even if what you say is true it's not relevant to the point of this thread.

tank slapper said:

carmonk said:

Same thing. I never said Occam's razor was definitive, you're playing with syntax as opposed to making a valid point. What we have here is one very simple explanation and one explanation which involves hypnosis, mind control, subliminal messages, outrageous disregard for chance and unthinkable recklessness on behalf of DB and the TV production company. Occam's razor doesn't say one is true and the other is not, it simply provides a good rule of thumb in the absence of conclusive evidence. Much like if I see an unknown light in the sky I'm happy to say it's a plane whereas the woo-woos will complain that I shouldn't jump to conclusions because it could be a scout craft from Alpha Centauri. Your argument is the same as theirs.

No, my argument is totally different. You are stating Occam's razor as though it adds weight to your argument whereas it does nothing of the sort. In the past it has been used to argue against all sorts of things that have later been shown to be correct.

Show this to be correct, then. You're completely wrong. In a situation without compelling evidence it's logical to take the explanation suggested by Occam's razor. And that's that. Unless you have compelling evidence for your extraordinary claims, in which case please post it.

tank slapper said:

Your argument still boils down to the fact that you can't see how it was done, so it wasn't.

Come on, please read what I wrote. I just addressed this exact point and yet you post the same thing again!

tank slapper said:

You have no evidence to suggest that the programme was a set up, only your suspicions. You have no evidence that the effects that are described are false, only your opinion. These do not make a conclusive case.

For the third time, it's you who are making the extraordinary claims, and therefore require extraordinary evidence. Not me. I'm giving a simple, logical explanation that fits all the facts perfectly. You're parrotting DB's explanation (and to be fair to him even he talks around it to give room for manoever) and expecting everybody to believe in something utterly outlandish and to ignore all the observational evidence that strongly suggests it is simply not true.

tank slapper said:

There is an alternative case that the simpler alternative is that what is shown was true. For it to be false, it would involve everyone in on it remaining quiet about that fact, and to date I don't think anyone involved in any of his tricks has come forward to say that it was fake and they were in on it. Given how prone people are to attention seeking that is rather surprising.

That's a very naive argument. How many people come forward from improvised shows to state it's all scripted (I'm hoping you know this)? How many come from medium's shows to reveal it's all bunk? Fact is, some people might speak out but most see no need or are contractually unable to. Many are bound by contracts, some don't want the negative publicity, or don't see any advantage, or don't want to embark on some pointless crusade which they would unquestionably lose against DB's enormous PR machine. A couple of people on this thread say they've spotted how DB does certain tricks but I don't see the world's press converging on PH.

tank slapper said:

If you assume I am some Derren Brown devotee, that is not the case. I just haven't seen any real evidence that he is unable to do what he claims. If you actually look at what says, that is not that he is some mystic with super mind control powers, it is that he carefully chooses the people he uses for their susceptibility to the techniques he uses and designs the tricks around that.

And you believe this extraordinary claim without any evidence. He himself admits his shows are based around misdirection so to be fair on him, he's helping you out, but you still stick by something written on his web page in preference to the evidence of your own eyes, scientific research and logical deduction.

tank slapper said:

As I said previously, chances are you could not take a random person off the street and do something so elaborate and expect it to work.

I never claimed to, what's that got to do with it?

[andyjo1982]

I used to be a massive DB fan, i've got some of his dvds, trick of the mind and inside the mind, and used to watch his shows and series all the time.

Since the Lottery show, i haven't watched any of them, I just lost intrest in it all, though there were some great techniques and tricks that i have sort of learned and copied and used myself...

[hairykrishna]

durbster said:

If I've understood your scenario correctly: you bring an unknown audience member up on stage and somebody off-stage is pointing and giving instructions somehow? You don't think the odd person might occasionally go, "what was that?" or "I dunno what you're asking", or, "I can't read your board - I haven't got my glasses on."

Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt there are more people involved than it seems but doing that instead of hypnosis seems an incredibly risky and unpredictable approach.

You're mixing on stage with televised. In his live stage shows there's nothing that can't be explained either through normal stage magic techniques or, in a couple of rare cases, the ideomotor effect. Not that I've seen or can remember anyway. He still talks a lot of nonsense about 'planting suggestions' and 'reading' people of course. TV is easier to make more impressive seeming because there is so much you can't see - it's the David Blaine effect.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

As for putting it on YouTube, too much effort, so I'm afraid all I can offer is my non-evidential but honest belief that I could sit in a bath of ice for two minutes with no facial expression whatsoever.

Talk about lack of conviction, any self-respecting conspiracy theorist would dive right in; battling for dear life to stop their teeth chattering while clinging to a tin of custard!

No conspiracy, just logic. But you're right, come to think of it I wouldn't be able to do it without facial expression...



... a small, self-satisfied smile

Come on, if you're SO sure of yourself, all you need is a bath of water, *lots* of ice and a thermometer; it's your big chance to prove a point, or are you.... CHICKEN?!

p.s. I hearby absolve responsibility for any death if things go wrong, which of course, they will...

This guy's doing it after a training session and not trying to keep a straight face, yet he barely blinks. Add a bit of motivation, like your hero standing beside you, a live TV audience and 6m viewers and no bother http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bepb7JgtOHM

[durbster]

carmonk said:

...You seem to subscribe to the popular idea of hypnosis being all controlling when that's not supported by scientific evidence.

On the contrary, I'm aware of its limitations and that there has never been a "hypnotic state" identified during brain pattern studies. The way I see it is a hypnotic state is one where the subject is in an extremely submissive mode.

If you are using the word stooge in terms of anybody that's on stage then I think the disagreement is that you object to Brown's terminology and I don't.

For example, I once watched a man and woman put steel poles, an inch thick and 10 feet long through their faces, surrounded by other people in various states of mutilation (isn't religion wonderful). During the ceremony one of the bloke's cheeks was torn open but he barely winced.

I'd say they were in a similar type of hypnotic state to our old mate in the ice bath, only it was the crowd and occasion that got them there. If Brown can make people go into that state then I consider him a hypnotist.

I'll admit that Brown's more recent work has tested my belief; I was under the impression that it's impossible to hypnotise somebody who isn't willing to be hypnotised for example, but I don't see how hypnosis and psychology isn't an explanation for a lot of what he does (not necessarily those things).

Also, given the extent he's gone to expose genuine fraudsters (psychics, those mad US preachers etc.) I would imagine he's made a few enemies along the way and I'm sure he would have been exposed by now if his act was really that dirty.

Btw carmonk, did you see his seance show? I would offer pretty much that entire feature as an example of him using psychology.

[erdnase]

I'm bored with Derren Brown too, and I'm a big fan of magic.

He's just gone too far into the "WTF" realm. I don't believe he uses stooges, but I do believe he edits footage to ensure that what the viewer sees is pretty far from the reality of what actually happened (dual-reality principle, in magic terms).

Simple example was Kreskin, a great mind-reader of yesteryear. During his stage shows he'd go down into the audience and pick a voluenteer. As he walked this voluenteer up the the stage and the audience was applauding, he's ask their name discreetly and casually. When he got onto stage he'd play it up, and "predict" their name. The audience was amazed but the voluenteer was like "WFT", that's no biggie. Dual reality.

Another example was David Blaine. He'd start approach someone on the street, have them write down the name of a loved one. He's then take the paper, rip it up - secretly glimpsing it - then, as if to change his mind say "No, even better - let's do it again and this time just *think* of that name". Then he'd predict it, and of course the viewers at home never saw the writing down - just Blaine reading their mind.

Derrens shows are full of that, except at new absurd levels. I don't believe for a second half the things that go on, and as such, I can't enjoy his shows.

I'm not even that bothered about the whole hypnosis/nlp/suggestion mumbo-jumbo. In my view, it's a modern take of the older mentalists who'd dress their powers up as psychic ability - Derren is just putting a modern twist on that, and I can live with it - even if I do believe it's quackery. It's just.. argh..

I want to like Derren, I love his skepticism towards paranormal beliefs - and loved a few of his shows around that theme - but.. I just can't bring myself to enjoy his shows anymore

I don't believe he uses stooges - he doesn't need to - and would still like to see his live show which I believe is very clever and entertaining. Just these TV specials are too over the top.

[carmonk]

durbster said:

carmonk said:

...You seem to subscribe to the popular idea of hypnosis being all controlling when that's not supported by scientific evidence.

On the contrary, I'm aware of its limitations and that there has never been a "hypnotic state" identified during brain pattern studies. The way I see it is a hypnotic state is one where the subject is in an extremely submissive mode.

If you are using the word stooge in terms of anybody that's on stage then I think the disagreement is that you object to Brown's terminology and I don't.

For example, I once watched a man and woman put steel poles, an inch thick and 10 feet long through their faces, surrounded by other people in various states of mutilation (isn't religion wonderful). During the ceremony one of the bloke's cheeks was torn open but he barely winced.

Which backs up the point I'm making. Nobody hypnotised that guy and yet had DB waved his hand at him and said "no pain" DB would have got all the credit. The person essentially makes their own decisions and the idea that external influence in the form of mind control has significant effect is almost certainly not true.

durbster said:

I'd say they were in a similar type of hypnotic state to our old mate in the ice bath, only it was the crowd and occasion that got them there. If Brown can make people go into that state then I consider him a hypnotist.

He can't, and you illustrated this well with your example. If the bloke could be said to be in a certain mind-set then he put himself there, no-one else did it for him. OK, you could argue that an unwillingness to disappoint DB helped but that's not what I'd call external influence.

durbster said:

I'll admit that Brown's more recent work has tested my belief; I was under the impression that it's impossible to hypnotise somebody who isn't willing to be hypnotised for example, but I don't see how hypnosis and psychology isn't an explanation for a lot of what he does (not necessarily those things).

I'm prepared to believe he uses some mind-tricks but nothing approaching what he (and others) claim.

durbster said:

Also, given the extent he's gone to expose genuine fraudsters (psychics, those mad US preachers etc.) I would imagine he's made a few enemies along the way and I'm sure he would have been exposed by now if his act was really that dirty.

But how would they expose him? And being that they've been discredited, who would listen. Mediums far more popular than DB have had longer careers with none of the sophisticataion and misdirection and still have never been conclusively exposed (i.e. so much so that their careers are ended). Check out Sylvia Browne as an example. Fact is, there's no benefit to anybody trying to expose him, even if they had a realistic chance of succeeding. And even if you expose one trick and the DB fanboys will all say "Oh yeah, but the others are real, he just needed a bit of help with that particular one." Exposing even the incompetent charlatans is very difficult (ask Randi if you don't believe me). With sophisticated performers like DB is not worth the attemtp.

durbster said:

Btw carmonk, did you see his seance show? I would offer pretty much that entire feature as an example of him using psychology.

I did, and it highlights the problem I have with his methods. If I can't trust what he says on one show then it would be hypocritical of me to levy his performance on another show against the woo-woo merchants he purports to expose. That would be exactly the behaviour that I criticise in those who support notions of the paranormal. DB might be a popular and accomplished entertainer but scepticism is all about fairness and I for one won't give him special treatment because he's a nice guy.

[carmonk]

erdnase said:

I'm bored with Derren Brown too, and I'm a big fan of magic.

He's just gone too far into the "WTF" realm. I don't believe he uses stooges, but I do believe he edits footage to ensure that what the viewer sees is pretty far from the reality of what actually happened (dual-reality principle, in magic terms).

Simple example was Kreskin, a great mind-reader of yesteryear. During his stage shows he'd go down into the audience and pick a voluenteer. As he walked this voluenteer up the the stage and the audience was applauding, he's ask their name discreetly and casually. When he got onto stage he'd play it up, and "predict" their name. The audience was amazed but the voluenteer was like "WFT", that's no biggie. Dual reality.

As I say, 'stooge' isn't the best term to use but I can't think of a better one. It's basically someone that plays along, knowing full well that what's happening isn't what the audience believes. It's cheating, really, no better than when Doris Stokes had her researchers ring up audience members before the show and then simply repeat the information during the performance and claim it came from the dead. DB indulges in much the same thing and it's totally hypocritical of him to dress it up in psychbabble and then use it against others who use the same techniques. It makes a mockery of his anti-woo stance and that's very unfortunate.

[hairykrishna]

durbster said:

Btw carmonk, did you see his seance show? I would offer pretty much that entire feature as an example of him using psychology.

The Seance with the Spirit Cabinet? Good example. In that his explanation for the tambourine being thrown out of the cabinet is hypnotic trance causing the woman inside to do it unconsciously, with no recall of having done it. He recycles it in one of his stage shows. This doesn't ring true to me - particularly as live it's not dependable enough that the person would do it.

How I think he actually does it is a gimmick (or possibly just a stage hand) which throws the tambourine while the woman is in her 'trance' with her eyes closed. The overhead camera shot has an edit, with a spliced in section of pre-recorded footage of a different person in the same clothes throwing the tambourine out. Look on youtube, there's a good video which exposes the edit in the broadcast 'Seance' program. I could be wrong, of course. That's how I'd do it reliably though.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

This guy's doing it after a training session and not trying to keep a straight face, yet he barely blinks. Add a bit of motivation, like your hero standing beside you, a live TV audience and 6m viewers and no bother http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bepb7JgtOHM

In that video the guy gets in straight after the ice, what was the temperature of the water? Not a very scientific comparison. And you were saying earlier he wouldn't take any risks when filming, why put his trust in an unknown stooge being able to keep a straight face while in agony?

No, the risks I talked about were in relation to these situational episodes, I said the ice trick was irrelevant. One risk I quoted was that provoking a guy drinking beer with taunts of being a pervert, in a busy pub, then challenging him to a fight 6 inches from his face could easily result in injury or even death. I can't believe how any right-minded person would consider for a moment that DB and his production company would take such a risk. There is no risk in the ice incident as far as DB's concerned. If it didn't work it would be edited out. Simple.

Bedazzled said:

Surely it would be simpler to use a willing volunteer, under the mild influence of hypnosis, and dip him in slightly chilly water measured with a dodgy thermometer?

That's probably what he did, I don't know what your point is.

Bedazzled said:

You're somehow positive he's using a naff stooge trick, but there are plenty of other smarter and less risky ways in which he could deceive the audience.

'Stooge' as in someone who plays along, as I've said many times. Maybe Db's 'hypnosis' relaxed him or whatever, either way it's not important, which is why I said it's not relevant.

[carmonk]

hairykrishna said:

durbster said:

Btw carmonk, did you see his seance show? I would offer pretty much that entire feature as an example of him using psychology.

The Seance with the Spirit Cabinet? Good example. In that his explanation for the tambourine being thrown out of the cabinet is hypnotic trance causing the woman inside to do it unconsciously, with no recall of having done it. He recycles it in one of his stage shows. This doesn't ring true to me - particularly as live it's not dependable enough that the person would do it.

How I think he actually does it is a gimmick (or possibly just a stage hand) which throws the tambourine while the woman is in her 'trance' with her eyes closed. The overhead camera shot has an edit, with a spliced in section of pre-recorded footage of a different person in the same clothes throwing the tambourine out. Look on youtube, there's a good video which exposes the edit in the broadcast 'Seance' program. I could be wrong, of course. That's how I'd do it reliably though.

And that's how Derek Acorah does it too.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

'Stooge' as in someone who plays along, as I've said many times. Maybe Db's 'hypnosis' relaxed him or whatever

Make your mind up, before you were claiming DB doesn't use psychological effects, and instead a stooge just plays along with it for the sake of his hero, now you're admitting he does hypnotise the volunteer and it does affect his behaviour.

You're not reading what I've written. For some reason you're obsessing over this ice trick which I've repeatedly said is irrelevant to my point. Whether DB can help someone relax so their teeth don't chatter has no bearing on the topic of this thread, and furthermore I've maintained all along that hypnosis is simply the target playing along and being unwilling to disappoint, so where's the contradiction?

[durbster]

hairykrishna said:

The Seance with the Spirit Cabinet? Good example. In that his explanation for the tambourine being thrown out of the cabinet...

Can't really remember that bit to be honest but my point was that the whole show was a demonstration of psychology in that, by using various tricks he was able to affect their thinking and behaviour.

carmonk said:

'Stooge' as in someone who plays along, as I've said many times. Maybe Db's 'hypnosis' relaxed him or whatever, either way it's not important, which is why I said it's not relevant.

Whether it's hypnosis, psychology, kowtowing or whatever; it's always somebody playing along. That's not in dispute.

It's how he gets them to play along that's in question. You're suggesting he does nothing to make them play his game beyond the natural motivation when in front of an audience whereas I'm suggesting he also uses various methods including hypnosis and psychology, as he says he does.

Anyone know where he lives because the only way we'll settle this is if we can track him down and ask him / beat it out of him

[erdnase]

I think the ice "trick" is similar to firewalking.. impressive looking, maybe a little uncomfortable at most, but with a bit of motivation, adrenalin, belief and a "you can do it!" attitude (ie, "hypnosis") is perfectly possible.

I agree that the hypnosis part is bunk though and just people playing along because they either feel they're expected to, don't want to disappoint, etc. Karaoke syndrome - give someone a stage, some expectations, a crowd re-enforcing their behavior, and the mildest person will become Tom Jones or Celine Dion.

[durbster]

erdnase said:

I think the ice "trick" is similar to firewalking.. impressive looking, maybe a little uncomfortable at most, but with a bit of motivation, adrenalin, belief and a "you can do it!" attitude (ie, "hypnosis") is perfectly possible.

I think we've already proven that's nonsense.

When some of the biggest and hardest bds I've ever seen are wincing and catching their breath in ice baths I think that demonstrates that it takes a bit more than a bit of positive thinking to override basic survival instinct.

[Melvin Udall]

durbster said:

I think we've already proven that's nonsense.

When some of the biggest and hardest bds I've ever seen are wincing and catching their breath in ice baths I think that demonstrates that it takes a bit more than a bit of positive thinking to override basic survival instinct.

Even the chap Carmonk posted a video of gasps as he gets in, visibly shocked.

[carmonk]

durbster said:

hairykrishna said:

The Seance with the Spirit Cabinet? Good example. In that his explanation for the tambourine being thrown out of the cabinet...

Can't really remember that bit to be honest but my point was that the whole show was a demonstration of psychology in that, by using various tricks he was able to affect their thinking and behaviour.

If I'm thinking of the right one, it certainly didn't involve psychology. It appeared to work like this

Woman gets in dark box, closes eyes (is hypnotised), curtain drawn
Object on table next to her is suddenly flung out the top of the box
Woman emerges and has no memory of throwing object
DB shows footage from camera in box that shows the woman's arm grab the object and throw it
The power of psychology!

What actually happened (I believe)

Woman gets in dark box, closes eyes (is 'hypnotised'), curtain drawn
Stage hand reaches into back of box and chucks object out the top of the box
Woman emerges and has no memory of throwing object... because she didn't!
DB shows footage of object being thrown that was recorded earlier and shows someone else's hand
The power of cheating!