Oi! Derren Brown! NO!
Discussion
Bedazzled said:
I enjoyed the murder/guilt show, much better than last week. It's a bit unimaginative to suggest he's using a stooge; the so-called evidence, such as not noticing someone changing their clothes or food being swapped, is no different to subtle distraction techniques used by pick-pockets.
There's a massive difference. First, the pick-pocket only has to make a single distraction, with DB there were dozens of ways in which the thing could have fallen apart. Secondly, if a pickpocket fails - which they often do - they'll just leg it and try again on the next street. With DB's targets, one single slip would result in at best the whole episode being ruined, at worst DB's career being over and the production company sued up the ass. In other words, no way in a million years did they leave it to chance. Call the guy a stooge or, more likely, someone who was desperate to get on TV and who was happy to play along, it's not really relevant. What is relevant is that no psychology or hypnosis or anything beyond play-acting occurred.Bedazzled said:
carmonk said:
There's a massive difference. First, the pick-pocket only has to make a single distraction, with DB there were dozens of ways in which the thing could have fallen apart. Secondly, if a pickpocket fails - which they often do - they'll just leg it and try again on the next street. With DB's targets, one single slip would result in at best the whole episode being ruined, at worst DB's career being over and the production company sued up the ass. In other words, no way in a million years did they leave it to chance. Call the guy a stooge or, more likely, someone who was desperate to get on TV and who was happy to play along, it's not really relevant. What is relevant is that no psychology or hypnosis or anything beyond play-acting occurred.
I don't agree, slight-of-hand is his bread and butterBedazzled said:
coaching someone to swap their tie without being seen is simple, and most of the small triggers could be explained away if spotted.
Really? I doubt that. And it's not even that which is the big problem, it's that the targets never deviated from the expected behaviour. Had they done so, on numerous occasions, the game would have been up. What if the target on the last show, in the end, had rang 999 on his mobile. But no, he decides to run to the specially built police station in the village to confess. Like yeah, that's believable, it's something I always do when I want to talk to someone - screw the phone, I'll run to their office.Bedazzled said:
There's bound to be trickery involved, but he's also using psychological methods such as hypnosis; that's the whole point of the show.
I don't believe he is. Where's your evidence, other than DB himself says so? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The situation where the murder-weekend guy was allegedly hypnotised was absurd, nobody could realistically believed it happened. Not to mention his reaction. If you woke up outside without any memory of getting there would you shrug it off and go back to bed?Bedazzled said:
Blind skepticism is just as ridiculous as blind faith, you've got no idea how he does it yet somehow you're certain it's a stooge?
For a long time I believed that DB used certain techniques and through research and observance have now concluded that's not true. Why do you think that's a ridiculous stance? It seems to me a very reasonable position. Do you believe psychics contact the dead because they tell you so? Why not? Certainly it seems like you are displaying blind faith. You don't want to believe you've been hoodwinked so you insist without evidence that DB can achieve these incredible feats of mind control, and that somehow the myriad contrived situations that the target consistently fails to spot aren't relevant. It's you who is making the claim that DB has amazing powers of hypnosis and persuasion so it's you who should provide the evidence. All the evidence I've seen recently points to him not having these abilities, so over to you.tank slapper said:
carmonk said:
For a long time I believed that DB used certain techniques and through research and observance have now concluded that's not true. Why do you think that's a ridiculous stance? It seems to me a very reasonable position. Do you believe psychics contact the dead because they tell you so? Why not? Certainly it seems like you are displaying blind faith. You don't want to believe you've been hoodwinked so you insist without evidence that DB can achieve these incredible feats of mind control, and that somehow the myriad contrived situations that the target consistently fails to spot aren't relevant. It's you who is making the claim that DB has amazing powers of hypnosis and persuasion so it's you who should provide the evidence. All the evidence I've seen recently points to him not having these abilities, so over to you.
I think you are overlooking something - the people he chooses to do these tricks with are those he has chosen specifically because they are very susceptible to them. If you watch the interview clip on the C4 website about this episode he talks of tests they did on him prior to filming to determine how susceptible he was. If you just chose someone at random off the street to do it, then chances are it wouldn't work. Some people are extremely suggestible - remember that programme that managed to fool a bunch of people into thinking they had been launched into space?tank slapper said:
There are all sorts of odd psychological behaviours that have been tested scientifically (the Stanford prison experiment, and the Milgram experiment are a couple of famous ones), so I don't see why it is so far fetched that someone with sufficient knowledge of them could use them to manipulate an individual.
Not to that extent. IMO it's inconceivable. Just because it might be possible to hypnotise someone to do a stupid dance doesn't mean you can hypnotise someone to commit murder and then blank it from their memory. At least, not without the involvement of some serious drugs. This is the misdirection element, and you and others are falling for it. DB is very careful to keep his methods separate from his actions. So he might talk of a certain, valid psychological effect, then perform a trick. Naturally the viewer thinks he used the effect he's just been talking in his trick, about but he didn't. That's the misdirection, and that's why he's got such a big following. David Blaine did the same thing until he was exposed as using essentially fraudulent methods and had to resort to sitting in glass boxes to make a living.Bedazzled said:
You started the thread to debunk the show saying he MUST be using a stooge, but you're just speculating about his methods and possible reactions of the subject; and now you want me to provide evidence that it's real??
But you're the one who maintains he uses specialist methods such as suggestion and hypnosis. So yes, I would say it's up to you to provide some evidence for that. Obviously I wouldn't expect you to have proof, but other than what DB himself says, have you any evidence whatosever?Bedazzled said:
He's a skilled magician, none of us knows how he does it, I'm quite relaxed to sit back and enjoy it as entertainment, but I hope the truth is rather less tedious than your stooge theory.
I think 'stooge' suggests an actor following a script, and whilst I've used the word there might be a better one. I think the people involved are mostly members of the public who applied for his show, just as he says, and they haven't been handed a script or anything, but they are hand-picked on the basis that DB and his team are happy that they'll play along with whatever happens. They are primed to go along with an eventuality even though they might not understand the bigger picture.Bedazzled said:
You're saying it would be impossible to implement the triggers, but the subject was hand-picked, under hypnosis, in a closed environment, surrounded by a group of people each playing a role. Each trigger in isolation would be pretty simple to implement, the average person can miss an elephant in the room when they aren't paying attention; you don't want him to watch the female presenter? use someone fat and unattractive delivering a boring speech, watch how quickly guys start looking at their feet...
I said that when almost each and every variable is critical to the overall performance it is impossible to ensure that a person will do as expected in every eventuality. Furthermore, as I mentioned, in certain situations the production crew would never in a million years have taken the risk of something going wrong. Then you have the absurd reactions of the target and those watching (the non-actors). It all adds up to inescapable evidence for cheating.Bedazzled said:
Anyhow I think you're focusing on the wrong aspect, as most of the triggers were pretty straightforward. A more interesting discussion is whether it was realistic for someone to 'fess up to murder, when they are not sure what actually happened; others might try to come up with an alibi or just keep their mouths shut, but the subject was hand-picked for being honest/stupid (depending on your perspective).
The world is full of honest and stupid people. I have no doubt he confessed because he knew it was expected of him, and he didn't want to disappoint his audience. Furthermore, even if you could hand pick a person who would possibly confess to a murder they couldn't commit, could you ever guarantee it? Of course not. Do you really accept that the entire hotel scenario (plus the crowd-control show, plus the Stephen Fry murder, etc.), which must have costs £100s of 1000s and taken months to organise, would be sanctioned if there were any chance of them not working out? Furthermore, do you never ask yourself "Why did that happen?" Why didn't the guy ring 999 to confess? Why does he sleep in his dressing gown? Why is he not bothered when he finds himself asleep in a garden? Why does someone on a night out not wonder why their friend has suddenly disappeared? Why did not one single member of the 500-strong Stephen Fry audience, on witnessing an apparent murder, dial 999 or leave the theatre or even say anything at all? And so on X100..?Bedazzled said:
Once he had been been hypnotised any subsequent behaviour may just be the result of instruction. We saw him being hypnotised part way through the show, so he could have been told to go to the police station. He may even have been hypnotised during the audition and instructed to react to triggers at the hotel.
What's more likely, that someone was hypnotised into doing all these things (something for which little or no experimental evidence exists), or someone was told to do them or played along? Using Occam's razor the answer is clear. The only reason you talk about hypnotism is that DB himself says that's how he does it.tank slapper said:
Your argument appears to be that you can't see how it can be done, therefore it can't be done.
That's simply not true, as I just explained. I don't know how most magic tricks are done yet I'm not here accusing Penn & Teller or Paul Daniels of cheating or camera tricks. Even leaving out the vast amount of circumstantial and observational evidence, when presented with a situation that can be explained (a) quickly and simply or (b) using absurdly complex and unlikely pseudo-science, I'm going to choose (a). I don't care if the showman involved says, "We use (b)". To think otherwise (and no offense intended) is the kind of woo-woo logic that causes people to believe in clairvoyance and telekinesis.tank slapper said:
The point was that the guy, who was tested previously to determine he was highly suggestible, was placed into an environment which was completely controlled and therefore could be manipulated as desired. I suspect the process wasn't quite as simple as it appeared on the programme, since there are obvious time constraints for what could be shown. They didn't suggest to him the he had killed anyone, but let him draw that conclusion himself which to me is the interesting thing.
You find it interesting, I find it incredulous. He didn't even have any reason to think he'd done it and yet he admitted it, at the correct time, in the correct manner, at the correct place. That alone should ring alarm bells. Get a pro footballer to take shots at goal and he'll miss some, so why is it you don't find it absurd that such complex scernarios, using scientifically unsupported methods, can be made to play out so perfectly again and again?tank slapper said:
He still didn't know that he had done it, but came to the conclusion that he must have, since all the other evidence available to him suggested that he had.
What evidence? The only things that suggested it (allegedly) is that he'd been outside the previous night and couldn't recall what he'd done. He didn't even ask how the bloke had died, FFS, or check his clothes for blood or a weapon. He didn't ask anything at all, I mean, come off it!tank slapper said:
Someone less suggestible would probably have not been taken in by all the other goings on, and would not have reached the same conclusion. They also clearly stated that the guy involved was not aware that he was involved in the programme until the end, having been told that he had failed the selection process weeks earlier.
If they told you the moon was made of cheese, would you believe it? Or maybe a better question, if you were such a DB fan that you applied to be on his show (and therefore could reasonably be expected to know how he operates) would you not find it suspicious when, soon after an interview (and there had to be a Ts&Cs signature too) you're invited on a weekend retreat with people called Green, White, Black and Colonel Coleman, and people start swapping their clothes and your food is swiped and Tim Minchin turns up and bells start ringing and someone is murdered? Maybe he wasn't the brightest button in the box but he didn't strike me as special needs.Bedazzled said:
The second show was a test of the audience's 'group mentality' but I think he used some simple trickery to start them on the path of behaving badly; he told us everything we will see is real but he only tells the audience the result of their votes; the numbers weren't shown on the screen. But that doesn't invalidate the psychological aspects; once the die was cast the effects of group behaviour are very real (just look at any football crowd). I think the subject was fairly plausible, but he wasn't the one being tested anyhow, I didn't think it was very entertaining to watch though.
And again, there was no evidence that the audience was making these decisions. I doubt their gadgets were even wired up to anything. It's misdirection. DB talks about crowd mentality, a genuine phenomenon, and then gets on with the show, which has nothing to do with it.Bedazzled said:
Using a stooge in these shows would make the whole thing pointless,
He makes a great deal of money. What celebrities have you in mind who harbour alternative motives, or who go into show business to educate? In terms of his audience, he entertains. And that's it. Forget the psychology and the hypnotism, it's not relevant beyond providing a convenient PR selling point.Bedazzled said:
I think his trickery is far more skilled (and subtle) than that. And why would anyone dial the police emergency number about a crime which is already being investigated?
Again, no offense, but you seem to be refusing to apply logic. If a murder had taken place and you suspected you'd had a hand in it, what would you do? Not bother to asking about the facts - where it happened, how it happened, who saw anything? Would you check your clothes for blood, search for a weapon, retrace your steps and try to recall what you did, ask everyone whether they saw you, what you were doing, question others about what they were doing? And in the infinitely unlikely event you decided you'd done it, would you literally run to a police station you'd never been to in a strange village instead of just picking up the phone and asking to speak to a detective? If you watched a film with that plot line you would (I hope) dismiss it as ridiculous, but because it's DB you suspend your disbelief and swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker.Edited by carmonk on Monday 7th November 18:40
tank slapper said:
carmonk said:
If they told you the moon was made of cheese, would you believe it? Or maybe a better question, if you were such a DB fan that you applied to be on his show (and therefore could reasonably be expected to know how he operates) would you not find it suspicious when, soon after an interview (and there had to be a Ts&Cs signature too) you're invited on a weekend retreat with people called Green, White, Black and Colonel Coleman, and people start swapping their clothes and your food is swiped and Tim Minchin turns up and bells start ringing and someone is murdered? Maybe he wasn't the brightest button in the box but he didn't strike me as special needs.
These are all things that are obvious to you because they have been pointed out and you know the context. If you just come across them without any emphasis being placed on them, the chances are that you wouldn't notice either unless someone drew your attention to it. The whole point of the food thing and other stuff was to make him doubt his own memory. If you had no reason to suspect anything out of the ordinary, would you automatically assume that everyone around you is in some conspiracy to set you up, or accept that you were mistaken about it?tank slapper said:
The answer would depend on your personality. DB says in one of the interviews for this series about hypnosis that people react differently to it - Some are not affected by it because their mind is too analytical, some are partially affected but are aware that something isn't quite right, and some are completely taken in by it. There would be little point in trying to do something like this with the first type, because it simply wouldn't work.
You really need to move away from what Derren Brown says.tank slapper said:
The fact is that some people are very easily manipulated, something which confidence tricksters and scam artists exploit all the time.
With 100% success rating? Not a chance.tank slapper said:
Of course not with a 100% success rate. That is why they target particular groups - the elderly, who may be more easily confused, or other similar vulnerable groups.
That's my point, if we're to believe DB he has a 100% success rate. It's either that or the production company spend a fortune on failed ventures, which no production company in the world would risk doing (and there's the ever-present risk of catastophy too, of course).tank slapper said:
Misdirection is one thing, but an explicit lie is something else. They stated that the guy was unaware of being involved with the show, having previously been told that he had failed their selection weeks earlier.
Do you not get the irony in what you just wrote? Why do you believe they'd happily lie to him but not to you? Furthermore you don't have to be a DB fanboy (like this guy presumably was) to know how he works. He says one thing and does another, that's the basis for his entire act.tank slapper said:
Given the fairly recent outcry over the falsification of TV programmes, I doubt that it would be done that blatantly.
Really? Why? DB is classed as entertainment and can therefore say what he likes. Only if he presented as a factual program or some situation where fairness is a factor (such as a phone-in) would telling untruths be frowned upon. Do you believe John Edward receives messages from the dead? By that criteria you must, because he states that on his TV show. Honestly, don't be so gullible! 
durbster said:
Hmm, so this discussion has got to the stage where Brown must be using stooges because getting into an icy bath without reacting is easy. You don't need to be hypnotised apparently, you can just pop in and feel fine because you're on telly!
I think the discussion has got to the point where we're talking about the minutae of specific tricks in a desperate attempt to prove that DB doesn't use stooges (for want of a better word). Why would someone getting into an ice-bath without grimacing be evidence for someone committing murder and not remembering it, or not committing murder and then admitting it? Again (and no disrespect) this is exactly the kind of reasoning that the woo-woo brigade use when talking of ghosts and UFOs. There's an original premise, which is discussed and proven false beyond reasonable doubt. The proponents seem to accept this but in actual fact are incapable of returning to a baseline of non-belief. Instead, they grasp at straws to wring as much out of the evidential dregs as they can to support what they still believe to be the truth.durbster said:
It begs the question why everyone else who gets into an ice bath on telly goes, "f
kING HELL IT'S FREEZING!". They must not be Derren Brown fans.
In a sad attempt to impress my mates, 20 years ago I held a lit cigarette against my hand for 15 seconds without even raising an eyebrow. I've got the scar today, as is often pointed out with much hilarity. Back then I'd have got into a bath of ice with no expression too if it meant inflating my somewhat peurile ego. And that was in front of 10 mates, if I'd have been on TV I'd likely have chopped off my own arm without blinking rather than appear 'weak'.kING HELL IT'S FREEZING!". They must not be Derren Brown fans.durbster said:
So there are two possible approaches to the ice bath:
1. Use hypnosis which Brown has been doing for years, and is a proven and reliable way of getting people to do this sort of thing.
2. Hope the person is capable of performing extreme feats because they want to be on telly.
Which seems more credible?
No. 2, although as I say, the bath of ice isn't really relevant to the discussion as a whole so even if No. 1 is the answer it makes no odds.1. Use hypnosis which Brown has been doing for years, and is a proven and reliable way of getting people to do this sort of thing.
2. Hope the person is capable of performing extreme feats because they want to be on telly.
Which seems more credible?
durbster said:
There have been some excellent points raised in this thread but some of you are getting ridiculous and are undermining the original post.
Exactly, forget ice and acid (who on earth would believe they had been handed acid to throw in someone's face on a TV show anyway!?) and remember that the points area) DB allegedly convinces people to perform actions so extreme as to never have been recorded in scientific literature
b) He does this with 100% success rate
c) The only evidence that he does so is that he says he does (and even then, in a very roundabout way)
e) He and his production team as so sure of success they are happy to risk their careers on it, and in some cases their liberty on the back of potential criminal prosecution
f) DB's conditioning techniques are so amazing that several dozen instances where the target could have made several choices, they actually made the only choice that would not have resulted in failure
g) Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation applies. By a country mile the simplest explanation is that the target is playing a long. Reasonable people in this thread would accept the principle of Occam's razor all day long in other situations, but when it comes to DB they inexplicably reject it and go for the absurd, outlandish and IMO blatantly unfeasible explanation.
shauniebabes said:
For most of his act his claims of psychology is just simple misdirection. He uses techniques that can be found in any mentalist text book. Why are people getting so upset that a magician is misleading them ? Do they complain that they really don't saw women in two ?
But people don't pay to see a woman sawn in two, they pay to see an illusion of a woman sawn in two. And they do, so they're happy. Would you pay to see a person tell a magician "My favourite colour is green" and the magician say, "Your favourite colour is green"? I wouldn't either. Yet people do pay to see the second part of that on the basis that the magician obtained the information through 'psychological means'. And if he didn't, and the bloke had just told him the information, that's where the problem arises. Why do you think David Blaine no longer does his 'street magic'?hairykrishna said:
shauniebabes said:
As to stooges, he certainly uses stagehands to perform his tricks. In his televised stage show he did two tricks of prediction, that, if you know what to look for, were done with the help of someone backstage.
A stooge is very distinct from using outside help to preform an illusion IMO. He certainly uses help in the rather excellent 'Oracle' act in one of his stage shows. Also for a number of his other tricks I think. Stooges on the other hand just make for a stty show. Personally I don't think he uses stooges in the traditional sense of a paid actor, at least not very often. I think they're more akin to the 'instant stooge' in mentalist acts i.e. they play along for the benefit of the show.
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).Bedazzled said:
You asked for evidence of DB using hypnosis in his act, and I've provided it. If you think you can sit in a ice bath at 1.5C and keep a straight-face then prove it, and post it on YouTube for all to see.
Although I don't believe it, if it were proved some hypnotic influence was applied then I'd accept that. It doesn't change my argument, however. Conditioning someone not to pull a face in cold water has no bearing on hypnotising people so that they forget great chunks of their lives, commit murder, or admit to a murder they didn't commit. Indeed, in the latter instance DB never claimed to use hypnosis; apparently a touch on the shoulder, a bell and a bloke changing his tie was enough.Bedazzled said:
I don't believe it's possible, so either (a) DB is using hypnosis as an anesthetic, proving that hypnosis is used in his act; or (b) it's a stooge and DB is showing us a clever trick with normal water and some complicated fake measurement equipment.
I'm not sure you're fully understanding what hypnotism is, should it exist in this form. It doesn't covey any special powers to the person, it simply concentrates the mind. The question is, is hypnotism a logical choice of motivator when the alternative would be to effectively embarrass your hero (DB) in front of a live audience and make a fool of yourself at the same time? IMO the latter a far more powerful motivator than hypnotism, not to mention more scientifically justifiable. 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.Bedazzled said:
In fact it would have to be multiple stooges, to explain the acid throwing and the other guy who dipped his arm in the water. He would be taking quite a risk to rely on them all keeping quiet.
I didn't actually see the acid bit, but are you suggesting that any right-minded person would believe a TV show host would give them acid to throw in someone else's face?Bedazzled said:
If you watch the other video I posted, you can see DB using hypnosis in less extreme circumstances, putting Matt Lucas under while performing a simple card trick (is he a stooge?), and sending a guy to sleep to hide the sun.
I'm afraid I can't take the behaviour of a comedy entertainer to be evidence of anything other than they're entertaining an audience.Bedazzled said:
DB is probably secretly delighted when people accuse him of using a stooge; because it shows they really haven't got a clue how he's doing it...
I'm afraid that's another example of false logic that would please the woo-woo crowd What you're saying is that if I offer explanation X it's because I don't have a clue how he does it. But when you offer explanation Y (DB's very own explanation) that for some reason is more valid. How about I change that around..."DB is probably secretly delighted when people accuse him of using hypnosis; because it shows they really haven't got a clue how he's doing it...
"See what I did there? It's not a valid argument.
tank slapper said:
carmonk said:
g) Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation applies. By a country mile the simplest explanation is that the target is playing a long. Reasonable people in this thread would accept the principle of Occam's razor all day long in other situations, but when it comes to DB they inexplicably reject it and go for the absurd, outlandish and IMO blatantly unfeasible explanation.
Occam's razor says no such thing - That is the frequently misused version of it. It merely states that you shouldn't complicate things more than necessary. It certainly isn't a rule that reinforces an argument, just a general principle when you have no better option to make a choice with. Even then it doesn't always work.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! ... a small, self-satisfied smile
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).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.
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. 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?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! ... a small, self-satisfied smile
p.s. I hearby absolve responsibility for any death if things go wrong, which of course, they will...
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.
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.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.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.
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?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.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.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff